"Abatement in the hostility of one's enemies must never be thought to signify they have been won over. It only means that one has ceased to constitute a threat."
Quentin Crisp
1908-1999
"All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do."
Leo Tolstoy
1828-1910
“Successful politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle or otherwise manage to manipulate the demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies.”
Walter Lippmann
1889-1974
In the days preceding the vote on health care reform on March 21, 2010, and the days following, there has been an avalanche of violence and threats directed at Democratic legislators who voted for health care reform. In contrast, there has been exactly one reported instance of anything similarly directed at a Republican legislator, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt was called racist for being Republican. I don't count the factually deficient public whining of 2nd minority whip Eric Cantor that misrepresented events surrounding an accidentally broken window.
Embarrassed by the threats (and they should be), and fearing political fall out that will even further diminish their declining political fortunes that have taken such a solid beating in the last two election cycles, the Right is attempting to deny the existence of these threats and to repudiate the contributing role of their rhetoric. Some individuals are even claiming that the events they are trying not to name as threats are actually stunts by the left against the left to gain sympathy. Some, in the conspiracy theory tradition of the right fringe mouth-frothers, are even claiming that the SEIU is responsible. In fact, masquerading as 2nd Amendment Rights advocacy is an attempt to use weapons at protest events as a very real threat - I draw your attention to the third interview in this video of a Tea Party protest event in Alamogordo New Mexico in January 2010:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqjVWifq4Kc&feature=player_embedded#
This denial of any threats clearly ignores the protest signs, like this one, which appears to make a very overt threat, in both words and images. "Brown" is newly elected Senator Scott Brown, from Massachusetts, previously viewed as the savior for those against the health care reform legislation in the senate who did not derail health care reform legislation as hoped on the right. "Browning" refers to the fire-arms designer and manufacturer; in the instance of the protest sign, it appears to be the very famous semi-automatic 9 mm model Hi-Power, designed by the legendary Mormon US arms designer, John Browning. I recognize this weapon; I learned to shoot with this kind of weapon, I was taught range safety with this weapon, to be proficient not only firing it accurately but to field strip this weapon blindfolded. My reaction is not an anti-gun response, it is anger at such blatant, egregious offense to our 2nd Amendment Rights and Responsibilities advocated by this sign. This is a widely available, widely produced hand gun, with an impressive history behind its use. The border tape "FIRE LINE DO NOT CROSS" admonishes those who see these signs not to venture between those who intend to shoot, from a position designated as the fire line, and the intended target, clearly represented by the image of the Capitol on the sign. The language, the visual imagery, clearly have a meaning beyond metaphor. This is a sign promoting threats of violence against elected officials, our fellow citizens, not merely oppositional words and ideas.
This is not an isolated sign; clearly there were others. The signs were held by tea partiers outside congress. Republicans, like Michele Bachmann, left the floor of the House of Representatives during the Sunday Health Care Reform vote session, to stir up these very sign-carrying protesters, to whip up their emotions.
After the threats began to come to light, these same people, these Tea Party courting Republicans, tried to deny they had any part in this.
They are liars.
They have a long participation in false, inflammatory statements. There was Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who claimed loudly to his base that the Democrats were going to "pull the plug on Grandma" with the health care reform legislation, repeating the Palin popularized premise that won her the 2009 Lie of the Year award. North Carolina Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx claimed that our government was going to kill seniors. Republican Congressman Randy Neugenbauer rudely yelled out "Baby Killer" on the house floor, and despite his tepid apology, is reputed to have used the notoriety for his rudeness to attempt to fund raise on his demonstrably untrue statement.
And we have perenial off-the-deep-ender Michele Bachmann of the 're-education camps' and 'armed and dangerous' citizens claims, boasting she's the new Nostradamus for claiming Obama is un-American, now bragging how prescient she was on "Hardball with Chris Matthews", after she tried in 2008 to deny ever having made the statement. Caught in her rant, she has tried to 'clarify' that she means Obama's policies, a distinction which eludes me. If Obama's policies are Un-American, is not Obama Un-American for embracing and promoting them? And we have Bachmann's appearance on Sunday, March 29th's airing of Face the Nation, proclaiming in her usual refrigerator-magnet and bumper sticker 'slogan-thinking' that Americans are suffering under "Tyranny", that over 50% of the private sector of our economy has been taken over by the government, while 100% of the private sector was private before 2008, and my personal favorite, that doctors would abandon their profession like crazed lemmings according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Except that, no surprise, her numbers and her conclusions and her claims about doctors and the New England Journal of Medicine are not true. But those lies play well, very well indeed, to her radical right base. A base which does not seem to care if Bachmann is accurate or not, a base which will, as they do with Palin, embrace and praise anything she says, no matter how stupid, now false, how calculated to push her base over the edge of reason.
Congresswoman Bachmann on "Face the Nation"
fact checked by CBS, "Bachmann Offers Big Numbers, Little Proof" :
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/ftn/main6341007.shtml
The Republicans are talking big, with their futile law suits by the state Attorneys General, and their boasts, like those of Michele Bachmann, that the Republicans are going to repeal the health care reform legislation. It is precisely because those efforts have no reasonable chance whatsoever of success that the Republicans and the Tea bagging militia members and other right wing extremists must continue their threats and their harrassment. The alternative is to accept that they do not have a majority. They do not reflect the prevailing opinion. After the signing of the health care reform legislation, the poll numbers support the legislation. Of the approximately 40% who do not support it, 18% to 20% disapprove because they wanted even stronger reform, not less, and therefore the poll numbers do not argue for the citizenry supporting the efforts of the right. If this assessment is correct, projecting from the trend during the 2008 election and the 2009 debate over health care reform, we will see an increase in threats, not a decrease.
On the face of this, those who do not embrace fact are clearly equally unable to embrace reason, or moderation, or apperntly in at least some instances, decency and self-control. We need to oppose inflammatory rhetoric on the right, and we certainly need to oppose it on the left as well; I think we can safely define the centrists as not extreme in this regard by definition. We need to demand accountability for the factual content of statements by our leaders and elected representatives in both chambers of Congress. We need to express our feelings not only about legislation but also about how we conduct political discourse. We do this with our words, and with our votes. I believe that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and do nothng. Join with me in condemning intimidation. Whatever your ideology, join with me in opposing false statements and inflammatory rhetoric, everywhere you find it.
Well several polls I have seen indicated that somewhere between 54% and 60% were against the bill not for it. Also from the tone of the article you seem to think the Tea Party people are the first ones to get nasty at protests. Check out this link from some rallies when Bush was president.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sodahead.com/united-states/liberal-media-didnt-care-about-protest-signs-threatening-bushs-life-so-why-do-they-care-only-for/question-581257/
Those pictures were not just implied threats but direct threats against the president calling for him to be killed but they never made it to the news. Why is this now a huge deal? And if you say well the Bush thing was an isolated incident the guy that took those covered most of the antiwar rallies in California from 2003 to the present and until a couple of months after Bush left office he could find several signs like those at every one of them.
Now I don't think threats have any place in our politics on either side but doesn't it seem strange that burning Bush in effigy never made the news unless it happened in a foreign country but someone calls Obama a communist and it is all over every station.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteI both agree and don't agree. It certainly is true this isn't the original incivility, after all Stephen Douglass got into a fist fight on the floor of the Senate.
However, I don't for a moment agree that people made direct threats to kill Bush in the United States and it went unreported. Doing so is a felony first of all, and there is NO chance Fox News would hvae bypassed reporting it. YES, without doubt, Bush was burned in efigy by a few radicals, but it WAS reported. That said, this is a fair amount further - this is people threatening to start shooting people if they don't get their way, and not just a few radicals, but a LOT of people, and a large portion of Republican representatives not only not condeming the comments but essentially supporting them.
On both sides we need to shout these kinds of voices back into the closet of freaks that they came out of. Whether it's Timothy McVeigh (or the Hutaree folks) or the Weatherman, there is NO place in the American political spectrum to allow/tolerate this kind of conduct. The racists, anarchists, violent radicals, and anti-government revolutionaries are virtually to a man/woman highly ignorant and hate-filled, they are an anathema to a law abiding society which settles its differences through discourse and reasoned argument. Eric Cantor claiming someone shot at him, that he was attacked, is no less ludicrous than the claims of Louis Farakhan, with the difference being that Cantor is the 2nd ranking Republican in the House and Farakhan is widely repudiated by Democrats.
Tuck, I don't care about tea partiers, or anyone else, expressing themselves. I object to people who show up in large numbers, often armed, along with signs that are threatening, or chanting threats.
ReplyDeleteSending threatening faxes, throwing bricks through windows (plural), sending threatening emails, making death threats by phone - that isn't politics, that is purely gangsterism, something you would expect from the hey day of the mafia during prohibition.
We not only allow political expression, we should encourage it.
That is no longer simply political expression when it promises harm or death to those elected to office, much like we can be noisy but not yell fire in a crowded theater. All speech has some limitation, and that is a good thing.
Anyone who called for the death of President Bush should have been arrested and tried, convicted if possible.
Calling for the removal of any government official by other than lawful means is repugnant to our system of government, and these "patriots" that have made such threats and have called for these actions are anything but patriots. At best, they're ignorant of our system and that our system allows them the freedom of political expression. That freedom of political expression is not without limits.
ReplyDeleteMany people called for Bush to be removed from office, legally, through impeachment. Calmer heads prevailed, because removing Bush from office would have resulted in Cheney becoming president. Frankly, if Bush was scary, Cheney would be positively terrifying. Fortunately, Bush was too stupid to do any more harm than he did.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle need to join together in condemning the actions of those who are proposing violence. This condemnation shouldn't be weak-kneed or half-baked. It should be shouted from the rooftops, because if not stopped, this kind of attitude will fester, and the next persons that are the targets could end up being the very politicians who failed to shout it down.
I object to people who show up in large numbers, often armed,
ReplyDeleteThere have been two examples of people showing up armed - in both cases, legally.
along with signs that are threatening,
Just curious: do you have any actual evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of signs are objectively "threatening?"
I don't think you do.
or chanting threats.
Andrew Breitbart's offer of $100,000 for anyone who can provide objective evidence of "chanted threats" or "N-bombs" remains unclaimed.
Do you know something the rest of us don't? Don't spend all that money in one place!
Sending threatening faxes... sending threatening emails, making death threats by phone
...which is par for the course in politics at any time, especially when hot-button issues are being debated.
throwing bricks through windows (plural),
No, (singular); there's been one, assuming we buy that someone lobbed a brick through a 30th floor window.
that isn't politics, that is purely gangsterism, something you would expect from the hey day of the mafia during prohibition.
Oh, get a grip. People are getting mowed down in the streets? Car bombs? Kidnappings?
American politics has been MUCH nastier than it is today.
That is no longer simply political expression when it promises harm or death to those elected to office, much like we can be noisy but not yell fire in a crowded theater.
What do you mean by "that?" the Tea Party as a whole? It would seem to be the logical conclusion. You want to regulate the Tea Parties' speech, because of the largely-unconfirmed and quite-likely-untrue machinations of Steny Hoyer?
You are champions of liberty. I mean that.
Anyone who called for the death of President Bush should have been arrested and tried, convicted if possible.
Well, that's mighty brave of you, a year after the fact! Where were and your "limitations on speech are good!" when Bush and Cheney were being hung and burned in effigy? When a British movie and the TV show Family Guy openly fantasized about killing the President?
I'm guessing "rigorously supporting free speech". Am I right?
Holly,
ReplyDeleteFirst things first - welcome to Penigma! Glad to have you commenting.
Second things second, by and large, we endorse thoughtful exchange. To the extent you engage in it, you'll always be welcome. With that said, I will tell you I personally find chopped up responses to be less than well-argued. They allow for attention ONLY to the part you desire to attend, and often ignore the larger point.
To Wit..
Holly Fleisshammer said...
>>>I object to people who show up in large numbers, often armed,>>>
You replied - "There have been two examples of people showing up armed - in both cases, legally."
I don't believe anyone argued whether it was legal, nor asserted it wasn't. If it were illegal, presumably they'd have been arrested. Consequently, your point is a non-sequitor, i.e. not germane, and moreover, ignores the underlying point - namely, that people are intending to be intimidating. Intimidation as a political tactic is mob-rule mentality. Further, showing up armed for your own self-defense is one thing, showing up armed to suggest you are a 'dangerous person' or not to be trifled with, is purely another. Perhaps you have a point here, but I think it's not the one you intended.
Next one:>>along with signs that are threatening,>>
Your comment was, "Just curious: do you have any actual evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of signs are objectively "threatening?"
Not sure why that would be germane, but I think DG showed conclusively with just one photo there were mass-manufactured signs, any guess who paid for them or where they came from? Regadless, "tiny fraction" is an ambiguous term, what "fraction" of a group threatening violence is acceptable in your eyes? 10% 20%? What constitutes tiny? The Tea Baggers were coached in (now publicly available) instructions from Dick Armey's "Freedom Works" to "shout down" opposition, to work as a team to clap and yell and support any comments from their fellow Tea Baggers - all with an eye toward intimidation. Again, mob rule, and certainly anything but constructive discussion. Do you support public intimidation of people who disagree with you? Do you support shouting them down so that they cannot be heard?
continued...
ReplyDeleteYour next comment was, "I don't think you do." - you might be surprised, but I'll leave that to DG. For my part, the signs in the pictures speak for themselves, these weren't homespun.
You go on, "or chanting threats. Andrew Breitbart's " ok, have to cut in here, you mean Andrew Breitbart, the guy who put James O'Keefe now widely discredited ACORN videos out, who FAILED to check them for misleading and distorted editing, who has now disavowed himself from O'Keefe, you mean THAT Andrew Breitbart? The Andrew Breitbart who is a hugely partisan spin-blogger? Ok.. got it. Anyway, back to your thoughts, "offer of $100,000 for anyone who can provide objective evidence of "chanted threats" or "N-bombs" remains unclaimed."
Oh, wow, what a shock to me!! Whoa! I mean, that liberals first, don't care what Breitbart has to say, and second, don't believe him? Whoa!! Hard to imagine. Let me ask you, do you SERIOUSLY believe he'd pay? Further, do you seriously think people don't have something better to do than to yet again expose that man as a fraud?
"Do you know something the rest of us don't? Don't spend all that money in one place!"
You are fined one demerit for the misuse of snark. Snark needs to be funny, that was just silly.
>>Sending threatening faxes... sending threatening emails, making death threats by phone >>
To whcih you reply, "...which is par for the course in politics at any time, especially when hot-button issues are being debated. "
Good point, and I think we agree generally, but threatening actual violence, not ok, and actually, if you send a threatening fax these days, it's called making a terroristic threat, and you'll get arrested. I don't happen to agree with it, but that's the law really since 9/11. Go figure, huh?
throwing bricks through windows (plural),
No, (singular); there's been one, assuming we buy that someone lobbed a brick through a 30th floor window.
Uh, sorry, as far as I know, that one you're wrong on - but I'll let DG provide a reply. Regardless, do you think the Hutaree crowd is 'harmless?' How about Scott Ridder?
"that isn't politics, that is purely gangsterism, something you would expect from the hey day of the mafia during prohibition."
Oh, get a grip. People are getting mowed down in the streets? Car bombs? Kidnappings?
Is that what it would take for you to care, do we need some folks actually shot? Do you think TRYING to threaten folks is ok so long as you don't follow through? If someone needs a grip, I think it may be the person whose name starts with Hol and ends in ly. BTW, comments like "get a grip" are personal invective, not a discussion of the topic. Keep em to yourself.
American politics has been MUCH nastier than it is today.
Yes, prior to the Civil War, it sure was. And when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton, I'd say that was pretty thuggish - as if that's any excuse.
>>That is no longer simply political expression when it promises harm or death to those elected to office, much like we can be noisy but not yell fire in a crowded theater. >>
(continued even further)
ReplyDeleteYou responded, "What do you mean by "that?" the Tea Party as a whole? It would seem to be the logical conclusion. You want to regulate the Tea Parties' speech, because of the largely-unconfirmed and quite-likely-untrue machinations of Steny Hoyer? "
No, THAT meant politics of intimidation, it didn't mention the Tea Party at all. THAT's just your inference. I don't think ANYONE mentioned regulation - that's just your largely-unsuppored and quite likely-untrue (btw, you don't need to hyphentate quite likely-untrue) conclusion.
Where do you get "quite likely untrue machinations of Steny Hoyer" - what evidence whatsoever do you have that Hoyer manufactured it? If anything, your complaint should be levied against Eric Cantor who ginned up a story about having a bullet shot through "his office" in an "attack" upon him - a bullet which struck a building which he has an office in (an unmarked office) which was simply a falling bullet. Hardly any type of attack, and yet Cantor, even AFTER his office was advised it wasn't any sort of attack by the police went out and claimed that it was. THAT's called inventing, my friend.
"You are champions of liberty. I mean that. "
Well, thanks for the none-to-thinly veiled insult.
To which someone who is less civil could reply, you clearly see "regulators" and "inventors" around every corner, and your defense of liberty appears to not include preventing whackos from threatening (a crime) others simply because of their political veiws. You seem to accept these threats simply because similar, but not the same, conduct has occurered in the past. But that would be someone who was uncivil, as for me, yes, I care deeply about liberty, which is why I abhore those who attempt to infringe on free speech, by force, OR BY THREAT, in any form, and the past conduct of bad actors doesn't excuse the bad conduct of someone today.
>>Anyone who called for the death of President Bush should have been arrested and tried, convicted if possible.>>
"Well, that's mighty brave of you, a year after the fact! Where were and your "limitations on speech are good!" when Bush and Cheney were being hung and burned in effigy?"
First, you conflate one (a threat) with another, (burning in effigy). No one, not DG, not me, said someone can't burn someone in effigy. It's rather grotesque and over the top free speech, but it IS speech. Threatening to SHOOT someone if the political landscape isn't. Is that clear enough? Further, I served 12 years in the service to defend that liberty, and I ABSOLUTELY attacked anyone who ever suggested killing Bush. But that's not the point, claiming someone said they were going to kill the President is falacious - because it's a felony to make such a statement, and I guaran-damned-tee you that the Bush Administration and secret service during his years did NOT overlook any such occurances. Let me put the shoe on the other foot, show me any evidence of a person on US soil issueing such a threat, show me any evidence of any but "a tiny fraction" - and then show me those who weren't prosecuted or pilloried. You make a specious claim, namely that such a threat was issued AND that it wasn't condemned, and on that, you are wrong on BOTH counts.
(conclusion)
ReplyDelete" When a British movie and the TV show Family Guy openly fantasized about killing the President? "
Which British Movie, furthermore, it's not a crime in England to threaten the President, nor is it a crime on a CARTOON to 'fantasize.' It IS a crime to threaten someone with violence. You may want to refresh yourself on the definition of 'terroristic threat' and 'assualt' in the law.
I'm guessing "rigorously supporting free speech". Am I right?
Yes, you are correct - I am a staunch defender of free speech. Certainly as opposed to those who overlook unethical conduct simply because it's members of their party.
So, Holly, by carving up your comments into simply snipet responses, what you generated was mostly snark, and of that, principally devoid of evidence or factual argument. In the future, I suggest you "raise your game" a bit. What you used here may play as meaningful on fact-light blogs, but it isn't really going to play here.
BTW, when you point out all those instances of people threatening to kill Bush, let me know. I'd love to hear about them.
Holly, along with blog owner and my co-admin Pen, let me begin by welcoming you to commenting on Penigma. We welcome dissenting views to any of our authors, but as part familiarizing you with our blog allow me to mention our blog rules on the left of site.
ReplyDeleteLet me follow your comment, addressing point by point:
"There have been two examples of people showing up armed - in both cases, legally."
I do not dispute that people are showing up legally armed. I am myself a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights. My issue is with the purpose of coming armed to political protest.
You are factually incorrect that only two people have attended Tea Party protest and other similarly oriented protests. I would refer you for example to the January 2, 2010 Tea Party event in Alamogordo New Mexico organized to protest not only in favor of 2nd Amendment rights, but also against the health care reform legislation, cap and trade, and the Obama administration generally. Please view this video from the New Mexico Independent: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqjVWifq4Kc&feature=player_embedded#
I would particularly call your attention to the third interview. While I nominally share the viewpoint of the first two interviews to the extent that it is a good thing to demonstrate responsible and safe gun ownership publicly, the third interview is not an exception to the rule. In the third interview, the gentleman from Las Cruces makes a statement which appears to be representative of a segment (by no means all) of the tea party and some of their affiliated groups with similar political outlook. He states that carrying loaded weapons to political protests is intended as "a threat", it is meant to make the Democrats, Liberals, Obama admin politicians and supporters "listen" to the tea partiers. It is intended as a threat that those who view government differently than these tea partiers do - people they characterize as socialists, and communists, are subject to violent overthrow by THESE VERY ARMED PEOPLE. If you scratch below the surface of those who believe this way, as this man states, we are getting close to that point of armed overthrow "taking back" our government. We are closer, in the minds of these people apparently, now that the legislation is passed and signed than we were in January of this year. This is not unique to the Alamogordo NM event. I would refer you to the NY Times aritcle : www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html. There are other articles, video interviews, etc.; in short there are more than 2 people showing up armed and there is a pattern of this as an intended threat.
News flash. Our government is acting lawfully, it is responding to a majority of people through elective processes. There IS NO legitimate cause for armed insurrection.
This anti-government position, both overtly and covertly advocating for armed revolt against our government is endorsed by the militia movement, is similar in some respects those from Michigan who were recently arrested. I would refer you to the upcoming promoted armed militia movement march on Washington DC planned for April 19th, the anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma.
Lobbing bricks through windows.
ReplyDeleteThere have been at least 4, not 1.
Further, a self styled tea partier is encouraging more people to do so and taking credit for inspiring the incidents that have occurred. So far, I have yet to find - and I've looked - anyone in the movement formally taking an oppositional position to the advocate for brick throwing, much less promoting an objection in the media.
Who cares what Andrew Breitbart offers? You consider that proof that something did or did not happen? You have a very low threshold for proof then.
I would refer you to this video, listen between 10 and 12 seconds in : www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPoJGNh-WB-s
additionally not only did multiple members of the black caucus hear the word nigger, staffers did as well. As to the spitting incident on a black congressman, police found it sufficiently credible to detain the spitter, until the congressman involved declined to press charges so as not to give the spitter a further platform for his hateful rhetoric. Members of the CNN news crew confirm witnessing Rep. Barney Frank being called faggot.
The notion that it is acceptable in some way to make a death threat because a political discussion is over a hot disputed subject is wrong. There is no such freedom of speech; that kind of threatening tactic is NOT allowed, has never been allowed, and is illegal - and properly so. Whether it is directed at the right - as in the case of Cantor or Schmidt, or the left, or anyone in the center, it is WRONG. It is utterly and totally unacceptable and should be repudiated. It is an occasion to announce to those who do it "Get off my side".
And if you want to take a look at who is speaking untruths I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself better with fact check organizations. I'm particularly fond of politifact, because of the way they have indexed their fact checking by person. I would point you to two of the idols of the tea party - Palin and Bachmann's records, for examples. Palin won the 2009 lie of the year award with Bachmann a well deserved runner up. Bachmann has been found lying twice already this week (and it's only Wednesday) by the fact checkers at CBS news following her Face the Nation appearance on Sunday, and the Strib with an official statement contradicting her representation of the views on health care reform from the CEO of Medtronic.
I have been blogging less than a year, but yes, I have always advocated for free speech. I still do.
Threats however are not guaranteed free speech. If you have any further doubts on that count, I will defer to my colleague and the third Penigma co-admin, Thoughts of Eternity to elaborate more eloquently.
Holly, I would encourage you to support your position. I pride myself on doing my homework before I make a claim, althoug yeste
whoops, hit send too soon.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, my friend KR, on a linked blog to this one, Apathy Boy, for once caught me playing hookey from the most recent news cycle, resulting in my being unaware of the arrest in the case of the threats against Rep. Cantor.
If you have actual documentation - as KR did - that refutes what I write, I welcome it. Yesterday, I not only thanked KR, I suggested he stand and take a bow, and I applauded him.
You have made unsupported statements. Thank you for the statements, but please support them.
Not free speech.
ReplyDeletethis is an excerpt of the threat sent to Minnesota Senators and a couple of the Minnesota members of Congress last week, along with shreds of our country's flag:
"I will fight you with all my might. I will hound you. I will intimidate you and your family...I will out strong-arm you."
(courtesy of the Pioneer Press online, updated 3/25/10)
"Well several polls I have seen indicated that somewhere between 54% and 60% were against the bill not for it."
ReplyDeleteThat includes people who oppose the bill because they think it's too conservative. Perhaps they want to hold out for the single payer option, or maybe they don't appreciate a "super liberal" president regressing a woman's right to choose more than any Republican ever would.
DG, I disagree with you on this one. The actions of a few individuals, not matter how egregious they are, does not delegitimize the principles, values and opinions of the organization as a whole. Counting bad apples from two barrels doesn't tell you anything about the barrels. Either of them.
That being said, the Tea Party does not exist as an organization or a party, and does not profess to have any central pillars or values, other than they oppose paying taxes. So if they don't have a central message, what do they expect us to take away from their little gatherings?
My opinion is that they come up with these little events as a way to imagine that they are making a difference and allow themselves an opportunity to vent. Which is fine by me, but until they start trying to legitimately persuade people to see things from their perspective, no one else is going to empathize with them.