After the presidents speech this week a congressman Grimm from Staten Island was asked about allegations leveled against his campaign. He responded by threatening the reporter with being thrown off the balcony they were standing against and followed that up with "I'll break you in half. Like a boy."
Oh hey, there was a camera directly next to the them the whole time.
Grimm has apologized and wants have lunch with the reporter he threatened to kill. The reporter has accepted the apology but wants an interview instead.
When this next thought crossed my mind it was a joke. But then I remembered that Grimm is a republican and the recent treatment of governor Christie.
What are his chances for becoming the next best republican candidate?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What, Republicans have to *answer questions* all of a sudden?? In Congress no less?
The guy's an idiot, clearly. A non-answer doesn't make the news. Threatening a cub reporter with violence does.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Seriously. He could have easily said, "I'm only taking questions about the state of the union address tonight."
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I think my response would have been "touch me and I'll sue you. Like an adult."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think just about the only way I could hear an ending to this story that didn't make me think the guy was a scumbag is if his apology didn't involve the usual 'wear my emotions on my sleeve' BS and instead included a grim, embarrassed, and apologetic explanation that he understood how very, *extremely* un-American his behavior was, how it flew in the face of one of the core pillars of our system, and how he felt disgraced to have done it and swore never to behave in such a way again, whether or not he ever saw the inside of an elected office again.
I'm all about zero-tolerance when it comes to open, violent threats from politicians to reporters! God. Would frankly enjoy seeing him make an apology from inside a jail cell while waiting for bail.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, it's sort of self-accusatory, isn't it? His emotions clearly involve a high degree of vindictiveness, and little dedication to fairness or empathy.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I just can't accept that he will never be held accountable for his crime, and no one is even asking him to step down.
I honestly won't be surprised though if he becomes the new repuclican pet soon.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The Young Turks have a good report on not only the above discussed event, but Michael Grimm's history of violence and general instability.
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: After the presidents speech this week a congressman Grimm from Staten Island was asked about allegations leveled against his campaign. He responded by threatening the reporter with being thrown off the balcony they were standing against and followed that up with "I'll break you in half. Like a boy."
Oh hey, there was a camera directly next to the them the whole time.
Grimm has apologized and wants have lunch with the reporter he threatened to kill. The reporter has accepted the apology but wants an interview instead.
When this next thought crossed my mind it was a joke. But then I remembered that Grimm is a republican and the recent treatment of governor Christie.
What are his chances for becoming the next best republican candidate?
I don't understand why this is getting so much press, other than the fact that the guy that was threatened was a reporter.
Here in Nevada we had a Democratic Assemblyman actually arrested for threatening another Democratic Assemblyman.
Even more relevant, back in 2010 Congressman Alcee Hastings threatened the life of his opponent.
Where were the major news outlets then?
If you are going to cover things like this and make it a big deal, cover it all.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
Aaron Burr, baby, Aaron Burr ...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: After the presidents speech this week a congressman Grimm from Staten Island was asked about allegations leveled against his campaign. He responded by threatening the reporter with being thrown off the balcony they were standing against and followed that up with "I'll break you in half. Like a boy."
Oh hey, there was a camera directly next to the them the whole time.
Grimm has apologized and wants have lunch with the reporter he threatened to kill. The reporter has accepted the apology but wants an interview instead.
When this next thought crossed my mind it was a joke. But then I remembered that Grimm is a republican and the recent treatment of governor Christie.
What are his chances for becoming the next best republican candidate?
I don't understand why this is getting so much press, other than the fact that the guy that was threatened was a reporter.
Here in Nevada we had a Democratic Assemblyman actually arrested for threatening another Democratic Assemblyman.
Even more relevant, back in 2010 Congressman Alcee Hastings threatened the life of his opponent.
Where were the major news outlets then?
If you are going to cover things like this and make it a big deal, cover it all.
As you said, your assemblyman was arrested. Alcee Hastings was impeached, and allegedly threatened the life of his opponent. He wasn't caught on video doing it.
Grimm threatened to kill a reporter, that reporter would have been absolutely justified in knocking him down.
He not only threatened to kill him, he backed off and then returned to threaten to kill him again.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you are going to cover things like this and make it a big deal, cover it all.
Because fairness? The media doesn't work according to your sensibilities of fairness. And threatening someone on camera is certainly sensational. What would you like exactly? What would remedy that? That the media have a checklist of things they find interesting? Where does that go for you?
No, see, some of these things matter to people, and others don't. And as petulant as you want to be, a congressman threatening another in a state house somewhere, and a congressman threatening a reporter in the capital, on camera, are not the same things. One of them for starters, interests people more than the other.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Really, are we really going to circle the wagons with Grimm here?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine, man. An elected official openly threatened a reporter for asking a question he didn't like.
Is the First Amendment important to you or not? The problem here isn't 'politician assaults someone'. That happens, and is often covered. How often do they assault reporters exercising what is supposed to be a sacred American right? Why on *Earth* would you pivot to 'but biased coverage!' given that, and using unequal examples no less?
I'm sure you're so dismissive when we advance one amendment forward, right?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I see in no place where I condoned the actions of the Congressman. Why you would ask if the First Amendment was important to me or not is silly.
I understand the guy is an elected official. I suppose I just don't understand why the media, of all things happening in the country and around the world, thought THIS was more important. Fairness or not, devoting so much of their resources on stories like this is idiotic. I guess it may bring in some ratings? (Americans love scandal after all)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't say you condoned his actions, Geraine. Nor did I suggest you did. If you can point to where I did, I'll be surprised.
I say that because expressing criticism of your trivializing a politician threatening violence to the press for asking a question he doesn't like indicates, to me, that you don't take threats to the First Amendment very seriously.
Your subsequent post pretty well validates my suspicion.you think the coverage of the story is absurd, and that it's an indicator of media bias. Since none of the facts of the story are in question, it is clear that you aren't endorsing what he did, but you don't think it's really a big deal either.
Well, alright. It's a profoundly unAmerican belief to hold, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. But please don't get upset when I point it out.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't say you condoned his actions, Geraine. Nor did I suggest you did. If you can point to where I did, I'll be surprised.
quote: I'm sure you're so dismissive when we advance one amendment forward, right?
You're implying that Geraine is dismissive to the first amendment issues. To be dismissive comes from being prone to dismiss. To dismiss is pretty dang close to condone. Condone what? Condone the violation of the first amendment.
What prize do I get for surprising you?
Seriously, though. Geraine your examples were pretty poor choices. They may not have had much media coverage, but they were still taken seriously. This case is also not an apples and oranges comparison. It's not just a question of free speech and one person assaulting another person. It's a question of freedom of the press. Is that right being sufficiently protected when a reporter feels threatened to the point of being unable to perform their job?
Should those incidents you mentioned have received more attention? Probably. I'd take those stories over the (any) coverage of Bieber or Joe Namath's fur coat any day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not implying, I'm outright stating that Geraine is being dismissive of the first amendment implications in this assault. I'm not sure how I could have made that clear.
But even then, I'm afraid that to be dismissive of something as a trivial matter or in this case a relatively unimportant problem is not at all the same thing as condoning it. It's just not. Even as swept up in partisan defense positioning as he appears to be right now, I would be surprised if Geraine condoned an assault on a reporter.
So, zero points.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm afraid that to be dismissive of something as a trivial matter or in this case a relatively unimportant problem is not at all the same thing as condoning it. It's just not.
Nice assertion.
Mind explaining it? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To condone something contains an explicit acceptance of a wrong act, and permitting it to continue. To be dismissive of something is to usually convey that something is unworthy kf being considered, explicitly or implicitly.
It's pretty straightforward.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
My favorite celebrity quote of all time. It applies here, I think.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)