Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Bachmann-ization of American Politics

"She ought to be shot."

Yesterday I noted here that candidates like Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle aren't content to keep politics in the realm of a good faith clash of visions or ideologies: They have a perpetual need to hint that Dems are up to something nefarious and even vaguely criminal.

The hints of this are everywhere: Bachmann says the $26 billion in state aid is money that will be "laundered" through unions for use by Dems this fall. Angle says the BP escrow cash is a "slush fund" and hints at "Second Amendment remedies." Multiple other extreme GOPers call the escrow fund a "shakedown." And on and on.

The resulting atmosphere is such that you get episodes like this one, in which a perfectly normal-seeming consitutent, a business owner, told Dino Rossi, the GOP candidate for Senate in Washington, that both the state's Dem Senators should be "shot":

One woman, the owner of two gyms and a temporary-employment agency, was venting about a pro-union bill supported by Murray when she blurted out: "She ought to be shot. Murray and (Sen. Maria) Cantwell ought to be shot."

Rossi quickly pointed out a reporter in the room, and then said, "That's not really what you meant." The businesswoman quickly agreed: "I didn't mean that."

To his credit, Rossi quickly got the woman to disavow what she'd said. And I don't want to make too much of one episode. But we're heading into another summer silly season where even more is arguably at stake than last summer. And the escalation of rhetoric from the likes of Bachmann and Angle shows no signs of abating, despite the GOP establishment's awareness that it plays into the Dem strategy of painting the GOP as hostage to extreme elements.

Candidates like Bachmann and Angle owe their success and national renown to the Tea Party. And it frequently seems like they're deliberately speaking to the Tea Party's most delusional and self-aggrandizing elements, who need to be flattered with a narrative that's far more grandiose and portentous than a mere argument over the proper future direction of the republic. They need to believe that they're part of a movement that's determined to rescue the republic from an illegitimate, even evil regime. Hence the frequent hints from the likes of Bachmann and Angle that just about everything Dems do is dark and vaguely criminal.

It'll be interesting to see how responsible Republicans react when the rhetoric gets cranked up to full boil, as it inevitably will.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 12, 2010; 10:52 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House GOPers , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Liz Cheney breaks with Bushies over Imam behind "Ground Zero mosque"

Comments

Great post.

Why are Republicans so desperate?

They are a FAILED, REGIONAL party that formerly had national status. And conservative constituents know that as well as the national machinery.

"""A very interesting finding from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: "The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn't lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it's 44%-43%.""""

They NEED the crazies to get excited.

Because that's literally all the "Republican Tea Party" has left.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

That bit about the GOP leading exclusively in the South was from political wire:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/08/12/are_republicans_becoming_a_regional_party.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

This may help the GOP in the short term, but long term?

I get a sense of desperation from today's GOP. They seem to be concerned strictly with 2010. They are getting their supporters so riled up they seem unhinged, then they are making these riled up people into the face of the GOP.

Anger and outrage sell, but don't be surprised if there is long term buyers remorse.

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The Woman runs a Temp Employment Business. No wonder she hates Unions.

Even thought she is against people holding secure permanent well paying jobs, I do not think that she should be shot, for scheming against working class Americans.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I'm willing to bet that many, many people here have expressed similar sentiments to their spouse or partner or friends or even just to the screen while watching TV news or public affairs shows in the privacy of their livingrooms.

What is new is taking all these sentiments out into the world and saying them at political rallies in front of reporters. This is the Glenn Beckification of political discourse.

During the '60s people on the Left had a great deal of anger about LBJ and then Nixon over the War and a few other issues, and rhetoric got pretty heated. I may be looking at things through the rose-colored rearview window, but my memory is that for at least a decade after the Kennedy Assassination such talk in public was taboo, at least on the Left. Maybe not the Right, though.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 12, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Check out Harry Reid's new ad that features a Republican/NRA member Nevada police officer telling voters that Sharron Angle's talk of "second amendment remedies" is dangerous and extreme.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025172.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"It'll be interesting to see how responsible Republicans react when the rhetoric gets cranked up to full boil, as it inevitably will."

Gregg - can you tell me who the "responsible Republicans" are? I remember last summer, I don't remember "responsible Republicans" stepping up then. Or was that a joke?

Posted by: zattarra | August 12, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I should say that I'm referring to expressing those sentiments in anger at home as a rhetorical sentiment, not a call to action.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 12, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

OT, but worth letting the Religious Right know about.

From: The Nation

"The Televangelist and the Warlord

Why did American televangelist Pat Robertson make a mining deal with accused war criminal and deposed Liberian President Charles Taylor?

http://www.thenation.com/article/153980/televangelist-and-warlord


"But while Campbell may be famous and glamorous, the most prominent international figure to come into contact with President Taylor has been American M.G. "Pat" Robertson, the televangelist, entrepreneur, former Republican heavyweight and one time US presidential candidate.

Robertson used to mix his missionary work in Africa with efforts at developing mineral wealth. First he financed a diamond-mining venture in Zaire, and then he pushed for a gold mine in Liberia through a Cayman Islands company he owned called "Freedom Gold." That's when President Charles Taylor gave Robertson's company a gold-mining concession.

The televangelist's ties to Taylor have always been puzzling. Here, for the first time, is the actual "Mineral Development Agreement" both Robertson and Taylor signed on April 22, 1999. It is dull reading but on page 45 one can find their signatures: the American televangelist signed his name "MG Robertson" on a line under "President" of Freedom Gold and the alleged warlord scrawled his name under "President of the Republic of Liberia." Few people have ever seen this document. (I got it during a trip I took to Liberia back in 2001, when I co-wrote a story for GQ called "Pat Robertson's Gold Fever." That was when Taylor was still in power.)

The contract gives Robertson the right to mine gold in a southern site—and potentially make millions of dollars. And what did Robertson do to win the mining lease? It is unclear. What is true is that the evangelist used his TV pulpit on Taylor's behalf. Robertson turned out to be a vocal supporter of Taylor in the rather obscure debate over US foreign policy interests in Liberia. Taylor was a strange person to champion: he had been trained by Col. Muammar Gaddafi after escaping a US prison, and was known, worldwide, to be a dictator presiding over one of the poorest countries in the world. The United States was pushing economic sanctions and there was a UN arms embargo going back to 1992."


Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"It'll be interesting to see how responsible Republicans react when the rhetoric gets cranked up to full boil, as it inevitably will."

Unfortunately, I cannot think of any Republican who qualifies for 'responsible'.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 12, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Unless you can refudiate it, I believe you have committed a Palinism conflating "portentous" and "pretentious" into "portentious."

Posted by: jamessilver | August 12, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the deep ugly vibes going on at the RNC, particularly around money problems. This from conservative blog Hot Air:

"""How bad is it? According to Politico, the RNC’s given $4 million to the NRSC and NRCC thus far, which is as much as it can spare. In 2006, it gave … $57 million. They’re so busted financially that they’re forced to crawl to Palin, the scourge of the “establishment,” and ask her to do what she can to help get the tap turned back on. Given how deeply the disgust runs among grassroots conservatives for Steele’s antics and RNC embarrassments, I’m skeptical that even she can make a dent."""

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/06/hmmm-palin-sends-out-fundraising-letter-for-the-rnc/

The Republican Party is DESPERATE.

That's why they are fighting so hard for the rich. The wealthy corporate elite (Club for Growth) is literally the ONLY THING keeping them in the race, if anything is. Pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

"To his credit, Rossi quickly got the woman to disavow what she'd said."

Uh...not really. The article mentions that Rossi pointed to a REPORTER and prompted a retraction.

That's not condemning the remark...that's condemning the remark being said in front of reporters. Huge difference.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 12, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Get ready for a slew of "the left does it, too!" posts.

on monday i was walking out of the grocery store with my 3 yr old twins. A gentleman was walking behind me that I had noticed was having a conversation with the cashier. I had no idea what they were talking about but all of a sudden I heard him shout back to the cashier ".....until some liberal does something to piss me off!". I glanced back at him - didn't give him a dirty look or anything - and he says to me: "Yeah, I don't have any f***ing use for any f***ing liberals." and proceeds to make his fingers into a gun and acts like he's shooting 4 or 5 times. I just shook my head and said "Nice. Real classy." and he flipped me off as he walked out into the parking lot. That's the sort of thing that caused me to take the Obama magnet off my car several months ago.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 12, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

@liam: Totally off topic but yesterday you expressed some interest in statistics regarding the offspring of illegal aliens. Right on time the Pew Poll:

"One in twelve babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were the offspring of illegal immigrants.

"... Undocumented immigrants make up slightly more than 4% of the U.S. adult population. However, their babies represented twice that share, or 8%, of all births on U.S. soil in 2008.

"... The report ... also found that the lion’s share, or 79%, of the 5.1 million children of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. in 2009 were born in the U.S. and therefore citizens poll."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704216804575423641955803732.html

Posted by: sbj3 | August 12, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

schrod-

Sorry to hear that. Bad combination of right wing crazies who luv their guns and being pissed off.

Reminds me (somehow) of the folks who showed up last summer at Town Halls packing heat and how that sort of thing would have not. been. tolerated. in, say, 2003.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 12, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

If *I* lived in Mexico and knew my child would be an American citizen by virtue of having been born here, I might just consider it. Think of it as a commentary on the stabilty and sophistication of American society and culture (Bachmann/Palin notwithstanding...)

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 12, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

However, the report offers no real clarity on the question of birthright citizenship. Limitations in the Census data upon which the report is based make it impossible to determine how many children are born into families in which both parents are unauthorized or temporarily in the United States. As a result, the report is only able estimate that 340,000 of the 4.3 million children born in the United States in 2008 had at least one unauthorized parent. In other words, this figure includes families in which one parent is unauthorized and the other a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant, so we still have no idea how many children would be affected by a change to the Fourteenth Amendment. If anything, the Pew report highlights how complicated this issue is given that so many unauthorized immigrants live in "mixed status" families that also include U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

http://immigrationpolicy.org/newsroom/release/pew-report-sheds-little-light-birthright-citizenship

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 12, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

SBJ prefers that immigrant babies grow up in poverty and squalor rather than in a land of freedom and opportunity. Who do they think they are, being born in the United States? As with any brown-skinned living, breathing human being, these fetus' should know better than to try to associate with white Christian Americans.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"It was a dark and vaguely criminal night..." by Greg Bulwer-Lytton (as told to by D. Axelrod)

;>)

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

And, btw, this whole 14th amendment dust-up is just evidence that the GOP is DESPERATE for donations and desperate to rile up their base.

As I've been saying, they may have energized the Republican Tea Party, but they have ALSO energized the Hispanic vote.

And given the size of the protests over the last year, the Hispanic vote FAR outweighs the Republican Tea Party.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "SBJ prefers that immigrant babies grow up in poverty and squalor."

Where do you get this crap?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 12, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Bush's "other" memoir:

"A Charge Kept -- the title is an answer to Bush's 1999 campaign biography, A Charge to Keep -- was written under duress. By 2008, it was clear Bush wouldn't be taking the legacy-polishing victory lap typically afforded two-term presidents. The economy was tanking, and John McCain's campaign said it did not want Bush defending his record, even as that record was being filleted. Feeling they'd someday be vindicated by history, the Bushies turned to literature. They would write a book -- a chronicle of 'what we inherited, what we did about it, and what we left behind,' says Marc Thiessen, the former Bush chief speechwriter who oversaw the book's writing."

The book sold 2,000 copies.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/08/12/bushs_other_memoir.html

2,000 copies! OUCH! HAHA!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "They have ALSO energized the Hispanic vote."

Perhaps you missed yesterday's Politico article?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40927.html

Posted by: sbj3 | August 12, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Sbj also prefers to throw out a shiny object, instead of, you know, discussing the incivility of his rightwing fellow travelers.

Posted by: azportsider | August 12, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

SBJ

I expressed interest in knowing, what the numbers showed for pregnant women entering the USA, just to have their babies be born US citizens. I was not asking about the number of babies conceived and born in the USA to undocumented residents, who may have been here for several years, then ended up getting married here, and having children. Those people do not fit the nasty "anchor baby" profile that Right Wingers have been clamoring about.

What I was after; was trying to find out what were the actual numbers, that the Republicans' "Anchor Babies" claims are based on.

Right Wingers are the ones claiming that a lot of women intentionally become pregnant,and then enter the USA so that their child will be born here, and allow the parents to also stay.


It is no secret to anyone that a lot of catholic emigrants adhere to orders from the Vatican, and do not practice any form of contraception, and therefore give birth to a larger number of births, than those people who do practice birth control.

Isn't that the birth results that the "Pro-Birth" Christian Right has been clamoring for.

Strange how they now want to use the higher birth rates among the catholic immigrant community, against that community.

"Pro-Lifers" My Arse!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent babbled: "They have a perpetual need to hint that Dems are up to something nefarious and even vaguely criminal."

You mean like top Dems did during the WHOLE 8 years Bush was in office? You are JUST now noticing this "trend"? ROFLMAO!

Posted by: illogicbuster | August 12, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent babbled: "They have a perpetual need to hint that Dems are up to something nefarious and even vaguely criminal."

You mean like top Dems did during the WHOLE 8 years Bush was in office? You are JUST now noticing this "trend"? ROFLMAO!

Posted by: illogicbuster | August 12, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"Get ready for a slew of "the left does it, too!" posts."

No, the left is much, much worse, as I repeatedlly proved here months ago, to the dumbstruck frustration of shills like Tena and Greg.

Read any of your own unhinged ravings about Republicans.

Look at the slanderous attacks on opponents by Cleaver and Carson.

Listen to Obama's attacks on citizens groups just yesterday as sinister, foreign-funded, conspiratorial, and likely criminal. That's the POTUS, for crying out loud, attacking Americans as unAmerican criminals for opposing him.

You are all ridiculous in your blind hypocrisy.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 12, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

In other words.

Republicans are NUTS!

That is what this fall is about.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 12, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans are NUTS!"

Absolutely.

Just look at their crop of "new talent." So far out of the mainstream that their positions are hardly recognizable as AMERICAN.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is just misunderstood:

Yesterday afternoon, Mike Pompeo, the Republican congressional candidate for KS-4 and RNC committeeman, tweeted out to his supporters an article he thought would be a “good read”

That link goes to a post on Newsvine by ret. Gunnery Sgt. Bob Pinkstaff USMC, who rails against Pompeo’s Democratic opponent, state Rep. Raj Goyle (who also used to work at the Center for American Progress). In the post — which the Pompeo campaign endorsed by sending out to its supporters — Pinkstaff calls the Indian-American Goyle a “turban topper” who “could be a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist etc who knows

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/12/turban-topper/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 12, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

All, Liz Cheney breaks with the Bush administration over the "radical" Imam behind Ground Zero mosque:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/liz_cheney_breaks_with_bush_ad.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

illogic-

You are missing the distinction between actions of the *Bush Admin* and GOP congresscritters. I don't think too many folks suspected the GOP congressional members of "vaguely criminal" actions the way we do of the Executive during those 8 years.

Greg's point is that the Right is trying to paint *any* Democrat/Democratic legislation as having "vauguely criminal" intent.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 12, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Just look at their crop of "new talent." So far out of the mainstream that their positions are hardly recognizable as AMERICAN."

Well, rather than all the inflammatory rhetoric, maybe you should be reaching out to them. Find out what America has done that has made them so angry that they feel they have no choice but to strike out with violence and general whackiness. Maybe build a few bridges, send some moderate Republicans on fact-finding missions to Red States to help encourage the more moderate elements in Conservatism to step forth, and engage the left in a rational discourse.

What is that America has done that these people now feel they have no choice but to engage in this sort of behavior? That's the question we should be asking ourselves.

That having been said, I hope said business owner enjoys getting contacted and grilled by the Secret Service, because that's what does--and should--happen when you say stuff like that. Seriously, how does saying somebody should be shot do anything for anybody? How does that invalidate their policies, provide a better way, make way for the rule of law to take care of them, if they are, in fact, nefarious and corrupt?

I didn't care for the movie--or the books, or the play--fantasizing and sometime fetishizing the murder of George W. Bush, because those things do nothing. They communicate nothing. They're picking a class of people and spitting in their face. And same with this sort of nonsense. Nobody, on any side of the issue, should be advocating that their fellow countrymen--whether they are on team Edward or team Jacob--be shot because of political or ideological disagreements.

And Rossi really should have gone off on the woman, instead of just trying to get her to walk it back. Because that kind of talk is going to solve your business woes by giving you free room and board and three squares a day. At least for 10-20 years.

Such a very low level of social intercourse. "Yes, I disagree with their tax policy and elements of these new business regulations, so KILL, PUSSYCAT! FASTER! KILL!"

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 12, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"Well, rather than all the inflammatory rhetoric, maybe you should be reaching out to them."

Been there, done that. It's useless and hopeless.

Ever go to the WSJ comment pages on articles there? Ever go to the comment section of Politico articles? Racism and violence abounds. Maybe you should check it out. Maybe you should condemn some of these people to their face. You might get further along than I would. But have no doubt, they would tear you to shreds as a RINO/sell-out and dismiss you immediately.

You simply cannot deal with Republicans on a rational basis. They, like all hate groups, must be fought and driven back with overwhelming strength of force.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

http://michellemalkin.com/category/unhinged/assassination-chic/

Ah, the good old days when opposition was respectful and sober and didn't question motives or legitimacy, when Democrat Senators like Byrd and Glenn would descibe Republicans as Nazis (and one would publish a book comparing the POTUS to Goebbels), when Al Gore would shriek that the President had betrayed his country, when Democrats ran on "culture of corruption," when partisan hacks pursued Tom Delay, when Democrats accused Bush and Cheney of treason, when Republicans were routinely tarred as paid shills of Halliburton and Enron, when movie stars called for Cheney and his family to be stoned to death and said Bush had "no soul," when a network talk show could put Bush in crosshairs and call for snipers . . . whatever happened to respectful opposition?

Also check out zombietime's Bush=Hitler and Bush assassination fantasy archives.

You liberals might be deluded and stupid. the rest of us aren't.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 12, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"They need to believe that they're part of a movement that's determined to rescue the republic from an illegitimate, even evil regime."

See Howard Dean: I hate Republicans. This is a battle between good and evil, and we are the good. We will take back our country.

See Alan Grayson: They want you to die.

This blog is such a joke.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 12, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't be so quick to give Rossi credit for getting the woman to disavow her statement. All he cared about was the fact that there was a reporter in the room. If he really had a shred of decency, he would have set her straight.

Posted by: Ralphinjersey | August 12, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"You are all ridiculous in your blind hypocrisy."

I'm not sure there are words that could accurately convey the depth of their inability to engage in self-examination. It is truly staggering. At one moment Greg is insinuating (to the cheers of his peanut gallery) that anyone who opposes the building of the mosque/islamic center/whatever at Ground Zero is necessarily a bigot who doesn't care about the rights of others, and in the next he is lamenting (again, to the cheers of that same peanut gallery) those that "aren't content to keep politics in the realm of a good faith clash of visions or ideologies." Is there a name for such an utter disregard for consistency and self-reflection? Or do you suppose that Greg knows precisely what he is doing, but is so mindnumbingly shameless and dishonest that he just doesn't care?

For the record, a list that barely scratches the surface...

Were Ted Kennedy and the left "content to keep politics in the realm of a good faith clash of visions or ideology" when they visciously and dishonestly smeared him in trying to keep him off the Supreme Court?

Was John Kerry "content to keep politics in the realm of a good faith clash of visions or ideology" when he accused the Bush administration of being criminals who were "looting the country"?

Was Howard Dean "content to keep politics in the realm of a good faith clash of visions or ideology" when he attacked attorney general John Ashcroft as being "no patriot"?

Was the left "content to keep politics in the realm of a good faith clash of visions or ideology" when arguing that those who oppose Obamacare are heartless shills for insurance companies who don't care about sick people?

In a sane world Greg woud be a laughinstock for posting such drivel as that above. But as you and I both know, the Plum Line is far from being such a world.

BTW...good to see (read) you again.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 12, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "'Well, rather than all the inflammatory rhetoric, maybe you should be reaching out to them.' -- Been there, done that. It's useless and hopeless."

Well, then, there's clearly no negotiating with right-wingers. It has to be all-out war.

"You simply cannot deal with Republicans on a rational basis. They, like all hate groups, must be fought and driven back with overwhelming strength of force."

Sounds like it's time for the drones. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 12, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Above, "smeared him" shoudl read "smeared Robert Bork"

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 12, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Well, then, there's clearly no negotiating with right-wingers. It has to be all-out war."

Correct.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

This guy spends half his time smearing Republicans as corrupt and crazed, then posts absurdities like this as if no one will notice. I've lost all respect I ever had for Greg.

I've stopped by a few times since Bilgeman was banned, and the commentary seems even more vapid than it used to be.

Good to see you, too.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 12, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Just a couple of things here:

First, the liberals clearly need a reminder of their behavior during the bush years. A recent google search connected me to a magazine article from 2000 the headline of which is "don't hate bush because he's dumb". So yeah, a ten year temper tantrum.

Another strong reminder is the gallery of shameful photographs posted on line by "zombie". He has an entire section that contains many photos of liberals holding up signs advocating the assassination of Mr Bush.

During this ten year temper tantrum the american left destroyed civility in this country. The landscape now is a function of their behavior then. Now, it seems, the liberals don't want to lie in the bed they made.

Poor babies.

next, the inflammatory rhetoric is just getting started. And it is nothing new. Here's a couple from that bastion of right wing nuttery, Thomas Jefferson:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Or how about this:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

And finally there is this:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

The citizens of the United States are angry. That anger will not be assuaged by yet another Obama speech. The anger is real, and palpable. If the government doesn't heed this anger they are kidding themselves.

finally I have a question: how is this quote from Ethan any different than the quote that Mr sargent references?

"You simply cannot deal with Republicans on a rational basis. They, like all hate groups, must be fought and driven back with overwhelming strength of force."

OK, Ethan, you have two choices: either walk back from that statement, or bring it on.


Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

NUTS!.. GET YOUR RIGHT WING NUTS HERE! NUTS!

Posted by: cmsatown | August 12, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

""""OK, Ethan, you have two choices: either walk back from that statement, or bring it on.""""

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

----------------

You must be outraged -- OUTRAGED -- at this TRAITOR for saying there is a separation of Church and State!

OUTRAGED!

Oh wait, I forgot, intellectual consistency and facts simply don't matter to Republicans.

Your whole ideology is a sham and that is proven to the American people over and over and over again.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Sooo, Ethan, are you trying to change the subject? It sure seems that way to me.

Once again, based on your own words you really only have two choices: retract them, or do what you say must be done.

As I said, the inflammatory rhetoric is just getting started. We watched in horror as the American left trashed the standards of decency and civility. If that's how the game is played you'd be fools to expect your opposition to play by any others.

Apparently you're just not prepared to be treated now the way you treated others then.

Poor babies.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"They, like all hate groups, must be fought and driven back with overwhelming strength of force."

You mean groups like, say, Iran's RevGuard
and daMullahs. You know, the ones that stone aldulteresses.

Well, Ethan, that means you gotta send us all a letter chastising us in the strongest of terms, and also I guess send us greetings and felicitations on our religious holidays!

Lookin' forward to hearin' from ya bud!!!

Slainte,

AttilaTao
ps.: giggle

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, please define your term "all out war"

Are you planning to take up arms against those who disagree with your positions?

If so, do you expect to win?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Quite true. I always thought it was interesting that on the morning of Nov 22, 1963 the Dallas Morning News ran a full pg ad by the John Birch Society and some other group, basically the equlivant of todays teabaggers. It stated that JFK was a commie dupe and the usual heated screed.

During the '60s people on the Left had a great deal of anger about LBJ and then Nixon over the War and a few other issues, and rhetoric got pretty heated. I may be looking at things through the rose-colored rearview window, but my memory is that for at least a decade after the Kennedy Assassination such talk in public was taboo, at least on the Left. Maybe not the Right, though.

Posted by: Mimikatz

Posted by: MerrillFrank | August 12, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Skippy,

"""please define your term "all out war""""

Ask Kevin_Willis, it's his comment.

True to form, you are quick to judge without knowing the facts.

Truly, you -- and your Republican Tea Party for the Rich -- are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm old enough to remember when all Republicans WEREN'T STUPID... but I'm old, and it has been a while...

Colorado just nominated a cowboy who doesn't know how to step over manure... and brags about it.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | August 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, are you advocating all out war?

Do you stand behind your statement concerning overwhelming strength of force?

What does that mean?

it seems to me that your own inflammatory rhetoric has boxed you in here.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Skippy,

This is what I said in response to Kevin's well-intentioned suggestion that I reach out to, and reason with, Republicans:

"""Been there, done that. It's useless and hopeless.

Ever go to the WSJ comment pages on articles there? Ever go to the comment section of Politico articles? Racism and violence abounds. Maybe you should check it out. Maybe you should condemn some of these people to their face. You might get further along than I would. But have no doubt, they would tear you to shreds as a RINO/sell-out and dismiss you immediately.

You simply cannot deal with Republicans on a rational basis. They, like all hate groups, must be fought and driven back with overwhelming strength of force."""

If you have a problem with that... TOUGH.

YOU, on the other hand, have no problem with the reality that many of your absurd "socially conservative" positions violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The funny thing is how OBVIOUS it is.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I should add that this "conversation" with you is proof positive that one cannot reason with Republicans.

You are beyond hope.

And again, this much is OBVIOUS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

You can trace this back to Glenn Beck, who despite his clownish and buffoon demeanor gets to people with violent tendencies. One suspect Byron Williams, has already been arrested after a shootout with police while travelling to assasinate members of the Tides Foundation after hours of invective hurled at them on Beck's TV show.

As we get closer to the election and Beck, a self confessed former substance abuser, grows more and more unstable look for more of these occurences. Beck is the closest thing to a real neo-Nazi in a position of prominence in America today. We can only hope that he has another breakdown before he inspires more of his followers to commit acts of political violence!

Posted by: 54465446 | August 12, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Skip, I used the phrase "all out war", in a sort of tongue and cheek manner, but what it basically means is that liberals and conservatives are just gonna fight, Democrats and Republicans are just gonna fight, and that's just going to be how it is. Sigh.

While each side tends to blame the other ("i.e., there's just no reasoning with them"), when it comes down to it, there's really no attempt (or doesn't seem to be much of one) for there to be any kind of dialog, and both sides seem to me to be getting more and more strident. Which I think is unfortunate, but there's not much I can do about it.

The things we're disagreeing about are important, and should be disagreed about, and disagreements should be taken seriously. In my opinion. By I'm guessing we're going to call the other guy names, and say they are stupid, and say they are lying, then pat ourselves on the back and call it a day.

And I mean everybody. I think it's a very bi-partisan effort to be as strident and divisive on every issue as possible.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 12, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"should be disagreed about"

The First Amendment should not be disagreed about.

It is a fundamental civil right bestowed upon us all by the founding document of our country.

If you disagree with the First Amendment, you disagree with what America stands for and has stood for since its inception.

And if that is the case, then you are a radical extremist who deserves to be ostracized from society.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I don't have a problem Ethan. I just want you to tell me what you mean by "overwhelming strength of force". You keep skirting it. You won't describe it. So therefore I can conclude that you didn't actually mean it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"""I don't have a problem Ethan. I just want you to tell me what you mean by "overwhelming strength of force"."""

Haha, sure sounds like you have a problem. You've been pestering me about it for hours.

I don't understand why I have to explain everything to you. My comments, the First Amendment, Separation of Church and State...

You obviously have a problem.

I'm sorry to say, your problem is that you're just not that smart.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company