In this YouTube screen capture, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver reacts as a protester yells in his direction on the steps of the Capitol in Washington March 20, 2010
If you were Cleaver, what would you have thought at the moment it happened?
Addendum: A reader below (Paul) commented, "Judging from we can see, it is obvious it was not intentional, and as walrus said, it appears to be an slightly overzealous protester with overactive salivary glands."
I don't know if it was that obvious to Cleaver at that moment. I equate it with comment Paul made in a previous article (at 8:02pm) about Eric Cantor and the bullet in his office. In a heightened atmosphere, Cantor's concern is understandable (if indeed, he didn't know about the police report declaring it a random bullet), just as it's understandable why Cleaver might jump to conclusions in the heighten atmosphere depicted in the video above (if indeed it was an accident).
We'll never know for sure but arriving at concrete conclusions through the prism of our own political beliefs is hardly enough to make any of this a certainty. Suspicions? Sure, but an absolute certainty? No. It's okay to question Cantor and Cleaver, but we ought to be okay with questioning ourselves, too.
Comments
Why did these Congressmen walk a gauntlet of angry protesters in the first place? It just looks like a staged event.
it looked to more to me like spittle instead of spitting...the guy should have swallowed before yelling.
as for "walking the gauntlet", there shouldn't be ANY gauntlet when one walks, no matter how proud a walk it is....the "gauntlet" is at fault for creating the situation where there shouldn't be a situation.
This was a staged event to divert attention away from the Congressional Black Caucus who were preparing to sell their soul and the souls of their progeny into government slavery.
Martin Luther King marched against injustice because he believed that the rights of men come from God.
Voting for this Obamanation means that you now believe that the rights of men originate with the State.
So, they passed on the underground tunnel passageway and marched through the shouting protesters.
Selling Out says: This was a staged event to divert attention away from the Congressional Black Caucus who were preparing to sell their soul and the souls of their progeny into government slavery... So, they passed on the underground tunnel passageway and marched through the shouting protesters.
And of course, you were right there with each Congressman's chief of staff as they plotted this strategy out, right? You can believe what you want but there's no proof to back your supposition, and the only thing that matters is proof. Otherwise, the rest is just make-believe conspiracy theory stuff.
"If you were Cleaver, what would you have thought at the moment it happened?"
Judging from we can see, it is obvious it was not intentional, and as walrus said, it appears to be an slightly overzealous protester with overactive salivary glands.
walrus says: "...as for "walking the gauntlet", there shouldn't be ANY gauntlet when one walks, no matter how proud a walk it is....the "gauntlet" is at fault for creating the situation where there shouldn't be a situation."
You mean these people should have been more civil? That would require grown ups.
This story is missing in most media. Thanks for the correction Bruce. It is highly warranted.
Bruce says: "You mean these people should have been more civil? That would require grown ups."
Congress is an inept, callous, power-corrupted cabal of liars and theives acting without regard for the law or majority opinion. Their actions constitute genuine attacks on the safety, economic self-determination and well-being of every American.
All "civil" efforts to stem this assault failed, yet the very real and long-lasting consequences of their actions will persist long after this even, these criminals or you will be forgotten.
At what point in an attack does "civil behavior no longer remain an option? It is the point at which reason has been ignored, pleas have been spurned, demands have been arrogantly rebuffed. These scum-bags were lucky they weren't beaten to a pulp.
Civility Bruce? It is the criminals in Congress and their sneering apologists who have abandoned civility. When reason no longer serves, other measures are required.
Say What? says: This story is missing in most media. Thanks for the correction Bruce. It is highly warranted.
Sometimes it takes a day for the media to catch up, especially when the story doesn't come out of the Beltway, and KC definitely ain't the Beltway (great town that it is). I'm waiting to see if a certain set of blogging suspects pick it up... still waiting... still... waiting...
Spitting on thieves says: Why did these Congressmen walk a gauntlet of angry protesters in the first place? It just looks like a staged event.
You might explain then why Rep Jim Jordan walked the gauntlet? That's him in the video shaking hands with protesters at about :45. Then at about 2:00, it's Michelle Bachmann walking the driveway in the upper left corner. Think they staged that?
Paul Kersey says: Judging from we can see, it is obvious it was not intentional, and as walrus said, it appears to be an slightly overzealous protester with overactive salivary glands.
Paul... see above. I placed your comment in the article with an added thought.
Bruce says: Sometimes it takes a day for the media to catch up
They NEVER caught up on the ACORN story.
Say What? says: "'Bruce says: Sometimes it takes a day for the media to catch up.' They NEVER caught up on the ACORN story."
I seem to recall those videos getting lots of attention all over the place, if that's what you mean. But c'mon, it's a two way street. Fox was wall-to-wall on those surveillance videos but almost nil on James O'Keefe's arrest, nor did they ever ask why O'Keefe didn't release the entire video. Ann Coulter likes to say she'll only do live interviews because video can be manipulated. Wonder if she feels the same way about O'Keefe's videos. We should be allowed to see them in total, shouldn't we?
That's just one thing. The larger point is that SOMEtimes, it takes the media a day to catch up... on both sides. And SOMEtimes they never do. On both sides. I plan to follow it and see if the usual suspects in the blogosphere pick up on this (let alone the national media). I'll make for a good test case. Let's see what happens.
Maybe the guy was askin' for a spit shine on his Stacy Adams.
Bruce says: Fox was wall-to-wall on those surveillance videos but almost nil on James O'Keefe's arrest
They had Okeefe and the hooker on many times and covered it profusely.
Most media didn't catch on until ACORN went under.
YAWWWWN says: Have you noticed a pattern of how the LIEberals keep ignoring violence by the left or anything that discredits their commie agenda. Mexican gangs are threatening to kill El Paso police officers but apparently that's not an issue. Maybe it would shed some bad light on Shamnesty.
Guess you missed all 872 news articles
www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1I7GGIT_en&q=Mexico&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&sa=N&tab=wn
www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/world/americas/01mexico.html
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-confession31-2010mar31,0,6035153.story
articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/16/opinion/la-oe-ackerman16-2010mar16
Say What? says: They had Okeefe and the hooker on many times and covered it profusely.
What about AFTER his arrest in Landrieu's office? Suddenly Hannity doesn't know the guy?
Spitting on theives says: At what point in an attack does civil behavior no longer remain an option?
You don't have to yell at lawmakers, spit on them, call them names, shoot bullets in their windows or anything else. Go to the polls and vote them out. That's what voters did in 2008: They didn't vote for Obama as much as they voted against the last eight years of Bush. Protesting is fine but that doesn't get politicians out of office; voting does, and I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone complaining in a country where only half the electorate votes. Just because voters are absentee landlords doesn't give them the right to behave badly. The real bad behavior is when they don't show up at the polls.
Bruce says: What about AFTER his arrest in Landrieu's office? Suddenly Hannity doesn't know the guy?
Hannity had him on twice after the arrest. He has FINALLY been charged and it was a simple misdemeanor.
Bruce said: "You mean these people should have been more civil? That would require grown ups."
As opposed to the leftists in Searchlight, NV who threw eggs at TEA Party buses and threatened some guy named Breitbart?
Say What? says: Hannity had him on twice after the arrest.
Good. Now, fact-checking:
Fox broke the story last Sept 10
CNN began coverage on Sep 10 - news.turner.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4657#
CBS started covering the story on Sep 11 - www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/politics/main5303578.shtml
As late as Sep 15, Fox News claimed Charlie Gibson didn't know about the story but ABC's Jake Tapper had been covering it since Sep 11
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/census-severs-relationship-with-acorn.html
I can't find NBC, but I know Brian Williams covered it in Sept, within the week, and he gave conservative bloggers credit.
It's wholly untrue to say the mainstream media "NEVER caught up on the ACORN story." Fox News commentators were lying.
Paul Kersey says: As opposed to the leftists in Searchlight, NV who threw eggs at TEA Party buses and threatened some guy named Breitbart?
That's not grown-up, either. Neither side has a monopoly on bad behavior.
Bruce says: Good. Now, fact-checking:
C'mon. With hundreds of hours and thousand of inches and millions of bytes, a minuscule note on a web site that was up for 2 days then archived, a 28 second mention on the news, a few inches of print, it was not covered. It was news. As you have said, its not national. That is the problem with the press. THEY want to decide what is important. Do you wonder why the alphabet dinosaur networks are on their last legs? The Gray Lady is hocking property? Newspapers today are sections and a buck a pop. For 18 minutes reading if you read it all except the ads and the classified.
Bruce says: That's not grown-up, either. Neither side has a monopoly on bad behavior.
Damn man! You miss the point!!!! We know its all bad. ONLY one aspect of it gets coverage! Or I will qualify, EQUAL coverage.
Say what? -- No question some stories get covered more than others depending on the site. The Fox angle on Acorn was an attempt to paint Obama with the same brush because those people supported him during his campaign. THAT is not a story. That is propaganda. It worked for all the people who already didn't like Obama. The story didn't need more coverage that it got, except for conservatives who relished in the schadenfreude.
"Do you wonder why the alphabet dinosaur networks are on their last legs? The Gray Lady is hocking property?"
If you think it's about bias, that's yet another myth propagated by conservatives. Newspapers have been losing readers for over 60 years as new technologies encroached on their turf. Radio, television, cable and the internet have all eroded the audience, not bias. I know that doesn't fit what some believe, but that's the reality.
As far as Searchlight and the highly-biased Breitbart, can we believe him? Maybe it was tea partiers disguised as leftis
Bruce says: "You don't have to yell at lawmakers, spit on them, call them names, shoot bullets in their windows or anything else."
You're right we don't have to. And I don't support such actions but I certainly understand them. People have been telling these scumbags since last summer that we don't want your f**kin' health care scam. It's unconstitutional. You are defying your oaths of office and violating the law. Since no one in government will stop them, someone has to. Now we have to undo their damage which is always harder than just doing the right thing in the first place.
All I know is that if a thief comes in my house he is leaving in a body bag. How are these theives any different? They are criminals hiding behind pomp and ceremony; in the hallowed halls of the Capitol building; employing IRS bagmen who are also going to ignore THEIR oaths of office to enforce this tyranny. These is the only differences.
Spitting on thieves says: "People have been telling these scumbags since last summer that we don't want your f**kin' health care scam. It's unconstitutional..."
Not everyone has been telling them that, so that's a little hyperbolic to me, and it remains to be seen whether it's unconstitutional. There's a lot of precedent riding against your belief, and the matter will remain undecided until the court rules, maybe even the Supreme Court. I doubt half the country will be satisfied with their ruling.
Bruce says: "...it remains to be seen whether it's unconstitutional."
That is if we choose to rely exclusively on government to be the source of that judgement -- a level of trust which at this point is ludicrous.
Read the document and tell me where it says the government has the power to do the vast majority of things it does. You won't find it.
Precedents of lies are no precedents at all unless We the People accept them. But don't trust me, consider what one of the men who drafted the Constitution says:
"The people are the ultimate guardians of their own liberties. In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy . . . Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone."
"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." -- Thomas Jefferson
Sounds familiar
Spitting -- I get where you're coming from but there is a tremendous amount of precedent going against you, based on court rulings AND new amendments passed by lawmakers who were elected by the very people Jefferson was talking about. My sense from your last post is that you'll think the judges were wrong if they don't rule the way you want them to, but they will rule on existing law and past rulings on those laws and the court rarely likes to break precedent. Doesn't matter what you or I think. There MAY be one sliver of an angle regarding the commerce clause (to complicated to explain here) but chances are remote. Additionally, unless they fast track it, this won't reach the Supremes for maybe 3 years. By then, who knows where we'll be on health care. We might actually find that we like the new law and it wasn't as bad as critics feared. If it's worse than promised, it'll get fixed, if not by Congress, than by voters electing a new members of Congress. We'll see.
Even Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple. "Spitting on thieves" NICE MONIKER! The way they totally ignored the will of the people they DESERVED to be spat upon. So if this manufactured overblown story is even credible, so what, I'm sure even Jesus would agree with the ALLEGED SPITTER.
This ALLEGED ACT seems pretty mild and insignificant when you compare it to the RACIST who savagely beat innocent whites, burned and destroyed property, shot at firefighters and police officers during the LA Riots in 1992.
Righteous Anger... You're SURE Jesus would agree?
I dunno what Bible you've been indoctrinated with but you can be sure that not only wouldn't Jesus agree with you, even the four gospels with their different accounts of Jesus would all agree they wouldn't agree with you. TOTALLY ignored the will of the people? You sound like a clone of that clueless dingbat John Boehner. (If they don't agree with ME, they don't agree with the American people)
And you sound like Brucie....Strawman
Bruce says: "My sense...is that you'll think the judges were wrong if they don't rule the way you want them to..."
Bruce, give me some credit. I am not some toothless moron coming on here calling you a statist ghoul(although the argument could be made). I am talking about OBJECTIVE definitions of words, phrases and sentences. For a FACT; there is NO constitutional power for ANY part of the HC bill.
And your solution is to wait for a Supreme Court ruling? I don't need no Supremes tellin' me what the meanings of words are, foo'!
If they uphold ANY part of this bill, they are criminals just as much as the a**holes who thought of it, promoted it, voted for it, signed into "law." In a "free" country, criminals are punished and the rights of harmless people are protected. If the Sheriff won't do it, we are forced to take the law into OUR OWN HANDS.
That is where this is heading.
Spitting on thieves says: "...That is where this is heading."
We disagree, and it's not about the health care bill. It's a point of law. There's plenty of precedent to support precisely what you say is unconstitutional. You'll basically be arguing that over 100 years of legal precedent are unconstitutional. I can't be sure if you're arguing a constitutional point or against the health care bill itself, but I DO think, based on historical precedent, what the court calls stare decisis (pronounced stari), and the analysis of the vast majority of constitutional experts, that the bill will stand.
Bruce says: "You'll basically be arguing that over 100 years of legal precedent are unconstitutional."
Yep.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!