Bearing Drift Says No Violence- Unless Cooch Loses His Lawsuit

Bearing Drift is one of the biggest Republican blogs in Virginia and top GOP officials from Bob McDonnell to Ken Cuccinelli to the Congressional and General Assembly delegations regularly do podcasts with them.  Which is why I was surprised to get an email late last night suggesting that I listen to the intro of the latest podcast with Congressman Randy Forbes.

Starting at the 3:33 mark, here's what host Jim Hoeft had to say about recent events in Virginia:

Out in the 5th we’ve got some nutcases that are going after the brother of a Congressman. And cutting gas lines and vandalizing his property. Are you kidding me?

Folks, look health care passed but there is so much more than we can do before we start taking any sort of violent action against anyone else.

We have got the judicial process which we heard a whole bunch from Ken Cuccinelli this week. Obviously Virginia is going to challenge this. And Bob McDonnell signed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act into law this week. So let’s let the judicial process play itself out before we do anything violent.

We still have this podcast. We still have Bearing Drift and all sorts of 1st amendment rights to be able to speak out against health care and what the Democrats are trying to do to us. And you are going to hear more from Randy Forbes today regarding what the Democrats have done and why its so bad for the country. We have lots of redress before we even start contemplating thinking about revolution.

Let's let the judicial process play itself out before we do anything violent?  We have redress before we think about revolution?

It's no wonder these wackos are running around doing these things- Republicans can't just say it's WRONG.  Jim is basically saying what Catherine Crabill said last year, except she was saying she would go from the Ballot Box to the Bullet Box.  Jim's only difference is he thinks the judicial process should play out before violence begins.

Comments

[Isn't Hoeft In The Navy?]

And he's calling for violent revolution if the lawsuit doesn't go his way?

[Steve Vaughan]

The face that some of the more far out Tea Party types are contemplating violent revolution, isn't surprising. The fact that generally reasonable Republicans like J.R. and Rep. Forbes are entertaining that possiblity, although I expect they are actually just placating their far right wing, is disturbing.

[Alton Foley]

Yeah, I suppose you could get that from what Jim said. IF you understood Ken Cuccinelli to say that all State Agencies must immediatleley fire their gay employees.

Geesh. I wish you liberals and Progressives would just take words for their true meaning and stop telling us what we "really" meant.

[Not Larry Sabato]

"So let’s let the judicial process play itself out before we do anything violent."

Please, Alton- tell us what that really meant.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

Google: "25% of Republicans believe that President Obama is the Anti-Christ."

Harris Polling finds further evidence of the growing derangement.

[Tom White]

My read on this is that Mr. Hoeft has complete faith and confidence in the ability of our judicial system and electoral process to correct the mistakes of the progressives.

If that were not the case, Hoeft would have simply said "skip the judicial process".

I think Ben just wants to fan flames. That is truly unfortunate.

[TomPaine]

" "So let’s let the judicial process play itself out before we do anything violent."

What part of " . . . before we do anything violent" do you idiopts not understand?

[Tom White]

You need to stop fanning flames that are not there. This statement was intended to be a call to stop any violence. This post is likely to inflame nuts on the left to violence with a "strike first" mentality.

This is a serious issue that transcends attempts to score political "points" by blaming the other side for violence and finding ominous meaning in every word.

The more this type of angry rhetoric is pushed out, the more likely an escalation to the violence is to occur.

It becomes self fulfilling.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

The angry rhetoric needs to stop, as does the idea or belief that a violent overthrow of our government is even a possible course of action in response to these issues.

This isn't 1776. Even then, what was done was unprecedented. And it was the absolute last resort in the face of far greater abuses than anyone has seen because of the health care debate.

It is just not rational to speak in terms of literal revolution in response to anything the Democrats have done since 2008. And it would be helpful if Republican elected officials would stop letting our activists get away with that kind of talk.

It's absurd.

[Tom White]

Brian, I agree.
There is a dangerous undercurrent and a lot of anger. What is being said and done now, violence-wise is no different from the anti-war anti-Bush crowd a few years back. Except that the media magnifies and amplifies every threat, real or perceived, on the right. There are those that will begin to feel "if they're going to accuse us of it anyway..." on the right and others on the left that think they better take "action".

And these people are more nuts than wings. But it is always the supposedly rational people that use events to score political points that push them off the edge.

And then there are those that WANT violence and all they are looking for is an excuse.

I am saying we need to stop giving them excuses.

[Shredder]

Conservatives are high on crack if they think they can shut us progressives up by saying *we* are fanning the flames by demanding an end to violent threats and violence from the right.

That's a ridiculous and insulting idea, not to mention a strong clue that right-wingers are worried about the fallout from all this. So know this: the more you tell us to shut up, the more we will speak out.

It's pretty obvious, anyway, that violence from the right is an exponentially bigger problem than from the left. There aren't any tricks y'all can pull off to fool anyone about that (who's not already fooled).

[LAS]

Agreed, Brian.

Now some guy who thinks he's the messiah (from Philly?) is threatening Cantor and his family on youtube--not sure what's that about.

And a ultra right-wing and ultra-crazy militia group for Michigan wants to kill cops, lots of cops, and wage war against the U.S. government. Hope to God that isn't because of health care!

Is this some kind of new Spring fever?

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

Elected Republican officials made no constructive effort to shape Health Care Reform. What makes you think they can lead anyone?

[HisRoc]

Gallup Poll: 61% of all liberals view Socialism favorably.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx

[Spock]

HisRoc- do you even know what socialism is?

It's is what is running most of the planet right now and in places where people are not losing their homes, are very well educated, and they have healthcare!

The countries with the highest standards of living like Finland are socialist.

This McCarthyism against anything that takes the power out of the hands of fat cat corporate CEO's is a primrose path to an impoverished, uneducated and declining society.

The right wingnuts are insane and out of line.

I am almost glad the feds have finally taken action against these violent militia groups from Michigan.
As I support their rights to get together, dress like camo-freaks and shoots guns, there is an underlining plot to harm our freedom and country from them and the mentally that is being encouraged to them by the flaming rhetoric from irresponsible elected officials.

[Steve Vaughan]

Brian: there you go. That's exactly what needs to be said. But not by a commenter on a blog, by the conservative leadership.
"Violence is not now and never will be a legitmate tool in politics."
People want to overthrow the government because of marginal changes in the health care system?
Geez, no one was talking about overthrowing George Bush when he lied us into a war and shredded the Constitution. Democrats were talkng about beating him for re-election in 2004 and when that didn't work with beating whoever was carrying his water in 2008.

[HisRoc]

Rasmussen Reports: 35% of all Democrats believe that George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and did nothing to stop them. Another 26% are "not sure."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

[Mr. Jefferson]

"Please think about what your'e doing before doing anything rash."

I'm not sure a statement like that is advocating "doing something rash" like NLS would contend.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

If you ask the question the right way, you can get a majority of the population to claim NASA faked the moon landings or they aren't sure.

Those types of polls are all notoriously suspect, and both sides would be better off not listening to them. Some Republicans think Obama's the antichrist. Some Democrats think George Bush planned 9/11. Millions of people also seem to think Jersey Shore is quality television. There's no accounting for taste, and there's no way to extrapolate what some people think into some kind of overarching condemnation of all people who happen to self-identify politically with the same party.

[Spock]

There is a big difference between Bush having knowledge about 9/11, which he very well might have,(it was not a secret), and actually planning it.

I cannot stand the 9/11 Tr00th movement, but I don't think the Bush admin was without knowledge about what was going to happen.

[HisRoc]

Thanks, Brian, for very eloquently making my point. People who want to equate whackjob viewpoints with being the majority opinion of an entire political party need to take a hard look at some of the fringe elements in their own political circle. No political party, movement, or philosophy is free from its fair share of nut cases. And these are the ones who can be easily motivated to threaten or actually resort to violence. Like it or not, politicians on both sides of the aisle are often guilty of inciting these psychopaths when they pander to their "base" with red meat rhetoric.

[kelley in virginia]

spock: not everyone wants Socialism. there are many other reasons why the "socialist" countries are educated, etc. Iraq was a very well educated society & they lived under a brutal dictator. but the converse is also true: look at the poverty in places in Africa ruled by socialism.

I don't want that for me or my children.

[cvllelaw]

There's a big difference between saying "Violence is always inappropriate as a way of settling a political debate," and saying "Don't use violence unless you get your way through the ballot box." THEY ARE NOT THE SAME MESSAGES.

I don't know Jim Hoeft, but I am prepared to accept that he would not condone the violent overthrow of the US government merely because he got outvoted.

Then why is he saying that? Three different times? Once is a slip of the lip. Twice is a figure of speech. Three times? Saying it a little differently each time?

My suspicion is that the word choices were intentionally trying to curry favor with the nutjobs who MIGHT be thinking about revolution. And if that's the case, then I hope that the Right will find other leaders who are not so willing to play with matches at the fuel depot.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Spock, that's insane.

[Spock]

Kelley neither Iran or are African countries ruled by socialism.

Go look up the difference between socialism and fascism.

All of Europe is socialist and in a much better economic position than we are.

The only people benefitting from the capitalist system we have now are billionaire CEO's who also happen to be funding this tea bagger movement by pouring $$$$$$'s into Kst lobby groups to set up.

Follow the money and then ask yourself, are these wealthy billionaires really on our side or are they using fear tactics and McCarthy rhetorics to keep the $$$'s flowing from our hands into theirs?

[TomPaine]

If rank and file Republicans are really sincere in tamping down the rhetoric of violence, then you would do well to tell your leaders to stop using words and phrases
such as socialist, communist, destroying or taking away peoples' liberty or freedom, ad infinitum!

[Samuel Gilleran]

Here, I'll answer for Alton since he's clearly distracted. It means, "EVERYBODY CHILL THE **** OUT." If you're trying to dissuade someone from using violence, you necessarily have to talk about violence.

[change]

Who the hell is Jim Hoeft, and who put him in charge of the republican party?
I suppose the nut case who is threatening to kill Cantor is a leader of the democrat party?

Is this another stretch of the imagination?

[TJ]

Hoeft is a hypocrite. He is a notorious hater of Virginia's Confederate history has repeatedly posted on his blog that it's impossible to celebrate the confederacy without celebrating slavery.
Well, Jim, following your selective logic on the appropriateness of "revolution" and federal government over-stepping it's rights, I guess that anyone who advocates revolution over Obamacare really just wants poor, sick people to die.

[change]

TJ,
Using liberal logic, that would mean that Hoeft is a liberal just like the guy who threatened Cantor who “donated to President Barack Obama. On back-to-back days in June 2008”.
I suppose that confirms that “all liberals” are extremists and out to fulfill their agenda by any means possible, including threats, intimidation and violence.

GOTTA LOVE USING THE LIBERAL LOGIC.

However, in fair conservative thinking, I truly believe that there are nuts on both sides.
I wonder if dan, spock, giggle et al would now like to join hands with all the rational thinkers, in a chorus of kumbaya.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

If your vision is an America where some people get healthcare and some don't then you need to know that yours is a vision as outdated as slavery.

[KenR]

"Stop jumping on the bed before you break your head."

So my mom meant after I stopped jupming on the bed then it is ok for me to break my head. After reading this foolishness I am proceeding to break my head.

[Spock]

Change- The guy is just a blogger as many of us are.

But, we are not playing with dangerous rhetoric.

I don't hold him as a leader or the Republican party, but after this I would hope the actual leadership will denounce him and keep him at arm's distance.

I'll hold your hand and sing kumbaya if you really really want me to and ask nicely,... anything more and I want dinner and a movie!

[James Young]

So, Ben, what you're saying is that:

(1) the Founders were wrong to make violent revolution against George III;

(2) there is no "right of revolution"; and

(3) there is no outrage, no "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" which would cause you to take up arms.

Congratulations: you are a subject, not a citizen. And we should all remember that when you pretentiously, and emptily, invoke Jefferson.

[change]

Bubby,
There will always be the “haves” and “have nots” in any society. It is simple realty, it just IS.
We don’t have to think it right but any thinking individual understands that simple truth.
NOBODY in America is without healthcare, they can simply walk into a hospital and be treated. Equalizing “down” does not help them or any other portion of society. You should listen less to the rhetoric and think for yourself. Our society and the advances we have achieved are based on incentive; if you take that away you have stagnation.
Does that make it “right?” probably not but as has been said before; it is the worst system in the world… except for all the others…

In a short span of time we have successfully surpassed all other forms of government; people are not flocking to “other countries” to look for freedom to achieve; there is a reason for that.

I believe everyone would agree that we can do better, and we strive to do so, but if we strive to be what “others” are we not only lose our sense of destiny, we relegate ourselves to the failure of all that was done before.

We find ourselves in a time where we can “follow” or we can again “lead”; if we follow others down the often trodden path to ruin what have we accomplished?
If we “give to all everything they desire” for a short time, and leave our posterity “nothing” we are a selfish and doomed nation.

Our founders realized this and based our society on the “individual” (possibly selfish) desire, that “with work and ingenuity come rewards”. This has not only transformed a nation but a world.
We could move towards the governments, as have been suggested like Finland and spend our country’s wealth to achieve those goals. However, we have to give up something for that achievement. Does anyone believe that these country’s can spend their “wealth” on their desires if they did not have America backing them up, should they be attacked by those with evil intent?

A simple example is “health care” we now can keep our “children” on our policy until they are 26 y/o. It seems like a good thing ( I have kids myself in this category) but where will they now spend their resources? Partying? Having fun? Living off the “parents” as long as they can? Why not? Seems like a good life to be able to have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.
We reap what we sow, if we sow a nation of individuals who will “take” as much as they can, there comes a point where we will no longer have anything to “give”; even if we want to.

Then not only do we lose, but our posterity loses also.

Just a thought not a sermon…… although it seems to be the length of one…

[Spock]

James-If we were still British subjects we'd have health care and better education.

We could also claim the Beatles, the Stones, The Who, Sex Pistols, and the Clash.

Like Brian said, it's not 1776 anymore....

[Loudoun Insider]

What do Brian or I know anyway -we're filthy RINOs!

I don't think this health care bill rises to the level of actionable revolution. But again, I am not a "Real Republican"!

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

James, we live in a system where a "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" is well-nigh impossible.

So long as majority rule remains the centerpiece of American democracy, you won't see that happening.

Nothing in this health care law, nor anything the Democrats have done since 2006 comes even close to the things the British were doing to the Colonies in 1776. There was open warfare between the British and the Colonials for over a year before Jefferson's words were adopted.

We may maintain a "right of revolution" as part of our natural rights, but I don't believe that it is rational nowadays for anyone to consider revolution to be an option.

[I. Publius]

Another example of how Ben is too stupid to be taken seriously.

[James is a tea bagger fruitcake]

I wish James had suggested revolution as the remedy to the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" during the Bush administration. It would have been ever so much more fun to violently overthrow the Republican administration rather than wait for the next election as the Constitution calls for us to do and do all that boring work required to elect a Democratic president.

Of course, I am sure James wouldn't have supported the violent overthrow of a Republican administration. When Republicans win an election that is called democracy. When Democrats win an election that is tyranny that calls for violent revolution.

What a hypocrite you are, James. But our Constitution will survive your sore loser, hypocritical bullshit.

If you don't like the result of the last election then go to work to achieve a different result in the next one. But don't be too disappointed if the result is not a sweeping victory for your boys. The American people demonstrated in '06 and '08 that they had gotten wise to you.

If you pick up some seats I promise I won't call democracy tyranny. That would make me as big a lying asshole as you are.

[Peter M]

Reid supporters egged a bus of Tea Partyers. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/29/video-reid-supporters-egg-tea-party-buses-in-nevada/
There are fringe elements in both parties.

[James Young]

Uh, "Spock," I'll be concerned what pseudonymous cowards like you think when ....

Never mind. I'll NEVER be concerned what pseudonymous cowards like you think.

And Brian, your comment is nearly as stupid as Ben's original post. NO one --- not I; not Jim Hoeft, though I don't presume to speak for him (he's quite capable of speaking for himself) --- is arguing here that NOW is the time to exercise the right of revolution. But if you truly believe that ours is "a system where a 'long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism' is well-nigh impossible," then you're a fool, too.

My point --- which you finally get around to addressing after three paragraphs --- is that Ben implicitly or explicitly rejects the fundamental principle of the American republic, a point he's yet to dispute.

And as for the comment after BWS's, it's readily apparent that he, unlike I, has engaged in the activity which he's attributed to me so often that he's doubtless contracted some nasty social disease which has caused some form of dementia. The very fact that he's too moronic to have noticed that President Bush peacefully and cooperatively turned over government to President Barry in 2009 amply demonstrates this fact, and the fact that the usual litany of moonbat smears about Bush's "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" were nothing but irresponsible political rhetoric, as also evidenced by the fact that President Barry has changed so few of them.

And by the way, you damned fool, it's NOT "called democracy" when Republicans win an election; it's called a "republic," still.

Of course, when Democrats win an election that is called a mistake which, if moonbats like you get their way, COULD result in tyranny that calls for violent revolution or, more accurately, RESTORATION of the Constitution.

[James Young]

Oh, and better a "lying asshole" than a slanderous coward unwilling to be held responsible for his smears.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

James, unlike you apparently, I place greater faith in the Founding Fathers and recognize that the system they devised for our self-governance is so well crafted that it has survived almost a quarter of a millenia without devolving into despotism. Through good leaders and bad, potential despots, rebellion and the like, our system of government has survived.

I think even the most charismatic, proto-Hitler couldn't destroy the American republic through our Constitutional processes - even if he went in with that goal. Our system of government is stronger than any one man or cabal. We have no reason to fear the things that drove our forefathers to revolt.

If that makes me a fool, I'll take the moniker gladly.

[change]

Brian,
Although I usually agree with you, I would remind you that “almost a quarter of a millennia” is still a young government by historic standards.
Especially when you consider that the majority of debt etc.. that is leading us to bankruptcy has only been accumulated in a few decades.

[PWConservative]

Spock
Europe is socialist but you must be smoking crack if you think they have a better economy. The gold standard of economic comparison is the Per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity. Under this measurement, the state of Missisippi, which is considered a poorer state than most, has a higher per capita GDP and more purchasing power than any European country or Japan.

[Spock]

PWCONservative- maybe it's not always about BUYING crap but having a high quality life with good health, a good education, a roof over one's head and decent food to eat.

The rest is just too much junk.

[Dan]

Brian, in your answer to James Young you get right to the heart of the matter. You have a well founded faith in the system that was devised for us by our Founding Fathers and in its ability to endure both good times and difficult times. A faith that is supported by nearly a quarter millennium of history showing that system doing just that.

People like James, though they may wrap themselves in the flag and fancy themselves super patriots and great defenders of America, are in reality weak sisters who have so little faith in our system that it is truly shameful. They lose a couple of elections and a policy fight and they become chicken littles running around hollering that the sky is falling. They don't get their way and they think that presages the end of the Republic.

Guys like that aren't helping you bring the Republican party back from the margins. Average Americans are made of sterner stuff and have faith in their country. They see these guys for what they are. Pathetic.

[James Young]

Dan, the arrogance of your screed is truly breathtaking. I guess the beginning of your problem is your claim that I "wrap [my]sel[f] in the flag and fancy [my]sel[f] super patriots and great defenders of America." Noooo, that's YOUR problem, since it is, after all, your caricature of those who have actually read and understood the Constitution.

But it is hardly surprising that you would dismiss those who actually believe in the system as "weak sisters who have so little faith in our system that it is truly shameful," since there remain those who recognize that your incremental socialism is perfectly acceptable to you, since you can always demonize those who oppose it and would roll it back as somehow anachronistic (though I realize that it is probably too sophisticated a word for you).

[Dan]

"since it is, after all, your caricature of those who have actually read and understood the Constitution."

Actually, reading and understanding the Constitution would instill in one a far greater faith in America than the weak, or total lack of, faith that you express in America.

"since there remain those who recognize that your incremental socialism is perfectly acceptable to you, since you can always demonize those who oppose it and would roll it back"

You just can't keep from lying can you, James?

I didn't demonize you or anyone else for opposing the policies of the current administration. In fact, I encouraged you to properly oppose them through the marvelous mechanisms made available to you and every other American by the very Constitution you seek to destroy.

What I called you to task for was advocating violent overthrow of the government for no reason other than that you lost an election and can't seem to accept that your views are in the minority at the moment.

Even if one were to accept all the wild mischaracterizations emanating from Republican prevaricators about this HCR law it hardly has the power to bring down the Republic. Any more than a toady like John Yoo writing memos to please his superiors that claimed that techniques that for more than a century our law had judged to be torture had suddenly become peachy keen had the power to bring down the Republic. Any more than Watergate had the power to bring down the Republic. Any more than the bogus misuse of the impeachment power in both 1868 and and 1998 had the power to bring down the Republic. Or any of the other crises we faced in our history.

People who have a simple and well founded faith in this country understand this. And they don't run around talking up violent revolution.

Only shameless political opportunists and crazy people and weak sisters who have no faith in America do that.

[Dan]

Oh, and James. You have real chutzpah to attribute arrogance to another. You are so bloody arrogant that you believe your judgement to be so far superior to that of the American people that when you lose an election that must be evidence of such a great crisis that any means, including destroying our system of government through violence, is justified to restore us to what James Young knows is best for everyone else. Because those silly American voters couldn't possibly know better than James Young!

You wouldn't know humility if it hit you in the ass. How is the view up their on Mount Olympus?

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

There won't be a revolution because you will not inspire anyone with "give me denial of coverage or give me death". You are an emotional minority. If you support, promote, or incite seditious insurrection then be prepared to pay a heavy, heavy cost, and to have your heirs bear your disgrace.

That isn't Bunker Hill you imagine, it is Decatur and Atlanta burns below you; and soon all the lowcountry.

[BM]

NLS, Where are the March Madness UPDATES!!!?? Slack'in! :)

[Michael Steele]

Not to mention the updates on lesbian bondage clubs and the status of my new private jet and limo. Having to charter jets is such a bother. Don't they realize what an important man I am?

[mr. ed]

Go, Dan!!

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkYqVwrKwZRlpD2yAerf60smeBA4DpEeUc]

"People who have a simple and well founded faith in this country understand this. And they don't run around talking up violent revolution.

"Only shameless political opportunists and crazy people and weak sisters who have no faith in America do that."

Well said!

[HisRoc]

Dan,

Your arguments about having faith in our Constitution and not hysterically screaming for a revolution are well-stated and very rational. Unfortunately, you and your fellow liberals seem to be laboring under the misconception (may I say arrogant misconception?) that only conservatives are guilty of loosing perspective as well as an election. How soon you forget 2000 and 2004!

Here is a random sample of what was being published on Huffington Post in 2006 when Bush was half way through his second term and the Democrats had not yet won control of Congress. Please read this and then eat your words.

"People who have a simple and well founded faith in this country understand this. And they don't run around talking up violent revolution.

"Only shameless political opportunists and crazy people and weak sisters who have no faith in America do that."

I would say that Larisa fits that description to a "T."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/welcome-to-the-final-stag_b_127990.html

[HisRoc]

Correction. the Huff Post item is from 2008, after the Democrats won control of Congress. That makes the "move to the streets" rhetoric even more deplorable.

[Indy]

Jeez - Anyone who posts on this point should take 4 minutes and listen to the actual recording. I did and there is NO way anyone could get the remotest impression J.R. was advocating "don't be violent NOW; wait till LATER". This kind of 'reporting' makes all your posts suspect. Come on ... you can better! It's these kind of irresponsible blogs that bring out all the kooks. Or, as J.R. said in the feed (you forgot to print this part), "Let's all just chill".

[Dan]

HisRoc, I see no reason to eat my words simply because there are kooks on the left who are equivalent to the kooks on the right such as James Young. Please feel free to interpret my words as equally condemning of both. Both have precious little faith in our institutions. And both just love to throw around the isms with wild abandon.

I will say though that I don't recall Democratic Congressman embracing the crazies of the left the way that Republican Congressmen seem to be embracing the crazies of the right today.

For instance, I whole heartedly supported the election of Jim Webb because he was an early opponent of the invasion of Iraq which I considered to be a major strategic blunder that did not further the interests of the United States. I felt it did just the opposite. I haven't seen Webb embracing the crazies of Code Pink. A group which helped the Bushies paint all opposition to their policies as coming from the kooky left rather than from thoughtful Americans who thought the policies terribly unwise. When the crazies were calling Bush a fascist their rallies were not being addressed by the Democratic leadership.

But I have witnessed rallies featuring speakers calling Obama a Marxist and myriad signs calling him that and worse that were addressed by Congressmen Boehner and Cantor. They gave the stamp of approval of the elected leadership of the Republican party to the crazies. They encouraged the crazy. They own the crazy.

That is hardly the same as some unelected dingbat writing for the Huffington Post.

Yes, there are nuts like Ms. Alexandrovna on the left and there are nuts like Mr. Young on the right. I have little use for either.

But let's keep some perspective on just how high the crazy reaches in the Republican party. Right up to the leadership. And I don't know which is worse. That men in such positions would believe this crazy stuff. Or if they know better and are playing with fire for personal gain.

Neither is much of a recommendation for giving them power over America's destiny. You guys need some new leaders in your party. Because these guys are not leaders.

[HisRoc]

Dan,

I agree with you that there are plenty of nut jobs on both sides, however, the left wingers have their Congressional supporters as well. Dennis Kucinich immediately comes to mind.

BTW, "You guys need some new leaders in your party." If you are referring to the Republican Party, they are not my party any more than the Democrats are. I am an Independent.

[Dan]

I don't recall Kucinich calling Bush a fascist. I don't believe it is fair to lump him in with the Republican Congressmen I mentioned above who have engaged in crazy rhetoric. And, as I pointed out, Boehner and Cantor are in the leadership. One generally expects more from leadership than from the back benchers. You certainly never heard Steny Hoyer call President Bush a fascist.

There have been Democratic bomb throwers, but I don't think it would be accurate to describe Kucinich that way.

[HisRoc]

No, Kucinich was too smart to resort to name-calling; he used cut-outs and surrogates instead, like Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and Daniel Ellsberg to do his dirty work under the guise of "impeachment." BTW, didn't you have some choice word for the abuse of the impeachment clause in 1868 and 1998?

[Dan]

Indeed I did. And I wouldn't have called for Bush's impeachment either. Thank heaven the Democratic House leadership during the closing years of the Bush administration was more responsible than the Republican leadership in 1998.

Doesn't anyone believe in elections anymore?

[Elder Berry]

Like many low-information right-wingers, kelley in virginia seems to have no idea what socialism is.

Think Sweden, kelley, not Africa.

Also, socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Think Volvo, kelley.

Hate, fear and violence have been the undercurrent and vocabulary of the right wing for a century or more. They make people fear their own self-interest.

David Frum had it right: the Republicans thought they were running Fox. What they've discovered is that Fox is running them. That's why they don't speak up against all this wingnuttery; they'll be Fox's next victim if they do. They've sold their souls.

[HisRoc]

Elder Berry,

If you are a regular reader here, then you should know that kelley is no right winger.

As to your characterization of the entire right wing political movement for the past century as being based on hate, fear, and violence, you are being a poster child for what this thread is all about: excessive rhetoric that incites violence.

The largest block of voters in our republic today are not Democrats or Republicans. We are the Independents, largely because neither political party has a monopoly on enlightenment or stupidity. Plenty of both can be found on either side of the aisle. When you spew such hateful garbage about those with whom you disagree, you attempt to demonize well-intended fellow citizens who simply don't share your philosophy. And, that makes you no better than the extreme right wingers that you seem to despise.

[change]

Hisroc,
In case you haven’t noticed the paid bloggers are out in force these days. I imagine elder berry is one of those.

They are trying to minimize the “tea party” group, and make everyone on the right look extreme, without looking at the extremists in their own party. They are trying to convince people that the “leaders” of the republican party are stirring up the pot, when it is actually “our” president who refuses to quit campaigning, and has taken the Bush mantra of “bring it on” to the conservatives (at least when Bush said it he meant it towards our enemies; but I suppose many of them look at the conservatives as enemies).

It really is sad to see that the leadership of this country (now all democrats) only want to continue to divide us for their own gain; sadder yet are those who willingly, or ignorantly, refuse to see it.

They promote the benefits of “socialist” countries, without understanding that those countries are able to provide things for their citizens (I would suggest inferior things), because we spend much of our resources protecting them and the entire free world from domination. The lessons of the first (final) world war and the second (final) world war are foreign to them.
They are spoiled children living off the work of their parents (the USA); even as such they cannot get things right.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkYqVwrKwZRlpD2yAerf60smeBA4DpEeUc]

Either HisRoc and change are back on their halluciogenic pills again or have another Gig for Republican trolling!

[HisRoc]

Change,

Did you just hear something that sounded like a fart?

[G. A. Harrison]

C'mon Ben. This isn't even funny. Jim actually called these folks out and you twist his words.

If you can't do better than this, move it over to the Kos!

[TomPaine]

HisRoc: That was your own breath blowing back into your face!