Submitted By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The wrath from the right has been scortching ever since VP Joe Biden commented that certain freshman tea party congressmen were acting “like terrorists” in negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. There was equally no love lost when John McClain commented that the tea party freshman were acting as “deceivers” and their ideas were “bizarro.”
Now Tea Party freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) (No, not the one with the Maserati that goes 185) has produced his own video decrying the incivility and telling us that “Vice President Biden, I’m not a terrorist. Terrorists target and kill people.” You can watch the lament here.
While the language employed by the VP was quite over the top, and especially so given Biden’s challenge to introduce more civility into public discourse, our freshman congressman fails to see the irony of his words. No one suggests the Tea Partiers are calling for mass extinction of liberals or undocumented aliens, or gays or the poor. But what do they want?
Here’s Nevada GOP Senate Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle on the frustration of her comrades:
“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
Some Tea Party candidates are a tad less discrete in their call for violence. Here’s Texas Tea Party candidate Stephen Broden, “Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.”
Alaska Tea Party candidate Joe Miller found a lot to like in East Germany’s “checkpoint Charlie” system of stemming the tide of freedom-seekers “immigrating” to West Berlin during the Cold War:
“The first thing that has to be done is secure the border … East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could, we could.”
And the Tea Party has a thing or two to say to liberals about the notion of any separation between church and state:
“Do you know, where does this phrase ‘separation of church and state’ come from? It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. … The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they’re Nazis.” —Glen Urquhart, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Delaware House seat. You can even watch him here.
And then there’s that “witchy woman,” Delaware’s own Christine O’Donnell, who, when questioned about whether the Constitution calls for separation of church and state during a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School delightfully noted, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” Ahems were heard around the world on that one.
New York Tea Party darling Carl Paladino had this suggestion for the poor:
“Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we’ll teach people how to earn their check. We’ll teach them personal hygiene … the personal things they don’t get when they come from dysfunctional homes. These (prisons) are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities. You have to teach them basic things — taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things.”
Then there’s the First Lady of the Tea Party, Michele Bachmann, sharing all the inside dope on what it really means to be gay (no husband jokes, please):
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — then Minn. state senator Michele Bachmann
There’s scores more and they deal with all manner of insensitivity to the poor, immigrants, the 45000 Americans who die every year from inadequate health care, and just about everyone else the right likes to pillory.
Now most of these quotes were from losers in their electoral races and maybe they represent only the most extreme dunces the Tea Party has produced, but that’s not really the point is it? The point is that while the far-out Right might be justly indignant for the rhetorical excesses of the Left, they can’t seem to find the words to decry the excesses of their own camp.
There’s a word for that.
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
AY,
“A number of us have been around for years…Only two people have been banned…. So in our collective wisdom what do others think?”
I’m not for banning anyone who comments on this blog unless their comments really go beyond the pale. Since only two individuals have been banned to date, I’d assume those two people had written something really terrible.
*****
FF LEO,
I’d say–at this point in time–kderosa IS a Turley blog regular. Wouldn’t you?
@Spinwell — when you say that I have “strictly tried to derail the topic on any thread he’s posted on.” what you really mean is that I hvae poked a hole in one of your silly arguments and made the whole thing collapse like the house of cards that it is. If that is derailing the topic, then guilty as charged.
My advice is to form better arguments. Or, as FFLEO points out, simply ignore my arguments and hope that no one else notices or believes them either. I’m sure your like-minded idealogues can get on board with that program.
“No one suggests the Tea Partiers are calling for mass extinction of liberals or undocumented aliens, or gays or the poor.”
I’m not sure how you can arrive at that viewpoint. They suggest this every day, rather openly.
“Kderosa generates an abundance of discussion”
He generates an abundance of something. Not sure I’d call it “discussion”, but he’s easy enough to ignore. He is certainly less disruptive and far less insane than kay sieverding, and I don’t see anyone suggesting that we ban her.
@Spinwell. No you have it all wrong in your short-sighted view. When you say “He’s avoiding the point I did make about the upper 2% in wealth controlling the debate through money. Nowhere did I even infer that they should be stopped or censored.” You fail to realize that some form of censorship will be required to effect your grand scheme. That censhorship, which you obviously approve of, like a good little wanna-be dictator, is prohibited by the first amendment of the Constitution which reads in pertinent part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
@FFLEO, it’s a shame the other regulars aren’t as wise as you.
@Roco — would make a good guest blogger IMHO.
With all due respect to the regulars here, the talk of banning Kderosa is misguided. I told him that I simply would not respond to him and he replied that was fine with him (paraphrased). Kderosa generates an abundance of discussion, most of which I ignore. However, something is vastly amiss when extremely educated, talented people cannot also ignore those with whom they disapprove.
If you reply to Kderosa when he is off-topic, then you—not he—might be the problem perpetuating any discontent.
“@Spinwell, so you’re suggesting we rip up that inconvenient old freedom of speech part of the Constitution? Let’s burn some books while we’re at it and start a bonfire.”
Here is a perfect example of the dishonesty Kenny uses. I didn’t even remotely suggest banning anyone’s free speech and Kenny knows it. He’s avoiding the point I did make about the upper 2% in wealth controlling the debate through money. Nowhere did I even infer that they should be stopped or censored. However, Kenny doesn’t want to answer my point, which is fact, so he spins it and further implies I’m the one doing the spinning.
Now the above is written under the assumption that Kenny not only has some intelligence, but also a modicum of self-awareness in his actions. It is possible, however, that he is like any fundamentalist believer in anything, in that he’s incapable of understanding anything that varies from his personal perspective. While it would be attractive to think so, I do believe that he is aware of his duplicity, but rationalizes it. It does explain why that in most cases it’s just best to let him ramble since there is no chance of getting honest discussions from him.
AY:
I think that would be a good idea, kderosa would be a good guest blogger.
Good idea, I hope you follow through on your fine recommendation. Stephen Grossman would be another good guest blogger as would Tony C.
“I think it is time to either ban the psychopath or to pin it down on some issue rather than regular disruption on the blawg as a whole.
AY,
I think the best argument for banning him is as you state the disruption, rather than the presumed viewpoint. Contrasted with Roco and Grossman who stay on topic, Kenny has strictly tried to derail the topic on any thread he’s posted on. The typical methodology is to attack the blogger personally, or to take a minor point of the discussion and turn it into the discussion itself. There is some skill involved as you would expect from an Attorney
specializing in intellectual property, but the skill is used specifically in the service of disruption.
When it comes to banning him though that is strictly JT’s prerogative and we the guest bloggers, who could do so if we wished, agree unanimously that it is not our call. Having become one of the long time commenters here I think I have some idea of JT’s wishes for this blog and that of course is in line with his free speech beliefs. As for me I ignore him as much as possible, insult him when appropriate, respond occasionally and refuse to be drawn into his game. He appears to me to be the type of “true believer” (in something but God knows what), who must try to be in control and is consumed with anger and hatred. “Walking a mile in his shoes” would be I believe a very unpleasant experience.
@Spinwell, so you’re suggesting we rip up that inconvenient old freedom of speech part of the Constitution? Let’s burn some books while we’re at it and start a bonfire. Further, if the legislators didn’t usurp the powers they never got in the Constitution (with your acquiescence) there’d be nothing to buy and bribe. You might want to think about that for a while until it sinks in.
“But sometimes a minority, or a partial majority (e.g., a majority in one body but not in others) can accomplish its result in the political process by the threat of noncooperation”
The even more effective minority is members of the upper 2% of the citizenry who control most of the country’s wealth. They can control the media to propagandize, they can buy Legislators, Governors, paid disinformation agents, thugs and they can create seeming “grass roots” movements to intimidate and to vote as they are told. The former is the real tactics used, while the threat of “non-cooperation”, chicken, with the World’s economy in the balance is just part of a threat display. Nixon wanted the USSR & China to think he was crazy enough to nuke them. The tea baggers make Nixon’s tactics seem sane when compared to their own crazy rhetoric..
It is still a good article…But I still want Kdponzi to be a guest blogger….I think it is time to either ban the psychopath or to pin it down on some issue rather than regular disruption on the blawg as a whole…
Has anyone noticed how many of these threads are becoming personal icons for kderosa, Jstol, Steve Grossman et al?
A number of us have been around for years…Only two people have been banned…. So in our collective wisdom what do others think?
Great article, Mark.
Debt Limits, Union Strike Threats, and Talk of “Extortion” and “Hostage-Taking”
Some have faulted conservatives who demanded various spending cuts as a condition of raising the debt limit for engaging in “extortion” or “hostage-taking.” One could likewise fault liberals who threatened to block a conservative-backed debt-limit-increase-plus-spending-cut bill: They too were threatening to cause a government default if their changes or replacement for the bill weren’t enacted. (I use “conservative” and “liberal” here just as convenient labels for the general groups involved; I agree that neither all conservatives nor all liberals were on one side of this.) Let me briefly explain why I think this isn’t a helpful form of argument, even taking into account the usual levels of political hyperbole.
Traditional extortion and hostage-taking, of course, generally involves the threat of violence or at least the threat of illegal destruction of property. But I think there’s also another important factor here: What we want from the would-be extortionist or hostage-taker is just that he leave us alone. We’re leading our own lives, and you shouldn’t be coercing us into doing something that we don’t want to do.
Yet those who opposed the conservative demands for spending cuts as a condition of raising the debt limit obviously didn’t just want to be left alone. They wanted the conservative legislators to cast their votes to authorize a debt limit increase. They wanted taxpayers to be on the hook for repaying an increased national debt. They wanted people’s cooperation, and were then complaining about the conditions that the people imposed for such cooperation.
…
The political process is fundamentally about getting people to do things that they don’t particularly want to do. Often it takes the form of the majority dictating to a minority what the minority must do (e.g., pay more taxes) on pain of prison or seizure of property. That is actually closer to “extortion,” in that does involve a threat of violence or property loss if someone refuses to do something, where the target may really just want to be let alone; though even there, it seems to me that the necessity of majoritarian decisionmaking as to many matters may make such government actions morally permissible in a way that nondemocratic uses of violence are not permissible.
But sometimes a minority, or a partial majority (e.g., a majority in one body but not in others) can accomplish its result in the political process by the threat of noncooperation — by simply saying that if you want us to give you something (our vote) you must give us something in return. Obviously this tactic is going to be much more successful if the consequences of noncooperation are dire for the other side, or even for both sides. (A strike threat may often work when a strike would be crippling for the business, even if crippling the business would ultimately hurt the union members as well.) But again I think that someone can’t rightly say, “You extortionist!” when what he really seeks is the other person’s vote and money, and is unhappy about what he needs to do to get that cooperation, rather than just seeking to be let alone.
…
But when people are exercising whatever existing legal and constitutional rights they have to withhold their cooperation, and to threaten to withhold their cooperation, I don’t think that labeling them “extortionists” or “hostage-takers” is a useful analogy. If you want people to work with you, to give you their votes, or to promise to pay for more debts, you may have to make concessions that you shouldn’t have to make when all you want is for people to leave you and your property alone.
dahlweed:
“The word is “politics.The word “hypocrite” in politics is about as useful as “hitler” and “nazi.”
***********************
So long as you accept that dahlweed, you insure propogation of all the other words you mentioned. There are no “ethics exempt” zones in human behavior. It’s ethical or it’s not. Saying it’s “just business,” or “that’s the way it’s always done,” does not make it ethical, desirable, or less eggregious.
Please realize that you can throw out all the adjectives and foul language you wish, but when you start labeling people “terrorists” there are, unfortunately, very real legal consequences that occumpany that decision. So, drones strikes all around for people who dont vote as you want them to? Maybe guatanamo, or just a short rendition to egypt? Oh wait our boy got ousted by people who didnt want their country to be the discount torture outlet of america.
Dont mistake my sentiments. I find it extremely childish of the tea party to portray themselves as slandered and emotionally hurt by the comments. However, neither side of this discussion wants to face the reality of what it truly means to label someone a “terrorist” in america, and the cruel, sad fate that awaits them in the legal limbo we created.
The word is “politics.”
The word “hypocrite” in politics is about as useful as “hitler” and “nazi.”
It’s not just freshman congressional members….. It’s ALL the pee-baggers…
I agree with Richard. Shut it down. If they want to hold hostages, both sides can play that game, but it takes guts and will power. I am not sure this administration has it. I know what Ronald Reagan would have done, because he did it. Lyndon Johnson would have made sure the miscreants were punished and they knew it. How do you think he rammed the Civil Rights Act through a skeptical and reluctant Congress?
Why Is Congress Shutting Down the Federal Aviation Administration?
July 22, 2011 By Larry Ehl
http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/why-is-congress-shutting-down-the-federal-aviation-administration/