So let me get this straight. Everyone in MA gets up in arms when Rep. Capuano says, “we need to get a little bloody sometimes,” clearly meaning, get our hands dirty and fight for what we believe in. I understand that he should have used “dirty” instead of “bloody”..I get it. However, drawing the comparison to what he said and the shooting (of his friend and colleague mind you) in Tucson…was totally un-called for and taken out of context.
Now we have the 3rd most powerful person in the world, and Speaker of the very body in which a member was just shot in the head…saying this!
Come on…are you kidding me? Where is the MA Republican Party’s outrage! Where is the National Republican outrage! The Speaker was in an interview, not caught up in a rally. This is clear and unequivocal. He meant what he said.
Rep. Gifford’s health is thankfully improving, I wonder how she would feel about her own Speaker’s choice of words…
joets says
I’m still waiting on the “woops, shouldn’t have said that” Secretariat, Joe Biden, to weigh in.
jimc says
Are we really going to freak out every time someone says gun? This is clearly a metaphor, and it does not invoke violence.
<
p>Russ Feingold, discussing the “nuclear option” filibuster rules change in 2005, compared the GOP to a burglar holding a knife to the throat of Democrats. I don’t recall any outrage.
<
p>This is their playbook, not ours, in my arrogant opinion.
<
p>
david says
but that wasn’t a couple of months after a madman literally took a semiautomatic gun and “put it right at the head of [a public] official.” And then he pulled the trigger.
<
p>These comments, “metaphorical” though they may be, are idiotic and should stop.
lightiris says
The English language is a problem. After all, it’s the language with the largest vocabulary on the planet. It’s the language with connotational differences so finely honed that native speakers can actually live a lifetime and never fully grasp the nuances. As a result, it’s simply not possible to adequately express one’s self without employing a gun metaphor. Sad, really. We clearly must have more words at our disposal.
peter-porcupine says
Militaristic and violent language are deeply ingrained in the War Rooms of politics and campaigns.
<
p>Some words – like ‘target’ – have been hypersensitized for political purposes and that needs to stop, as hyperbolic dudgeon is desensitizing.
<
p>OTOH, ‘bloody’ and ‘machine gun’ – not so much. But this is not overnight, either.
tim-little says
You raise an excellent point. Our political vocabulary reflects the degree to which we’ve been conditioned to view politics as a competitive rather than a collaborative or cooperative endeavor. Until our politics starts to reflect the more mindful ideal of a “common wealth” rather than of winners-and-losers/us-and-them then we’ll remain susceptible to these deeply ingrained habits of discourse.
hoyapaul says
I’m not the biggest fan of this sort of language either, but is it “astonishingly stupid”, as David says? I’m not sure. Boehner’s quote here seems like your standard, typically hyperbolic political rhetoric. This may be a bad thing, but let’s not pretend that this is anything new. Look at some of the political rhetoric from the 1760s. Or 1800s. Or 1850s, or 1900s…pick any year in our nation’s history. And while this does come (some time) after Rep. Gifford’s shooting, America is an absurdly gun-happy culture with everyday gun violence far outstripping other industrialized nations, so we shouldn’t be too surprised gun metaphors are so common in our political discourse.
<
p>What is much more outrageous is that after taking the side of Wall Street and carrying the water for the wealthiest amidst the worst recession in decades, Boehner and the Republicans are intent on squeezing the middle-class even more. That’s the real outrage, not some machine gun metaphor.
doubleman says
I’m generally ok with hyperbolic rhetoric, but I thought Boehner’s words were much too specific in their imagery given recent events.
<
p>What this incident highlights, however, is something that’s always annoyed me – the difference in reaction from the two political sides. This difference is regularly on display on the front pages of BMG and RMG.
<
p>BMG condemned what Capuano said and called for an apology (and rightly lauded him when he apologized soon after).
<
p>RMG called Capuano a thug after his comments and dedicated two main page posts to what he said and the related fallout.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/di…
<
p>They have posted nothing about Boehner, yet. Where is it Rob?
<
p>I know this is quite nitpicky, but I think it does reflect a huge difference between the two sides. Liberals will regularly hold other liberals to account for making high profile, unnecessarily inflammatory things.
<
p>Republicans, for the most part, do not (that’s why Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann still have national platforms, and why no major Republican dare question Rush Limbaugh).
mannygoldstein says
of course.
doubleman says
RMG is, as expected, silent on the issue.
<
p>Another false equivalency to add to the pile – that both sides are equally hypocritical.
mark-bail says
I’d support any candidate who promises to sponsor legislation that bans Hitler comparisons until at least 2025.
<
p>One nation under a fuhrer…
<
p>
<
p>
christopher says
Boehner wasn’t calling for violence. By far the most outrageous remark in this category over this issue was the now former deputy AG of Indiana who not only called for using live ammo on protesters, but when asked about it said darn right!
af says
it shows the reflexive use of violent, militaristic language in the national political arena. He should have thought the better of it, but it’s so ingrained that he didn’t think, he just spoke.
howland-lew-natick says
Guns and blood and all. Oh, my! If only our duly elected could resolve problems rather than institutionalize them while pandering to the public. It is little wonder the citizenry hold our elected in low esteem.
<
p>And guns and blood is so mild now that TV shows have a murder every couple minutes. Don’t the politicians sound a little wimpy? Even impotent?
<
p>Will it be a Republican or a Democrat that raises the rhetoric with something like: “Let us eviscerate the suckling infants of our cruel opponents with strong steel bayonets as we march ever so firmly to crush them and all they stand for, yada yada yada.” Who’ll win the race to the bottom of the barrel?
<
p>“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” –Isaac Asimov
johnd says
“breaking the civility” request or using “violent” metaphors.
<
p>But either way, politicians need to think before they speak! I’m ok with the broad use of terms like campaigns, war, battle… but I don’t think we need gun/weapon metaphors in the political debate.
sabutai says
As was Capuano’s. If Boehner apologizes, I’ll shrug and move on.
<
p>If he doens’t, it indicates an unwillingness to admit one can ever be wrong, which would concern me.