Fail

[oddlots]

Rep. Paul Broun Asked At Town Hall: 'Who Is Going To Shoot Obama?...

However, rather than confronting the questioner or condemning the question, Broun instead acknowledged "frustration" with Obama, according to the Banner-Herald. The paper reports that Broun responded to the stunning inquiry as follows:

"The thing is, I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_828047.html

[Ghent12]

Re: Fail

Rep. Paul Broun Asked At Town Hall: 'Who Is Going To Shoot Obama?...

However, rather than confronting the questioner or condemning the question, Broun instead acknowledged "frustration" with Obama, according to the Banner-Herald. The paper reports that Broun responded to the stunning inquiry as follows:

"The thing is, I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_828047.html

Failure because he didn't try to reason with an unreasonable inquirer? It's a Town Hall meeting, is it not? That's where the crazies have easy access to voice their craziness. I don't consider it a failure for a politician to talk to the people they represent, even if they don't swat down crazy.

Mountain out of a molehill.

[FRED]

Re: Fail

Failure because he didn't try to reason with an unreasonable inquirer? It's a Town Hall meeting, is it not? That's where the crazies have easy access to voice their craziness. I don't consider it a failure for a politician to talk to the people they represent, even if they don't swat down crazy.

Mountain out of a molehill.

A law was passed after the Kennedy assassination that makes it a crime to threaten the life of the president in writing:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 871

§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

[Master Shake]

Re: Fail

Failure because he didn't try to reason with an unreasonable inquirer? It's a Town Hall meeting, is it not? That's where the crazies have easy access to voice their craziness. I don't consider it a failure for a politician to talk to the people they represent, even if they don't swat down crazy.

Mountain out of a molehill.

Just like the prank phone call to Gov. Walker (in which he came out looking pretty good).

It's kind of like the old saw about the candidate accusing his opponent of being a "known heterosexual." The validity or the sense of the accusation is unimportant because the sheeple assume it's bad because it's presented that way.

[flintlock]

Re: Fail

Wasn't that Huey Long? I heard is used like this. " My opponent is a well known practicing heterosexual".

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fail

How can there be a functioning democracy (i.e, a limited democracy) anywhere if participation in that democracy (i.e, speaking-out or running for and holding an elective office) is threatened by assassins? What we could end-up with is a tyranny where no-one would serve in government, and no-one would dare speak-out. No-one would risk writing anything or posting anything, and no-one would dare deviate from "acceptable" orthodoxy. In the end, no-one would dare to even think.

Ask yourself how an energy policy could end-up being "preserving bird-habitat" in the U.S? Who would dare speak-out?

In Canada, Europe, Australia, N.Z, who would dare to speak-out? Who would dare say that the ecologists are wrong? Who would say or write that AGW and climatic-forcing was a hoax?

[oddlots]

Re: Fail

Well he certainly stayed on message I'll give him that.

Still, I think if you can't see this as at least a "missed opportunity" then I think you're really, really missing something.

Can you really honestly tell me that you are not even a little bit disappointed by his performance here?

Here's a thought experiment: can you imagine Ron Paul not diverting from message to confront the threat implied here?

Actually, scratch that. Here's a better example. What do you think Leah Rabin's opinion of his performance would have been?

[oddlots]

Re: Fail

Just like the prank phone call to Gov. Walker (in which he came out looking pretty good).

Nice try MS:

Here's Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism:

"Here’s the press release from Walker’s office:

The Governor takes many calls everyday. Throughout this call the Governor maintained his appreciation for and commitment to civil discourse. He continued to say that the budget repair bill is about the budget. The phone call shows that the Governor says the same thing in private as he does in public and the lengths that others will go to disrupt the civil debate Wisconsin is having.

I listened to the full tape. Walker said nothing at all that would indicate his appreciation for civil discourse. For example, at one point he describes a gambit under consideration where he’d invite the 14 Senators to join him in a conversation. Walker says ‘not a negotiation, a conversation’. Then he goes on to describe the purpose of this conversation: if they can get the 14 into a room, the law may support the notion that the session has officially begun — at which point, even if the 14 leave again, the quorum for the session would be there and the Republicans can move forward with votes even in the absence of the 14 Dems. Walker says, he’d be happy to have the 14 ’scream at him for an hour’ if he could accomplish this legal tactic.

Civil discourse? Not a whiff of that in anything Walker said when he thought he was speaking to Koch.

Oh, at one point after “Koch” suggested Walker bring a baseball bat to the possible meeting, Walker did say “I’ve got on in my office. A Slugger”.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...or-walker.html

[Ghent12]

Re: Fail

Well he certainly stayed on message I'll give him that.

Still, I think if you can't see this as at least a "missed opportunity" then I think you're really, really missing something.

Can you really honestly tell me that you are not even a little bit disappointed by his performance here?

Here's a thought experiment: can you imagine Ron Paul not diverting from message to confront the threat implied here?

Actually, scratch that. Here's a better example. What do you think Leah Rabin's opinion of his performance would have been?

Maybe I'm missing some context here. I haven't seen any videos of the incident which would illuminate the tone and body language of the inquirer and the Representative. However, what you consider an implied threat I consider a loony-tune rant. I do not see anything wrong with avoiding or side-stepping those who have no place in the marketplace of ideas. The question itself had no place in that forum and one appropriate response, at least in my opinion, is to simply ignore it.

Besides, it appears as if he did address at least one other implicit meaning behind the question--frustration at the current president. I don't know much about Representative Broun, and if he's like most other Republicans then I probably hate his politics, but I don't see this incident as any sort of blemish on his performance.


Starving Steve, assassination is a threat to one degree or another on all leaders, whether in a limited democracy or a dictatorship or anywhere in between. Several presidents have been assassinated or have had assassination attempts--this is nothing new. We're not quite as bad as some periods in Ancient Roman history, like having three emperors within one year, so I'm not that worried.