Outgoing GOP Congressman Denounces “Obama Hatred” In The GOP

South Carolina’s Bob Inglis is speaking out against what he sees as some of the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the right:

Outgoing Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said Thursday that a “credible conservative” movement that doesn’t focus on “hatred” of President Obama is needed.

Inglis was defeated in a landslide by Trey Gowdy in the June primary runoff. Gowdy, a staunch conservative and Tea Party favorite, went on to win the 4th District seat in November.

Inglis lamented on CNN that the current wave of populist conservativism is unlike that of Ronald Reagan.

“We’ll get through and we’ll get back to optimistic conservatism,” he said. “We just got to get through this unfortunate period.”

The congressman said he was wounded in his campaign by not joining “in the real bitterness toward the president.”

“I don’t call him a socialist because he’s not,” he said. “I don’t doubt that he was born in Hawaii because he was. I don’t call him a Muslim because he says he’s a Christian. And I didn’t say anything about death panels because there weren’t any in that health care bill.”

Inglis said he disagreed with Obama on a number of policy issues, “but I don’t need to join in this hatred of the man.”

“I believe if you’re going to lead a credible conservative movement, you got to start with credible information,” he said. “…I’m a conservative with better ideas, and I can serve the country by presenting those ideas and being credible not attacking him.”

This isn’t the first time that Inglis has spoken out against what he sees as the inflammatory elements in his party. Back during the health care debate. he told his constituents that the needed to “turn off Glenn Beck” and thinks for themselves:

They suggest that you watch Glenn Beck. Here’s my suggestion. Turn that television off when he comes on. Let me tell you why. You want to know why? He’s trading on fear. You know what? Here’s what I think. If you trade on fear, what you’re doing is, you’re not leading. You’re just following fearful people. So if you want to lead, stop being fearful.

Of course, the fact that Inglis was taken down by a Tea Party candidate should tell you just how well they took that advice.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Politicians, Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Mark says:

    Why ever would the voters let a silly thing like being a closet Marxist get in the way of supporting a President and his policies? Inglis is in denial and an idiot, which I suppose means he is perfectly positioned to make a run at office again as a Democrat.

  2. Axel Edgren says:

    Wow, he doesn’t act like a martyr at all. No wonder they kicked him out – he’s reminding them that they are not the most victimized or upstanding demographic in US history and he is not depicting Obama as some deeply malicious aberration.

  3. Jack says:

    Doug, thank you for posting this. I didn’t know people like Representative Inglis existed in the GOP, as evidenced by the idiocy spewed by the first commenter above.

  4. anjin-san says:

    Reminds me of why I was a Republican once upon a time.

  5. Tlaloc says:

    This indicates a severe problem with a two party system. If one of those parties (or both!) are taken over by hysterical fear mongers reasonable people are left with few options. Breaking the duopoly of american politics would be the single best thing in terms of fixing our government. Parliamentary government is hardly perfect but it’s a damn site better than our brutish binary system.

  6. Michael says:

    Doug, thank you for posting this. I didn’t know people like Representative Inglis existed in the GOP

    Don’t worry, the Tea Party corrected that.

  7. Michael says:

    Parliamentary government is hardly perfect but it’s a damn site better than our brutish binary system.

    What exactly does a parliamentary government have to do with the number of parties? You can have a 2-party parliament, and introducing a viable third (or fourth or fifth) party to our government wouldn’t suddenly make it parliamentary.

  8. Linda says:

    Hate is such a strong term. I don’t hate Obama. I don’t know him personally, but I’m sure he’s a likable enough fellow.

    What I strongly dislike is his politics.

  9. Tlaloc says:

    “What exactly does a parliamentary government have to do with the number of parties? You can have a 2-party parliament, and introducing a viable third (or fourth or fifth) party to our government wouldn’t suddenly make it parliamentary.”

    If you try to introduce a third party to our style of government it’ll get absorbed by the other two or it will absorb one of the other two, causing a realignment. We’d need something really different than the current system. it wouldn’t have to be parliamentary but that’s the most widely used system.

  10. Tlaloc says:

    “What I strongly dislike is his politics.”

    So you strongly dislike republican policies? Join the club. Of course if you strongly dislike his policies and refuse to acknowledge they are almost 100% based on republican ideas and say call him a marxist muslim (as the GOP does) then I have to think there’s a bit of hate mixed in there…

  11. Michael says:

    If you try to introduce a third party to our style of government it’ll get absorbed by the other two or it will absorb one of the other two, causing a realignment. We’d need something really different than the current system. it wouldn’t have to be parliamentary but that’s the most widely used system.

    Either you’re advocating that we completely change our form of government, or you have no idea what makes ours different from a parliament. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

  12. michael reynolds says:

    Bob Inglis. I believe once upon a time this old Hebrew named Lot was looking for him.

  13. Jay Tea says:

    Yeah, Inglis is a real exemplar of a “sane Republican.” From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis#Political_positions

    Inglis’s 2010 Republican primary opponents asserted that his voting record in his second House spell was more moderate than his first. He was one of 17 House Republicans who voted for a Democratic resolution opposing the Iraq War troop surge of 2007, and has spoken against climate change scepticism, offshore oil drilling and warrantless surveillance since returning to the House.[1] In response, Inglis has pointed to his 93.5% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union[2] and his endorsements from the National Rifle Association and National Right to Life.[3]

    Inglis is a staunch advocate of a federal prohibition of online poker. He also has supported actions to aid people in war-torn Darfur. In 2006, he co-sponsored H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act[4] and H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[5] On December 27, 2008 Inglis published an op-ed in The New York Times in support of a revenue neutral carbon tax.[6]

    In October 2007, before the South Carolina 2008 Republican presidential primary, Inglis told presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon, “[Y]ou cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, ‘I am a Christian just like you.'” Inglis stated “If he [Romney] does that, every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.”[7]

    On September 15, 2009, Inglis was one of seven Republicans to cross party lines in voting to disapprove fellow South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson for a lack of decorum during President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.[8]

    Against the surge in Iraq, (that worked wonders), against offshore drilling, anti-Mormon bigot, felt Wilson still needed slapping around after he apologized for his outburst. Yup, just a model of conservatism.How the hell DARE he get primaried? How DARE someone challenge his right to his party’s nomination? How DARE someone think the voters of his district might want an alternative to him holding that seat?

    Also, it looks like the guy who beat Inglis in the primary (37%-29% in the primary, 71%-29% in a runoff) won the general with 64% of the vote, while Inglis had won with 60% in 2008.

    Sounds like Inglis is retiring due to illness — his constituents got sick of him.

    Someone send him some grapes to go with his whine.

    J.

  14. John says:

    ” If you try to introduce a third party to our style of government it’ll get absorbed by the other two or it will absorb one of the other two, causing a realignment. We’d need something really different than the current system. it wouldn’t have to be parliamentary but that’s the most widely used system.

    Either you’re advocating that we completely change our form of government, or you have no idea what makes ours different from a parliament. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.”

    Perhaps a change from winner-take-all elections to proportional representation would be more appropriate. The tea party crazies could still have their 5% representation, along with the marxists, birchers, republicrats, greens, etc. At least then people would actually be represented by our legislatures, rather than just the banks, megacorps, and super-rich of this country that we currently have. It’ll never happen though, because those in charge hold the power to make the changes that would weaken them. Perhaps a lawsuit against a state-level secretary of state (who control how elections are run and votes are counted) stating that I am being taxed by government but have no representation in government could force a change in the way votes are counted, and viable minority parties could get down to actually running this country rather than playing politics like the R’s and D’s do all of the time.

  15. Tlaloc says:

    “Either you’re advocating that we completely change our form of government, or you have no idea what makes ours different from a parliament. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.”

    Why would the latter be the better choice? I am all in favor of changing our form of government. Drastically in fact.

  16. The Die Hard says:

    Why was Inglis clinging to the repukelibaggers? He sounds way too sane to even live in South Caro-nothing-lina.

  17. Jerry says:

    Lincoln was thought to be secretly a Catholic
    and Roosevelt was labeled a secret Jew.
    Obama is now not only a secret Marxist
    he is also a secret Muslim depending
    on todays RNC talking points and basically
    depending on how stupid and gullible you are.
    Make that a racist Marxist Muslim Kenyon
    and now some conservatives see him
    as secretly or openly an American indian who wants
    to give America back to it’s original owners.
    Stupidity never leaves it’s just kept quiet
    until a democrat gets elected and the
    southern strategy republicans get to
    “define the opposition”. And no, they can’t
    say nigger nigger anymore so they have
    to speak in metaphor…Muslim Marxist racist
    108.9 Kenyon and bla bla bla.

  18. Pepper99 says:

    I just KNEW there had to be one person in South Carolina with intelligence, compassion, and class. This country needs a TON, a ton, I say, of R’s like this man. Some of you Spartans are really beneath contempt. Ugh.

  19. David says:

    There are no differences between (R) and (D). They both represent banks and corporations, and not the people.

  20. Aaron says:

    @Jay Tea:

    All of the facts you point out about him are actually supportive of the assertion that he is a level-headed thinker. Against sending more kids to war, against being rude to a sitting president, against Romney trying to borrow Christian voters by misrepresenting Mormons are Christian (they are not, they believe Jesus was a regular human and God had sex with Mary to conceive him and that you, too, can become a Jesus figure on another planet if you’re really good – really), BP had a bit of slip in the Gulf of Mexico lately if you weren’t paying attention, so that seems like 20/20 vision on his part, doesn’t it? And pointing out that Mormonism isn’t Christianity is not bigotry, it’s just pointing out that Mormonism isn’t Christianity, it’s the same as saying it isn’t Judaism or Hinduism, it is none of those religions, it is distinct unto itself.

    I’m sorry to see we’re losing the one person with whom a level-headed dialogue could be had.