Michele Bachmann calls for revolution – again
She’s done it before.
Appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio program earlier this year, Michelle Bachmann called for an ‘orderly’ revolution against the government of the United States. This, after she had appeared a few days earlier on a Minnesota radio program asking listeners to get ‘armed and dangerous.’ (See ‘Michelle “Mama Che” Bachmann Officially Insane’)
Today, Bachmann took her plea for revolution to the steps of Congress as she led a Tea Party protest against health care reform.
You came. And you came to your house. And you came for an emergency house call. And are they going to listen? Oh yeah, oh yeah, they’re going to listen. It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing. What do you think?”
Via TPM
While Bachmann’s revolutionary fervor continues to be disturbing, it turns out that she came in a distant third on the list of insults heaped upon the American public during today’s protest against health care reform.
Coming in second would have to be House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) who, while holding up his pocket copy of the United States Constitution, informed the crowd that he would like to read them a passage from the document.
He proceeded to recite the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
I know this is hard to believe – clearly a plot by Keith Olbermann to embarrass the minority leader. Or is it?
Seeing is believing.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it disturbing that one of the most powerful men in government actually doesn’t know the difference between the two most significant documents in our national history?
Still, the winner of the most offensive, despicable, unspeakable display of behavior goes to whomever the moron was who held up a poster with the words ”National Socialist Health Care – Dachau, Germany 1945” printed over a photograph of bodies piled up at the Dachau Nazi death camp. The photograph is far too disgusting to reprint here, but you can see the image at bradblog.com.
Protesting is a vital part of American life and government and I certainly did my share of it back in the ’60s. But the only people who were calling for revolution during the era of Viet Nam protest were people who eventually went to jail-not to Congress.
And while there were many ’stoners’ in attendance during the ’60s protests who may not have known the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, to the best of recollection, none of them were the leaders of their party in the House of Representatives.
As for the death camp photo I’ve never seeing anything so repulsive despite the fact that the protesters were expressing their profound anger over the deaths of our fellow citizens in a senseless war – not a change in health care policy.
To those who support the Tea Bag movement – is this really what you want for your country?
While I will defend the right of these maniacs – both elected and otherwise – to say what they will and carry signs that repulse, so long as they do so within the law, I cannot imagine that rational human beings can be supportive of these tactics and disgraces.
I get that there are people who do not like health care reform. I understand that they hold strong beliefs that this is not the best thing for the nation. And while I disagree, I’m certainly open to the possibility that rational, intelligent people can see it differently and that they may, indeed, prove to be right.
But visually comparing health care reform to Nazi death camps? Does anyone think this will change the minds of those who are prepared to listen?
Shame on those who would behave in this way and shame on those of you who would support such behavior.
But for those who will disagree, and you know who you are, maybe we can agree on this – it really is not asking too much that you get yourself a congressional leader who knows what most 5th graders already know when it comes to the Constitution of the United States. I mean, it’s embarrassing. Really.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Bachmann and Jefferson were right.
Boehner is an ass.
At least your half right.
In response to another comment. See in context »And what about the creep with that horrible sign?
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, it’s over the top, but to quote another great patriot, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Look, you’ve got one-party rule with a fawning mainstream media. It would be nice to see a critical eye turned on those in power rather than on those who object to those in power.
I’m a teabagger who objects to the bailouts, the trillion-dollar-deficits as far as the eye can see, the reckless disregard for individual rights. A few kooks show up at every protest with objectionable signs, but that doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of the mass movement.
In response to another comment. See in context »You are, of course, absolutely entitled to your opinion and your perspective. But that patriot did not have this type of behavior in mind when he defined extremism in the name of liberty. I do have a question – were the tea baggers to win control of the White House and both sides of Congress, would you have the same problem with “one party rule?” This isn’t one party rule – this is a party accomplishing a majority in both houses while the White House is occupied by another of the same party. Happens all the time. It’s not like the other party isn’t represented, although currently in the minority. What you appear not to like is the American system of government. And that’s okay — but I’d love to know what you would replace it with???
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t have any problem with the American system of government as it was designed. In fact, I think the Constitution established about the best imaginable system of government. The problem is that the size and scope of government have grown so far beyond what’s prescribed in the Constitution.
If we took a strict reading of the Constitution, Congress wouldn’t be able to do 95% of the stuff it does. And the Federal Reserve wouldn’t be printing trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street with zero oversight.
As for one-party rule, I’m not saying there is anything illegitimate about the election, but the fact is we have one-party rule with the White House as well as overwhelming majorities in Congress. Yes, I’d prefer divided government with fiscal conservatives in Congress and a Clinton-style moderate Democrat in the White House.
The biggest disappointment is the journalism industry. For an industry that likes to see themselves as “watchdogs” or “speaking truth to power,” it’s sickening how they’ve fallen in love with Obama.
In response to another comment. See in context »““Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Yeah and the American people rejected Goldwater too. And frankly I don’t know what’s more offensive your warped political ideology or your choice of avitars on this blog.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well I’m sorry I didn’t have time to shower and shave for you.
In response to another comment. See in context »Goldwater got it exactly wrong: Extremism is the only vice.
Right wing or left wing, it’s the extremists who cause the wars, demonize the opposition, and deny the truth when it conflicts with their irrational prejudices.
If we were all moderate, we would just go about our business. If we happen to disagree, we can come to a reasonable solution that gets all of us most of what we want. And if extremism rears its vicious head, we would calmly chop it off.
In response to another comment. See in context »That is perhaps the shallowest, most nitwitted argument I’ve ever seen.
The midpoint of public opinion is quite often a very stupid idea. The midpoint of Congressional opinion is often even worse.
Moderates are responsible for the trillion dollar deficits, the war on drugs, the housing bubble and resulting economic collapse, the Wall Street bailouts… I could go on and on. They’ve destroyed the country, but at least they go home at night with out any strong views.
Moderation is Republicans and Democrats in Congress saying, “Here’s a couple hundred billion in pork for you and a couple hundred billion in pork for me. Isn’t it wonderful how we get along?”
Moderation for the sake of moderation. I can’t believe you even wrote that.
In response to another comment. See in context »wcvarones,
Here are some pairs of moderates vs extremists:
I’ll take the moderates, you take the extremists
Churchill – Hitler
Truman – Stalin
Nixon – Mao
Gerald Ford – Pol Pot
Do you see your problem? Extremists live in a fantasy land where they think they know all the answers; unfortunately reality always proves too big for them.
And if you are going to blame moderates for trillion dollar deficits and “the war on drugs?” you have to give them credit for building America into the greatest nation on earth.
In response to another comment. See in context »There you go again, comparing principled small government advocates to Hitler and Pol Pot.
The fact that you would call Churchill a moderate illustrates the great depths of your ignorance.
As for Nixon and Gerald Ford, if those are greatest moderate role models you can point to, you’re making my case.
And no, moderates do not deserve any credit for making this the greatest nation on earth. The freedom, liberty, and limited government established by the founders are why this became the greatest nation on earth. The founders were radicals. It’s the last 50-100 years of moderate rule that has turned this country into a vast debtor nation that has to borrow 10% of GDP every year just to keep the lights on.
In response to another comment. See in context »The difference is, more than one of these people has expressed their desire to control who lives or dies, rationing is in place and that they adulate Chairman Mao a worse murderer than Hitler!
Bachmann is a hero. Forcing someone to buy anything is unconstitutional. And I have reservations about leaving my health care decisions to people who worship murderers like Chairman Mao.
Worse yet that people like you would sanction it! Do you like Mao? Hitler too?
Take off your white sheets progressives, just long enough to see clearly what these people are doing to us.
In response to another comment. See in context »See, this is what I’m talking about.
In response to another comment. See in context »wcverones, a tea party member, has impressed the hell out of this liberal. He or she is bright, sensible and makes arguments that I can relate too, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all.
And then you come along with the Mao and Hitler crap.
Trust me – there is no sensible way to tie Mao to health care reform. I get that you don’t like the approach to health care. Rather than throw silly charges around, why don’t you tell us (a) if you think there is a health care problem in this country and (b) if you do, how you would go about solving or improving the situation. Give us a factual point of view, backed up with real facts and we will take you seriously. Call me a Maoist because I support health care reform, and I will call you a wingnut.
Wolverones-
It’s kind of weird how much I find myself agreeing with you. Frankly, i don’t think you’re a tea bagger at all. I don’t agree with all your points, but your approach is not what I’ve seen, heard and experienced from the tea party.
I do take some issue with respect to what I would consider an overly narrow view of the Constitution. The framers never intended the document to be static. That is why they allowed for amendment and, more importantly, created the third branch of government, the Supreme Court, to interpret matters with the tenants of the Constitution in mind.
While I can see a reasonable interpretation that would lead to your
conclusion that the large federal government was not what was intended, I can’t help but wonder if the world we live in requires the same. On the other hand, I think that you would have a pretty good argument that the world we live in might be a very different one if we had stayed closer to the idea of a nation of states where power resides at the state level unless specifically granted to the federal government.
Still, the world is what the world is. And while I could get behind some of your ideas regarding states rights, I fear that the tea bagger approach- which is one of anger rather than measured change based on believes- is a danger to us all. There are people out there who feel as you do but don’t see any need to express it by comparing Obama to Hitler. While I don’t agree much with Dick Armey, I do think he’s a rational person. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel a bit of hypocrisy at work when he spends years taking advantage of the corruption in the system as he gets paid millions as a high powered lobbyist, and then turns around and leads the revolution against the federal government.
And what’s with the “Obama is Hitler’ stuff? I get that you don’t like him. That’s fine. I didn’t like Bush as president but i would never dream of leveling such a charge against him. Running candidates for office- as was the case in the New York 23rd- is the way to get it done. If the Tea Bag parties can win elections, then good for them. But the other nonsense benefits nobody.
Rick, you should come meet the Tea Partiers in San Diego. They are some of the nicest people you will ever meet. The leaders are soccer mom types, and one of them is a lifelong Democrat. We just want to stop the spending, borrowing, and printing insanity.
There’s only been one Hitler kook showing up to Tea Parties out here, and everyone lets him know that his message is not welcome and not representative of the movement.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s interesting. What we tend see of the Tea Party is the ‘wingnut’ faction., although I can easily take you at your word that all are not like this. We don’t see those who approach the issues. As I say, I doubt that I would find too much common ground with the Tea Party politically, however I’m always open, interested and eager to participate in an intelligent conversation with people who see the world differently than I do. So, I might take you up on your suggestion.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do have a question. I’ll accept what you are saying about the folks in San Diego. I can believe your assertion because some of my favorite people are very much on the other side of the political equation. (Yes, there are very nice, well intentioned people who are conservatives.If you’re right about your friends, this is apparently the case among tea baggers! So, why doesn’t the Tea Party look for leadership to put ‘out front’ that better represents them to the public? I don’t think Sarah Palin is not who you want out front because she is so suspect on so many levels.
The problem with the debate today is that nobody appears to be able to trust anyone of another political perspective. While, as I say, I have many friends who are fiercely conservative while I am not, I have a difficult time pointing to a GOP leader who I can think highly of – even though I disagree with their approach. It wasn’t always this way. And while I can understand those who vehemently disagree with Obama, I don’t understand those who ascribe such sinister motives to his actions. We are all supposed to be on the same side, even if we have different approaches to solving our problems. I never get the sense from the Tea Baggers that they feel like they are on the same side as I – although they would approach things very differently. I recognize that the same can be said of liberals, but the anger and disdain seem so much more intense with the Tea Party, don’t you think?
By the way, you seem like a pretty bright guy -or girl- even if slightly misguided politically.
In response to another comment. See in context »So what is up with the terrorist picture??
I just thought the terrorist looking like a fat drunk Homer Simpson woken up in the middle of the night was kind of funny / ironic.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ha! Well, I can now say that I’ve met a teabagger I like! That’s a worthwhile accomplishment for the day!
In response to another comment. See in context »Wolverones – one thing I forgot. The media falls in love with whomever sells papers and gets ratings. Obama was always good ratings. They will fall out of love with him when that gets ratings. In that sense, the media is agnostic. They worship ad sales – not politicians. If conservative political interest went out of fashion, Fox would change their programming in a heartbeat. If there were no longer enough liberals to carry MSNBC, they would be on to something else.
I think that’s true with respect to amount of coverage, but not favorability of coverage.
Amy Winehouse gets ratings, so she gets coverage. But it doesn’t have to be positive.
Obama’s glowing coverage is unprecedented in my lifetime. And it makes a mockery of the news industry that considers itself serious.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I think that’s true with respect to amount of coverage, but not favorability of coverage.”
You have a point. But don’t you think it is beginning to subside? I tend to watch MSNBC and I see them beginning to get on Obama’s case- maybe for different reasons than you would, but it certainly feels to me like they are giving him a harder time.
Yes, I’d agree it’s beginning to subside. But we are still a long, long way from a “watchdog” media.
In response to another comment. See in context »Fair enough.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tweets Tube, Retourkutsche. Retourkutsche said: Michele Bachmann calls for revolution – again http://bit.ly/356e0z Appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio program earlier this year, Michelle… [...]
She wasn’t strong enough. These people are going to be sorry if they impose this unconstitutional legislation upon us…. you mark my words.
Good government is government that fears the people, not the other way around.
They ought at this point be scared because they are all losing their jobs next election, every last one of these crooks and murdering communists!!! Ungar is batshit crazy to support these Maoists… be outraged at that, not some sign.. that’s how we’re all going to end up if these Maoists get their way!
Rick, if you are a principal of the Eldercare Law Institute….how can you be for Obamacare death camps…..do you get to loot their belongings after they are gassed? Because their won’t be much left over after Obamacare loots our elderly.
And the stupid comment of the day award goes to, drum roll please, Andy Levinson!
In response to another comment. See in context »You know, Andy, everyone is still waiting for you to say something smart rather than your typical incendiary nonsense. You should read these comments – have a look at what wcvarones has had to say. Here is an avowed tabagger who has made a good enough argument that I’m taking seriously what the man – or woman- has to say. He’s obviously thinking and while he has arrived at different conclusions that I, his point of view certainly deserves my consideration and thought.
In response to another comment. See in context »What have you conributed to make your point? Have you ever said anything thought out here? So,you mark my words – if the majority of tea baggers are like wcvarones, they have a serious future in the country. IF the majority of tea baggers rae like you, it will no doubt lead to some flashes of violence and then pass into history.
By the way, Andy≥ As I am someone who has reason to be sensitive about death camps and gassing, you should be more careful about throwing around these references and making suggestions that I ‘loot their belongings after they are gassed’ is so far outside the lines that I’ve never seen anything like it.
In response to another comment. See in context »If you want to continue here, I will accept an apology. If you feel no need to do so, I will ask True/Slant to block you from my page.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Don’t hold your breath waiting Rick!
In response to another comment. See in context »Interesting discussion.
Rick – It’s not at all surprising to me you’ve met a tea-bagger you like. Like so many movements, the tea-parties are filled with well-meaning people led by often loud, brash, manipulative people. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, myself, mostly because I think that the ship has sailed on the sort of government that tea-baggers claim to want, and that other ways to return to limited government make more sense. Indeed, I have very little idea how the tea-party folks would actually implement their return to a small government model, and until I start hearing the majority of them taking on a return to limited DEFENSE spending, I won’t take them seriously at all.
Amen.
You hit the nail on the head when you point out the issue of returning to limited defense spending.
I can believe that there are many good people who participate in the Tea Party movement. I had just never communicated with one who was prepared to back up his point of view with intelligent arguments. I may not agree with this commenter, but he makes sense and, therefore, his point of view is as valid as my own. I may not agree with him, but who’s to say that I’m right and he’s wrong?
Isn’t it remarkable that in the discussion for how to best provide for the health of our citizens, the idea of paying for things by cutting back on other areas of the budget are never on the table?
And I couldn’t agree more that the ship has said on returning to what the Tea Baggers would like to see happen. As I’ve noted before, I very much agree with the state’s rights approach. I do believe that the closer you bring government to people, the better it tends to function. But, for better or worse, we are no longer built that way. I suspect it would take a very long time and very careful effort to walk it back. Carrying Hitler signs and suggesting that I want to pick the pockets of those who are gassed in Obama’s death camps certainly isn’t going to get it done.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t think even I comprehended the insane magnitude of Obama’s pork spending until this thread spurred me to look at the numbers.
Obama’s first porkulus package alone dwarfs the entire U.S. defense budget, including two full-scale wars!
http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2009/11/depths-of-obamas-budgetary-depravity.html
In response to another comment. See in context »Sure, I’d be happy to see cuts in defense spending.
But defense spending is not the root of the problem. Defense spending is trivial compared to entitlements.
And the annual defense budget is less than the $700 billion TARP bailout for Wall Street, and less than the $787 billion Obama porkulus bill.
Sure, we can cut a lot there. But you could eliminate defense spending entirely, and it still wouldn’t balance the budget.
In response to another comment. See in context »Did you get a chance to look at my post yesterday on TARP? Curious about your thoughts.
Entitlements are tricky and I think we need to be more specific when referring to them. Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs – yet those who participate have paid into them all their lives so it isn’t a hand out.
That said, I’m a big fan of tuning Social Security into an insurance program rather than an entitlement. Nobody knows how their life will turn out when they start out. Some people will end up needing S.S. and some will not. Because nobody knows how it will go, people should particiipate int the program so its there if they need it. The mistake, I think, is giving it to the people who turn out do not need it. I buy home insurance but I’m not disappointed if my house doesn’t burn down. I buy health insurance but I’m not disappointed if I don’t get sick. So, why would I be troubled if I buy into Social Security and I end up not needing it? I wouldn’t be. A great deal of money can be saved if the program paid out to only those who need it.
Medicare is different. I find that just about everyone needs it because there is no limit to how much one can spend in serious illness. Serious illlness can wipe out a middle-class family’s finances very easily. Besides, most of the wealthy continue to have private medical insurance and do not call upon Medicare as much as others. A decent society takes care of it’s elders so I view this as a very important program.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just read your TARP post. Excellent. Linked you here:
http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2009/11/common-ground.html
I agree with you in general on Social Security and Medicare. The problem is we are promising way more than we can pay for. Serious countries like Canada have pension plans with real assets in them. Ours has no assets; it is a giant Ponzi scheme. And Congress doesn’t have the political will to do the obvious things needed to make it solvent, some combination of means-testing and/or drastically raising the retirement age.
In response to another comment. See in context »Did you know that one of the provisions in the House bill prohibits companies to honor their health care obligations to retirees? This will force companies to hold actual assets for employee retirement benefits in order to avoid running afoul of the law. A definite step in the direction of what you are addressing in your comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Embarrassing, but not surprising, consider the source. The Tea Baggers are just the fringe of the GOP that hate the fact we elected a black man President and will come out and protest anything they think will embarrass him. I have said all along the GOP will stop at nothing to prevent healthcare reform because they know the Dem’s will get credit; so they are now forced to try and get these idiots to stampede the Capitol to get CNN & Faux news coverage.
fleetlee- I think we need to be a bit careful in attributing motives. I agree that the GOP is far more interested in beating Obama than they are in improving the health care of their fellow citizens. I think the GOP blll created in the House more than makes that clear.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do, however, suspect that the Tea Baggers would also disagree with the GOP approach and base their objection in some other ways. I also coming to think that maybe we should be more open to the possibility that there are well-meaning, thinking tea baggers who are pursuing a course they believe is best for the country. While we tend to be exposed to these horrible people by the media, we’ve seen, in these comments, some indication that there are so intelligent, decent people among them. Maybe we should listen a bit more. Of course, if we could be more exposed to the sensible people of the movement, it would make it much easier to do so.
I stumbled on your site after reading your piece criticizing Baynor as I am interested in hearing all views on the healthcare bill. Thank you Rick, for recognizing that there are intelligent people who are registered republicans, just as there are intelligent people who are registered democrats, and also in any other party. I am only reading your blog so that I can learn what I may not learn from conservative blogs because I do not want to be ignorant. But, false comments such as fleetlee, et al, makes are disparaging and do not serve the purpose of bringing about understanding. Derogatory name calling, such as “tea baggers” and saying pejoratives like conservatives “hate the fact that we elected a black man” — it’s plain absurd. A black man is head of the GOP, but fleetlee probably doesn’t know that! Well, perhaps fleetlee just posts to take care of his/her need to rant somewhere. I’d wager that very few people care what color the president is. This isn’t grade school cafeteria warfare! We are talking about very serious changes to the fabric of the country that carry astronomical costs and obligations for time out of mind. We need to be damn sure this is really what we (the country) want to do. Since your article interested me, I’ll look a bit further, but if I find that the above such comments are representative, serving only the purpose of making people like fleetlee feel agreed with, while having done nothing of value on the subject under discussion, I won’t be back.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry, should have checked spelling of Boehner’s name.
In response to another comment. See in context »desertlady-
In response to another comment. See in context »First, welcome. Secondly, we try to foster people’s ability to say what they want within reason. I don’t love the derogatory comments either. You should note that the tea baggers I know, do not take the terms as something derogatory. They are proud of the label. My suggestion would be that rather than deciding not to return because you don’t like the tone of a comment (although there is certainly nothing wrong with your feeling that way) stay and show them why they are wrong. That’s the point of all this. I would love to see people argue respectfully, but it just doesn’t always happen. But you should not let that deter you from expressing your point of view. That’s what we are here for!
I thank you, Rick. I object to the term “tea bagger” because it was originally put out there as a derogatory term for people who are simply doing what they can to object to what they see is happening, even if they don’t have it all figured out. “Tea Partiers” is a more appropriate term, and has no other inflammatory connotation.
But, anyway, I think what the left needs to see and acknowledge is that those of us on the right are very concerned about bigger and bigger government and losing control of our own lives. We’ve taken some huge hits lately. Some of us over here really value our freedoms of choice and are not looking for anyone else to take care of us. It is not that we don’t want the indigent cared for…. just so you know, I am a nurse and I have always given equal care to the best of my ability to every patient I’ve ever had, insured or not, paying or not…. we do want that! We just don’t want to lose aspects of this country that made it great, aspects that have enabled folks such as those on the left who express themselves here, to be able to do so!
I have to believe that the truly intellectual folks know that there are fundamental differences in philosophies, in beliefs, in values, and that we merely differ in our ideas of the paths to getting to them. And because they know this, they seek to understand, because in the end they want us all to win! I am myself not particularly intellectual nor greatly educated, but I DO want us all to win. This philosophy, wanting US to win, has gotten me (and mine) through every challenge we’ve ever faced in my life, and I am so grateful to have come upon this concept at a relatively young age–in my young 30’s.
And, I guess I am at least smart enough to know that where there exists such incredible disagreement on an issue, maybe we just aren’t “there” yet. I don’t use pejoratives to describe those who oppose my thinking. (Well, if I’m honest, and I try to be, maybe I use a few explicatives in the privacy of my own home now and then) I see no point in doing so because I’m smart enough to know that there are many who oppose my views who are at least equally smart, and many more who are moreso.
I believe we are facing some serious times. We are facing some serious changes, that I am not so sure we all, as a country, are really desiring of. Are we so desirous of “change” that we are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water to get that change? I think politics has gotten in the way of each side being able to make their cases, so that any meeting of the minds has actually become impossible. And yet, it is precisely that, meeting of the minds, that is necessary to keep this country strong, independent, and a leader in the world, while also protecting the sovereignty of every individual in it.
I think the more basic we go in dicussion, the better we all are for it, the greater understanding is reachable. The more we thrash about and throw perjoratives, the farther apart we get.
I appreciate your forum in allowing me to have my little say.
In response to another comment. See in context »This discussion is interesting but it misses some realities of this movement. The first and foremost is that these protesters are being used by the very people they oppose.
It is the republican party that is using this movement for their own agenda and political ends.
Many of the views expressed by this movement are libertarian especially in the twin rallying cry of small government and the return to constitutional purity. Republicans have demonstrated that they are not a small government party nor are they constitutional purists. They are just as eager to legislate from the bench as any other group.
This latest protest was a casebook study in using a movement to show popular support for ending a health care bill where none exists. The republican party, with the endorsement of their minority leader, embraced tea party followers to do two things: Kill Health Care and bash Obama.
They are not a party of fiscal restraint or small government nor are they anti lobbyists or special interests: All keystones of the tea party movement and libertarians.
This is a demonstration of the genius of the bait and switch republican strategy, the magic of their imagery.
What do the republicans want out of this?
One only has to look at Dick Armey and his group Freedomworks that is the primary organizer of the tea party movement.
This is the sidebar to this story and it’s about power. Dick Armey has positioned himself to have power and influence over tea baggers and now the republican party since the Boehner has embraced the group.
Now Armey is for privatizing social security, a move that would have caused an even larger melt down. And one that may cause some protest amoung tea baggers who are alarmed that Obama is messing with their social security.
He is for a flat tax as a fair tax but he is actually using this issue as a guise for eliminating taxes on corporate, estate and capital gains. He thinks business should be able to write off those martinis again and anything and everything else they could think of.
He is for school vouchers so parents can send their kids to “safe schools”.
He for deregulating the financial, insurance and tech industries and ending their taxation.
He is also for American industry having a legal means to hire guest workers from foreign countries.
Other issues: No environmental regulations, the private sector can handle it. Global warming is a myth to destroy economic freedom and bring about a liberal take over the world economy. Unfettered free trade. No union secret elections.
So Armey is using tea baggers to regain republican power and return to the deregulating, tax free business and special interest agenda of the Bush Administration. To the era of government that doles out tax money to industry and friends, that enriches the overly rich and ignores the needs of the very people the tea baggers represent. To the very people who bent over backwards to give Banks and Wall street billions of dollars with no strings attached and who opposed giving money to states for jobs with lots of strings attached.
They are being had.
I think you have to make a distinction between those who are following without knowing where they are being led -and those who have thought their positions through and arrived at a decision as to what they believe. The same argument could be leveled at any leader of a particular point of view. I know liberals who blindly follow the liberal ideology. They are no different that Tea Party protestors who might blindly follow their leaders. There are always those who react without knowing what they are reacting to. But there are also always those who reach their own informed conclusions. One thing we have seen in this conversation, while there are some wingnuts who identify with the Tea Party, there are also some pretty bright bulbs who also identify with that group.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
I am not saying their are no bright bulbs among tea party supporters. I would just bet that they are libertarians who do have a well thought out, logical arguments that have some appeal. Ron Paul and his counter point Dennis Kucinich both made valid logical arguments in the primary debates and in many cases made similar arguments.
The bright bulbs of the tea party movement rejected having representatives of either party at their events precisely because they consider both parties as straying from American principles. These are the people in which one can find reasonable debate.
However the people who showed up for Bachmann are being used for republican gain. They were invited and boarded buses supplied by lobbyists. And it was republicans spouting off their jargon and I don’t believe that is what true tea baggers had in mind for their movement.
In response to another comment. See in context »I see what you are saying. You’re right that it was really a GOP event meant to put pressure on health care legislation. And, unlike the Tea Party events where no politicians were included, this was all about the GOP. I get your point.
In response to another comment. See in context »To Libtree09
1. The republicans are trying to hitch themselves to this movement as fast as they can. They aren’t going to be very successful as those of us that want a limited government and fiscal responsibility will know if they are paying lip service by how they vote. Many times republicans have been shouted down when they have tried to speak at rallies as they should have their mouths shut and ears open. And the same applies to the democrats as well.
2. The republicans were voted in on being fiscally responsible and limited government and then they changed. The citizens wanting that haven’t changed their positions. That’s why they are yelling at republicans and democrats.
3. It’s not about “ending” a Health Care program, it’s about stopping one from getting started.
4. It’s not about bashing Obama. It’s about bashing a Congress, Senate, and administration that is so bent on accomplishing what they think should be done that they ignore half the populations will in order to do it. That is an unresponsive government. And if allowed to continue it will set precedent for future politicians do as they please with out “the consent of the governed”. That will be nothing short of tyranny and we may as well be a banana republic at that point.
5. The democrats use the same bait and switch tactic as well. trying make one side better than the other shows your biases and party of preference.
6.The money each person contributes to Social Security should be placed into an individual account and out of the reach of Congress, the Senate, and the administration. Had “Private” accounts been created during the Bush administration and the money invested in the market as they wanted, your right, we have seen it lost and gone for at least ten to fifteen years.
7. The voucher program has been proven successful where ever it’s been tried implemented. In DC, were Obama’s daughters are attending, there were two sisters who are/were attending the same school. Their mother was lucky enough to get each of them in on the voucher program. The President’s daughters can go to that school but, not those of a disadvantaged family. It costs half as much to educate each child at that school as it does in the public school system. The grades of the girls improved and the eldest now has a scholarship to another school. The youngest daughter will have to do something else as Obama and the democrats ended the three year pilot program once he was in office. He extended it out of the kindness of his heart so that those in school could make other arrangements for next year. The mother works two jobs and has no idea what she will do now. She wants her daughter to get a good education and knows that that won’t be the case in the DC public schools system. She can’t afford to move. She can’t afford the tuition for the school without the voucher. But as usual, if it is better than the government system and it takes money from the government system, even though the government is failing by all accounts and measurements, that program must be stopped at all costs ass it show the incompetence of government and it inspires independence.
And now we come the the conflagration of issues.
The environment should be protected. Let’s have real substantive fines imposed on companies that pollute. Currently they are a joke and don’t even make the big companies, who are the real polluters, wince if they lose a case and have to pay. We should also impose civil fines on the CEOs, the entire board, president, and employees of companies that pollute. Let’s take their money. Then that way the company alone isn’t the one to pay and there by insulate the people who make the decisions and do the polluting.
The issue of “Global Warming” hasn’t been decided unfortunately for all of those wishing it were. Even those at the IPCC can’t agree on it and many of them have left that august body as they have seen new evidence to the contrary of what is being PUSHED. Science should be science. Those pursuing it shouldn’t have an agenda. That will inevitably lead to skewed data, poorly executed experiments, highly questionable conclusions. If it doesn’t mee the standard of “Empirical Evidence” such as DNA then the real standard hasn’t been meet for proof. At this stage all of the current research is suspect. All or some of it may be accurate and then again maybe none of it is. Those that believe the matter is settled could actually be considered the real flat earthers.
We should eliminate all taxes and start a consumption tax. Anything you buy you pay en percent on. Seven percent goes to the federal government and three percent to the state.
No, the financial, insurance, and technology industries don’t need to be deregulated. We can see what greed and want of power does in business and politics. We see it everyday from Enron to the Capital to the White House. And as the US corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world, were I a business man, I would certainly take my business somewhere more friendly to business than the US for the benefit of my company and bottom line. So don’t whine and cry about the outsourcing of jobs when you tax businesses into it. The tax issue can be sorted out by the previous paragraph.
The democrats seem to have issues with hiring foreign guest workers as well since some many have been caught with illegal aliens in their employee. And yes, so have the republicans.
Frankly, I don’t trust either party whatsoever. I don’t like ninety-eight percent of them and only trust the the other two percent to do what is right. The belief in one party or the other isn’t what our country was founded on, the distrust of all politicians and administrations is what we all should be doing. None of them have done anything to earn our trust in the first place.
Please forgive any grammatical errors as I’m the product of a public education.
In response to another comment. See in context »I forgot this point. I absolutely want secret Union votes. If a union comes in and tries to organize and force it’s way in I don’t want the organizers to know who is voting against them. There are numerous accounts of bullying and threatening behavior and acts being committed by these goons and thugs. Not all union members play by the rules. Most of them do. It’s the ones that are going to have the union no matter what that are the problem and you can’t point them put until they do what they do.
One woman working at an aerospace manufacturing plant some where in Ohio or further west was one of three known holdouts that were preventing a union from getting the votes they needed to unionize. They knew who they were and where they lived. After several weeks of harassment and threats against them by organizers and fellow employees the company hired armed security officers to escort them to and from their vehicles at work as the threats had gotten that serious.
Eventually the vote came and the union failed and the organizers left empty handed. But that demonstrates how if the “Employee Freedom of Choice” act is passed it will no longer BE a secret ballot. I’ve read the bill and no matter what spin you put on it, no matter what the unions and politicians advocating for it’s passage says that will be the end result and you will have physical force being used as a form of coercion. That isn’t American.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, I’ve been following your posts for some time now, and I really enjoy reading what you have to say, on just about anything. Always a refreshing POV and perspective.
Wish I still lived in Huntington Beach. I’d love to come to one of your stops and listen to you speak in person.
With regards to Ms. Bachmann… Honestly, it irks me to no end that a certifiable lunatic is actually in a position of leadership in this country. She’s just crazy, hands down.
I do believe a lot of the tea baggers are just normal people who don’t like what’s going on within our country. However, when the cameras are out and rolling, they allow the propaganda types to take center stage. And perhaps, that’s why their movement is doomed to fail. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d have infinitely more respect for those people if they grabbed the “Obama is Hitler” people by the collar, while the cameras are rolling, and made it clear that they don’t want them there, involved in their demonstrations. That would be a pretty powerful message to send in its own right.
I guess what I am saying is that, in essence, by allowing the propaganda to happen, they are simply lessening the impact that their message would have on many of the independent base.
Reasonable people, whether Repub, Demo, far right, far left, etc., don’t buy into the garbage that’s being thrown around. They dismiss it as “lunacy” and move on. So why, if you have a strong message to get out, would you allow the lunatics to take center stage?
The Hitler guys are so few and far between that if you are seeing them in media reports, you should consider the agenda of the media outlet that is going out of its way to find them.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well maybe if the leaders of your so called movement denounced the bigotry and racism so often seen at your rallies your movement would be credible.
In response to another comment. See in context »No doubt a fair point. They certainly make for better television. I would, however, point out that it wouldn’t hurt for the Tea Party to expose us to leaders that are as rational as you are. So far, we’ve been getting Sarah Palin who I don’t think puts your best foot forward. You can be against health care reform for a number of defensible reasons – death panels were never one of them. When the leadership puts these positions on the table as representative of the point of view, it does not serve you well. If your approach is an example of the majority of Tea Party participants, you guys can do much better in putting forth leadership that can make your point.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian does have a point here. While I accept that many if not most of the tea party members may be rational, well-intentioned folks with a legitimate point of view, wouldn’t it be helpful to the movement to denounce those who are really pulling in a different direction but using your movement to spew their hate stuff? I’m sure there are radicalized liberals around who mask their own hated behind the ideology, but, whether right or wrong, we aren’t seeing that. The fastest way to change the opinions of the Tea Party would be to discredit those who may be misusing it, no?
In response to another comment. See in context »I should clarify – I mean to say the fastest way to change the opinions others have of the Tea Party….
In response to another comment. See in context »I can give you the contact info of our local Tea Party leaders who will be happy to publicly denounce the one kook who shows up with Hitler signs.
But it’s kind of silly to demand a public denunciation of one kook among a mainstream protest of hundreds or thousands of people who are just tired of the bailouts, the spending, the borrowing, and the printing.
Do you demand that Obama denounce the most kooky signs that Fox News can find at a pro-Obama event?
In response to another comment. See in context »Please, spare us, your leaders are exploiting the haters cause it suits their purpose. What do you think this is our first time at the rodeo? They autographed the placards being carried by the so called patriots.
In response to another comment. See in context »Come to think of it, if we’re going to demand the Tea Parties denounce some random kook over whom they have no control, shouldn’t we ask Obama to denounce Maoist Anita Dunn who is still his White House Communications Director?
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, Glenn Beck did ask Obama to denounce Anita Dunn whom I think we both know is not really a Maoist I don’t think the leadership thing is as much about denouncing the occasional crackpot as it about their own positions that have been taken which just were false. This is what has informed the public about the Tea Party. I think of Sarah Palin and the ‘death panels’. I think of Michele Bachmann’s statement that Obama’s proposed volunteer programs were actually indoctrination camps for our youth to be trained as Obama followers. These are, understandably, the things that tend to catch our attention and don’t necessarily score will with intelligent people. Then we see Dick Armey who wants to bring down the federal system after spending years making enormous sums of money taking advantage of that system as a lobbyist. It isn’t hard to see how you are possibly not being well served by the leadership.
In response to another comment. See in context »wcvarones – The problem with that line of thinking is that it doesn’t actually address the issue. And the issue is what does everyone “see” in relation to the tea-baggers.
I’m a moderate, so I can be swayed, with the right arguments, to vote either way in any election. I’m more right leaning when it comes to tax and spending, and left leaning when it comes to social issues.
So, for my own personal battle with politics and how I should vote, that image sticks with me on more than a few levels.
It’s the power of imagery that moves an argument, or in this case a movement, forward.
Regardless of whether it’s one lone man, or hundreds of people (Frankly, I would dispute it’s one lone kook, considering a lot of the coverage I’ve seen ala Fox has shown much more than a handful of people with crazy signs denouncing Obama as the second coming of Stalin/Hitler) the reality is that what you see is reality.
And so, IMHO, a big part of the reason why the tea-bagger movement has no real, I dunno, spark behind it, is because all this garbage is allowed to go on. And when you add in that Fox news all but claimed it initially as their movement, then backed off when they got pressure about it, well, it looks mostly like yet another GOP-ish political set-up.
And quite honestly, I’m tired of the GOP and the conservatives pandering to the lowest common denominator in this country.
In response to another comment. See in context »dtafs- fair enough. Your perception of the Tea Parties may be widespread. But I think that perception is more media bias than reality (MSNBC is obvious, but check out the youtube video of CNN reporter Susan Roesgen berating Tea Partiers, too).
I’d encourage you to come to a Tea Party and talk with the people there rather than believing what you see on TV.
I’m like you, fiscal conservative, social liberal. I think a workable majority of the country is with us too. The problem is what party vehicle to use. The Democrats are too wedded to big government, I think. And I’m not sure a third party will ever be viable. So my hopes are currently pinned on driving the religious zealots out of the Republican Party and making it a party based solely around fiscal responsibility.
In response to another comment. See in context »dtafs- thanks for the very kind words. they are much appreciated.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your point of view makes a great deal of sense.
And sorry Rick I’m not sure I accept your premise that there can be reasonable tea baggers. There are many ways in this country to express one’s dissatisfaction with government policy without hooking up with the likes of a rabid racist hate filled mob. Water does seek it’s own level after all.
It seems possible that the mob is not the rabid, hate filed people – rather that the hate filled, rabid people are joining up with the mob. I think you know that I’m never very comfortable assuming that everyone who identifies with a political point of view is ‘bad’. Some are, some are not, and many have different motives that are no always available for all to see. But, to be fair, can’t this be said about everyone – including liberals?
When I was busy protesting the Viet Nam war, there were certainly those in the country who would have said about me exactly what you just wrote about the Tea Party. Yet, I wasn’t rabid. I wasn’t hate filled. I believed in what I was doing and the ‘rightness’ of my position. And there were definitely some people who took it too far- like killing people.
Besides, I met some great girls!
I think that its important not to villify those who see it all differently just because some among them take it too far.
In response to another comment. See in context »So your saying that African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other people of color that are a part of the Tea Party Movement are racist? I’d like to know who they are racist against?
Seems to me that the goal is to place a derogatory label on a group of people that you disagree with politically and philosophically as well in an attempt to discredit anything they have to say.
Good going. That really show the same level of appropriate and civil discourse that you rail against.
In response to another comment. See in context »That SHOWS not show LOL
In response to another comment. See in context »Uh…how in the world could you gather that I said anything remotely like that in the comment you are responding to? Maybe you want to settle down a bit and read it again. I said absolutely nothing even in the same universe of what you are suggesting.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Ungar, I was attempting to respond to threads by Brian in NYC.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ah. Now I understand.
In response to another comment. See in context »One of the reasons the rhetoric is getting as it is is because their is a slow growing distrust of both sides. If you buy into the BS being shoveled by either party your setting yourself up for a fall. You can’t make everyone happy. Everyone posting on here knows that, yet for some reason there are those that think broad sweeping legislation of one kind or another will be the big fix. It’ll all be great and we can sit around a campfire and wallow in our magnificence. It won’t work. There has never been a utopian society. There never will be. History shows us that when you ignore or oppress one people eventually they will rise against you. No people have ever been kept in servitude forever. Not since the dawn of time. That it what all governments have to achieve for their continued existence. You need look no further than ancient Rome or Greece. The days of Alexander and Genghis Khan.
The Hitler and Stalin. All these governments, dictatorships, and kingdoms have passed to dust and do any of you really think that we are that different.
Just to make sure that you all know and understand this. I use this only as an example of how a government can say something is legal and do as it pleases.
All Hitler did was legal in the sense that he was legally appointed the Chancellor of Germany. Once he was in position he began consolidating power first through back room deals and then by force. Yes I know he violated treaties. While I don’t ascribe to the anything he and his party and followers did, not all treaties are beneficial to individual rights.
I have one question I need answered. If a government begins to oppress one half of a people, and half of the populace agrees and the other half doesn’t, does the one half have the right to protest and if need be rebel and keep or take back their freedoms?
Don’t you people ever get tired of invoking the name of Hitler? Seriously?
In response to another comment. See in context »this would be a valid argument if you could show how the government is “oppressing” you. Not agreeing with public policy hardly rises to the level of oppression. When the Republicans have controlled the White House and the Congress, were they oppressing those whom disagreed with their policy?
In response to another comment. See in context »1. I was using it to demonstrate how a government that goes to far, with the cult of personality and enough of the people behind it, like Hitler did can get out of control and it still be legal because if the government says it is then it is.
2. And “YOU PEOPLE” did the exact same thing while Bush was President. Selective memory may be excusable in some circles but not those with any intellectual honesty. So when the left stops invoking him I will as well.
3. If ti makes you feel any better. Everything Stalin did was legal. Everything Caesar did was legal. Everything the Pharaoh did was legal.
4. The point being people aren’t the enemy. People live together perfectly content on being left alone. Once you attempt to control them or tell them what they can and can’t do in their figurative backyards and homes you will have to deal with them. Either they will have their freedom or you will, by force of law, punishment, and if need be death bend them to the will of the government.
5. That is the way of things.
Doesn’t your head sweat a lot under all that tin foil?
In response to another comment. See in context »I wish I could figure out who you are addressing. I don’t recall referring to anyone as “you people”. What are you going on about?
In response to another comment. See in context »I believe it was directed at me Rick, I used “you people”.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m currently overseas and my connection is less than stellar. My postings may be appearing in an other than expected thread line.
Mr. Ungar, I’ve tried to have an open and honest expression of ideas with others here. I may have sounded a bit course as is my writing style at times. I’ve tried to avoid emotion and deal in facts. I’ve offered some of my own opinion no doubt. So has everyone else. For my efforts I’ve been maligned and insulted. I have no issue with that as it’s nothing I didn’t expect. It’s an age old tactic of if I can’t win a debate through facts and points of difference I’ll insult the person. That is precisely why the rhetoric of many today is getting to the levels we are seeing. There exists no modicum of decorum. The more of it that goes on, the more intense it will become, on both sides. Since you protested the Vietnam war then you know that it always begins with rhetoric. Actions follow. Then it becomes to late for words. It won’t really matter who started it or why. By then it’s too late. Don’t forget that the first American civil war may have officially started on the firing upon Ft. Sumter but, it started years before then with differences of opinion, rhetoric, and then attempts at legislation forcing the will of one group of people on another as I said before. I won’t be back or comment anymore. I wish you all the very best in life, take care and fare well.
come, on wardog – you’ve encountered some static from some of the commenters, but you haven’t been beaten up all that badly. You should see how I get hammered at times!
In response to another comment. See in context »I;ve enjoyed having your comment and hope you will return to fight for your point of view.
Rick, corporations with pension funds and health care obligations already have to have assets to fund those — and the liabilities are carried on the companies’ balance sheets. The accounting is a little loose for my taste, but at least there are real assets there.
The funds without any assets are the government-run schemes: Social Security and Medicare. They are true Ponzi schemes.
Well, tell that to a pilot from Delta Airlines who has lost his entire pension benefit. And so many more companies.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adult XXX Movies, Cuckold XXX Videos. Cuckold XXX Videos said: Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – Michele Bachmann calls for …: Nov 5, 2009 … There are people out there who f.. http://bit.ly/2uzTsO [...]