Mike Gruss of The Virginian-Pilot reported on a 32-word civility pledge sent out by a group to all of the members of Congress plus all of the governors. The pledge:
I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior. I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. I will stand against incivility when I see it.
Out of 585 letters, only three people responded.
So the question, dear reader, is would you sign this pledge? If not, why not?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Why participate in a meaningless stunt?
From a politician’s standpoint, why not? If voters don’t hold anybody accountable for breaking pledges to only serve a certain number of years or not to put in earmarks, why would they hold anybody accountable for breaking this? Expecially since it’s so vague, you could always claim you didn’t break it.
I appreciate the sentiment, although it occurs to me that if I had to stand up against incivility whenever I encountered it, I’d never get a chance to talk about anything but.
“With all due respect to my esteemed colleague, let the record show that he is a j@ck@$$.”
That reminds me, is everyone here familiar with Washington State ballot initiative no. 831?
Click to access i831.pdf
Hadn’t seen that before 😉
Hilarious. I hope it’s true!
It is true, although it was struck down by the courts because it was deemed an unconstitutional use of the ballot initiative process to propose a measure which affected only one person.
Being an unconstitutional abuse of the ballot initiative process is kind of the whole point, however; every two years, Tim Eyman puts the same measure on the ballot (specifically, one that requires a two-thirds majority in the state legislature to approve any tax increase). It’s a feel-good measure for anti-tax libertarians for obvious reasons and is a major draw to the polls. It’s also patently unconstitutional — Washington’s state constitution explicitly requires a simple majority only to approve legislation. So every even-numbered year, Tim Eyman makes a mint soliciting votes and fundraising dollars for the ballot initiative, and every odd-numbered year the State Supreme Court strikes it down again.
He really is a bit of a horse’s @$$.
One comment I got from a political operative was that he did not want his Congressman to sign on because of … “the Palinites in their new role as post-Tucson guardians of political rhetoric.”
If Democrats would stop being so scared of their shadows we might get something done. Have the courage of your convictions, folks!
It depends on whose definition of “incivility” I’m being asked to stand against.
People have a real nasty habit of reducing opposition down to “incivility,” and ignoring the actual when it comes from their side. In theory, there should be no distinction…yet in practice, there always is.
(and that’s for BOTH sides of the political spectrum, in case anyone’s confused)
“Why participate in a meaningless stunt…” is right… And frankly, let’s get down to it: What member in the VA delegation needs to sign this thing? I don’t know why Wolf wasted his time. So when the writer drones about how he called their offices and wasted some staffers time regarding this — I ask aren’t there more meaningful things to focus on. Just because some group has and idea doesn’t mean our busy elected officials have to participate. And YES — they are too busy.
I don’t think it’s a question of who needs to sign it…then it takes on a sense of punishment or something.
Besides, we’d never agree on who “needs” to sign it…
What Coby said.
Never in a million years, and tons more people have be uncivil with me than I have been uncivil with.
From the comments here, you’d think people were trying to parse the meaning of life rather than just agree to discuss things in a polite and courteous fashion. You can disagree with someone and still be polite and courteous. You probably feel a lot better about someone when they behave that way to you. People become uncivil when they believe they’re not being heard or accorded respect. There is absolutely no excuse, and little benefit, to confusing differing opinions with a lot of bad attitude.
Didn’t any of you folks have a Mama? If we all had, we wouldn’t need a pledge!
I wish Chris were correct, I wish incivility only occured as a reaction to the same. Many folks I have seen on the boobtube, as recent as today, deny their incivility in one breath, complain about the other sides incivility in the next, and then rant that people who disagree with them are un-American, un-patriotic and unwilling to listen to reason.
A good friend once told me term limits aren’t necessary because we can vote incumbents out. In a perfect world that would be true. In the same world a pledge like this wouldn’t be discussed.
Would love to see the responses.