When is it not acceptable (if ever) to blame the other side these days?

OK, I know partisan politics is all about blaming the other side and both sides do it. I’m currenly however upset about the most recent attempts by Republicans to blame Democrats for things that seem to be wholly out of Democrat’s control, and I’m wondering if you think this is fair or if it crosses the line?

First off House Minority leader John Boehner used his leadership position to instruct Republicans to vote for the Wall Street bailout if they could “in good conscience”, which essentially gave them permission to vote against it. And they did, 2/3 of them, in fact. Before the vote, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech blaming the whole fiasco on Bush and Republican leadership over the last 8 years, which true or not, is certainly the concensus of most Democrats. In her speech however, she did instruct Democrats to vote for the bill in spite of it being Bush’s bill, for the good of the country, unlike Boehner who told Republicans to vote for it, only if they could do so in good conscience. In the end, only 33% of Republicans voted for it, while 60% of Democrats voted for it.

In the end, the bill failed. And John Boehner said it was Nancy Pelosi’s fault for poisoning their conference. Republicans Boehner, Blunt and Cantor all stated that Pelosi’s speech, because it was insulting to Republicans, caused 12 of them to vote against the bill who would have been for it….amazingly 12 was the exact number they would have needed to make the bill pass. Now, this is my opinion, but it seems to me that blaming a Democrat for how Republicans voted is like my seven year old blaming the table he walked into for hurting him. I’m just wondering if this is politics as usual, or if this is just really stretching things…and I’d like to hear from Democrats, Republicans AND Independents, because I know I’m biased, but this seems to defy logic to me, and I’m wondering, does this really defy logic or am I just biased?

I have a second example as well. When John McCain “suspended” his campaign last week, he claimed he was trying to do what was right for country, and not his campaign. He said he would not campaign because it wasn’t the time to be political. But people spotted ads every single day his campaign was in supsense, field organizers made calls and knocked on doors every single day. He made a campaign appearance one day and did a TV interview another day while his campaign was in suspense. And he did not go to Washington until 24 hours after he said he was going to “rush” back. Barack Obama stated that for a Presidential candidate to interject himself in these meetings would draw undue media attention to what would go more smoothly behind closed doors, but McCain went anyway, and the cameras followed him. They spotted him listening for 40 minutes, but not making any suggestions or offering any input. Congressional leaders said his input was neither needed nor useful. McCain has stated he would keep his campaign in suspense until a deal was reached. The deal fell apart, and he resumed his campaign, which he had never really suspended in the first place. It was widely hailed as a wholly “political” move, and there seems to be no logical explanation other than “politics” as to why he would have done this kind of grandstanding.

It is nearly a week later, and the bill has failed twice, and when it imploded yesterday, he said that it was all Obama’s fault for interjecting Presidential politics into the process, when it was Obama who stayed out of it, promising to vote when the time comes. Then McCain said “now is not the time to fix the blame” (right after he fixed the blame on Obama). Then he placed blame on Obama again (after saying now was not the time to place blame) by saying Obama was “not leading” on the issue. This in spite of the fact that Obama has urged calm, presented his own propasals and even called the President directly to discuss the issue.

First of all, in my opinion this seems a little spurious to blame Obama to begin with given McCain’s record of deregulation. But to do something yourself (interject yourself, bringing Presidential politics along with it into a process where you’re not welcome), then to accuse your opponent of doing the same thing, then to say it’s not time to place the blame, THEN to say it’s his fault for not interjecting himself ENOUGH?

Now, anyone is welcome to answer this question, which to reiterate, is when is it not acceptable (if ever) to blame the other side these days?

It seems to me that when blaming the other side requires a complete suspension of disbelief and a complete ignorance of the facts, it goes above and beyond poltics as usual. Now, I don’t want anyone to be afraid to post their opinions, I’m welcoming of all points of view, but if I think you’re wrong, I will tell you…I won’t be disrepectful, I won’t call you names, but if you’re wrong, I’ll do what I can to prove you wrong. This is not about starting a “political war”, this is about exchanging ideas, whether you agree with me, have something to add to enhance my argument, or disagree with me and have examples to prove that this is to be expected, please feel free to post them.