I keep waiting for the "morally superior" party to start acting like it at some point. I guess it's gonna be a long wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqlWiy731Yg&feature=player_embedded

See unclelight's comment. I therefore conclude that all progressives are racists. They must be disbanded and silenced in the name of decency! I also support using derogatory language to decry derogatory language.

The point is that disrespectful, threatning and abusive behavior is unacceptable regardless of which political party your represent. I have spoken with people from across the political spectrum about this and to a person, they feel that the outrageous behavior that we are seeing from these radical fringe elements needs to stop. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

The only way to stop this behavior is for us as a community to fight back and call these people out whenever they step over the line. It's like when a child throws a tantrum to get a toy, if you give in then he/she will learn that throwing tantrums gets results (and also creates really unpleasant adults).

These people need to understand that from now on, every single time that they cross the line of acceptable behavior they will only help the candidates that they target get elected. We need to fight hard, fight fair and fight back. We need to Rain On Their Tea Party.

Unacceptable behavior is unacceptable behavior. To the extent that it leads people to support the candidate being attacked, it is also counterproductive and stupid.

I'd like to play devils advocate and defend the tea partiers but they make it far too easy to paint their entire movement as a bunch of backward, ignorant, racists. I get it. They're pissed off, strongly disagree with the current majority and wish to take an active role in displaying their disapproval. More power to 'em until the racial epithets & anti-gay rhetoric begin to fly with minimal resistance. Where's the "knock that shit off" from within the group? The apparent lack thereof might make you appear to be...I don't know...a bunch of backward, ignorant, racists perhaps?

I am glad to see these comments as it leads most of whatever we call independents to conclude that the Republican party is not for them. Makes November a lot easier. Use the comments on commercials, and while Democrats are at it, constantly use Grayson's line that the Republican health care plan was to not get sick, but if you get sick, die quickly.

How rich. A battle between "purists" and "activists". Funny how I started out here as a total "get off yer lazy asses" activist, and am now lambasted as "tediously pure". Perhaps I've been dramatizing the middle ground. Wouldn't call it a happy medium.

Not saying one way or the other, but there is a bit of similarity to the kid that shared his cookies in kindergarten, and while he wasn't looking the rest were stolen, that "learns" to never, never, never trust anybody again. I mean, if you let 2000 set your moral compass for the next 50 years, what kind of identity is that? Party of Truman and JFK? Yeah, I can see that. More the party of Vince Lombardi, though. I can be real. That's what political parties are for. They're gangs, and the D's feel a rumble comin' on.

Threatening behavior is off limits. But disrepectful behavior? Wasn't the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam Anti-war movement, and the anti-Iraq war movement filled with desrespectful behavior? Certainly you thought so if you were on the other side. ...No reason to be disrespectful here, in another 90 years you Negroes will have your rights. Heck, if you will just be respectful we would quit bombing those Vietnamese villages. Of course, there were weapons of mass destruction, just didn't find any. So be respectful. --- I think the Tea Partiers are absurd and rediculous. But suggesting we might accept their ideas if they were just respectful is equally rediculous. --- Been that way for a long time don't see why it would change now.

Kari & Carla

Plz take off your blue colored glasses for just a minute. Last I heard, the GOP was the family value/moral majority party. My comment was an indictment of the GOP's lack of morality.

The prism that you view the world through is a lil bit out of alignment.

Maybe those Tea Partiers could move to Texas where they would be among more kindred spirits and help Gov. Perry arrange for secession of the Lone Star State.

Steve, the way I see the difference between threatening and disrespectful behavior:

Threatening:

blowing up (or threatening to destroy) ROTC offices, vandalism, anti-abortion protesters either publicizing the doctors they wanted to kill or other things like calling their homes and saying "you kill babies!".

Disrespectful:

*sit ins and picket lines (not just civil rights but the Reuther brothers and others occupying auto plants before the formation of the UAW)

*trying to register to vote, going to town hall meetings and asking tough questions of elected officials

*the sort of name calling and spitting we saw this weekend in the capitol.

The folks who do the first 2 of the above have been trying to upset the status quo, but in the style of civil disobedience.

Nothing civil about the last group, and as long as they are not violent, the best reaction to them is to tell friends and others that people so rude deserve to be defeated in whatever cause they support.

That's what happened to the Nadershouters in 2000--I knew someone who was leaning towards voting for him that year but was disgusted by the behavior.

"Maybe those Tea Partiers could move to Texas where they would be among more kindred spirits and help Gov. Perry arrange for secession of the Lone Star State."

Nah, I'd rather stay here and fight against you.

Ready?

Most of the supposed abuse by Tea Party activists is undocumented -- mere claims by partisans who would benefit from undermining the movement. I suspect any truly documented abuse will be discovered to be Alinsky style left wingers trying to discredit the Tea Party movement.

Posted by: LibsRLosers | Mar 22, 2010 8:33:39 PM

It was Gingrich who said that a positive agenda wins more elections than anger wins.

What is your positive agenda? Or do you plan to win elections using anger?

This is stupid.

If teabaggers want to start all sorts of shit then let them. The rest of us civilized people see right through their gum flapping. If they get violent or threaten people then get the police involved. Otherwise affording them any reaction is just pandering to their childish need for attention.

They can all go fuck themselves for all I care, politics will move on with or without them.

Kari - "Turning the other cheek" worked for Gandhi. It IS the way things work.

Sorry for the profanity, I'm just rather perturbed that BlueOregon, the "water cooler for Oregon Dems," is even dignifying teabagger jackasses with any kind of response.

"Maybe those Tea Partiers could move to Texas where they would be among more kindred spirits and help Gov. Perry arrange for secession of the Lone Star State."

Nah, I'd rather stay here and fight against you.

Ready?

Bring it on. How about first of all quit hiding behind a pseudonym?

This disrespect thread has a trace of hypocrisy, no? After all, how many times do we reference the other side by way of a sexual pejorative?

Threats of violence against politicians are illegal. That falls under the definition of domestic terrorism. Most on the Left did not allow their own to make death threats against the last President and right wing congresspeople...and yet, that doesn't stop Tea Bag/ Neoconservative/Republicans (you're all the same thing, so don't kid yourselves) from diving down into the cesspool and pretending that everyone on the left is down in that cesspool as well, so that makes it all better. We're not, and you people can't use "precedent" to rationalize away domestic terrorism and essentially treason. That's not covered under the First Amendment, that is a crime.

zull, after watching the last Administration commit treason daily, and liberals carrying on as usual, it's not hard to figure how they can get away with it.

Definitely a double standard. One is reminded of the SS (secret service) talking to Hunter S. Thompson about his statements that "George Bush should be stomped and Ed Meese fucked by an elk". Of course he turned it humorous by exploring, in detail, just where the legal line was..."well, what if it were Bush and an elk. No people involved. Just lock him in a basement with an elk and feed it acid first. Those muthers get really horny on acid". Which they conceded would be OK to say.

Meanwhile the TEA hangers-on are seeing how close they can come to outright calls for a lynching and violent revolution. Definitely a double standard.

Nah, I'd rather stay here and fight against you.

Ready?

Missed your chance. Had a friend from Texas that was living here for about 18 months with this great idea that liberals and TEA protesters need to work together to bring back dueling. As a kind of process sociology, I think it's brilliant. Anyway, he went back convinced that Portland is pure talk, no action, and the talk comes through a pretty narrow filter, from all sides. So, you missed your chance. It was mentioned enough on here. Trolling somewhere else back then, or just like he said- all talk?

Ultimately this thread has as much merit as trying to figure out why the neighborhood pup always humps your leg. Dogs eat it, screw it or pee on it. In Kari's case the cunning plan is always to give hard money to a particular Dem, give soft money to the Democratic Party, or to donate to a non-profit, promoting an issue identified with Dems. There are SO many ways to have a voice. $5 bill. $10 bill. Recurring debit. American democracy truly covers the spectrum!

And yet you, a so-called progressive, just called her a "brassy babe" on the air Kari. Wow, just wow. The sexism, it burns. This stuff rolls off the tongues of men so easily, you don't even realize it, do you, Kari? Brassy Babe? Wow.

Two points worth considering:

1. The old Chinese adage about the person who strikes the first blow admitting to have the weaker mind.

2. Bob Herbert's column An Absence of Class

The latter point may be beyond the comprehension of some people, but perhaps they will be able to appreciate the first if they give it some thought.

Hey Kari, why is it okay for you to call her a "brassy babe" on KPOJ. Talk about a sexist comment!

Just left this message on Rep Hoyle's FB page:

Hello Representative Hoyle, Geoff Ludt here with the Oregon Tea Party. I am sad to hear of the disparaging remarks seemingly directed at you on a YouTube comment thread and worse, that your daughter discovered them. As a grassroots organizer with a private family life, I too have been subjected to the same kind of vitriol and believe these kinds of statements paint folks into an us versus them mentality which, it appears you are working to capitalize on with your "Rain on Their Tea Party" initiative. I fully support your right to do so but also believe it may serve to deepen the chasm. I believe if we are to stand for individual liberty and the rights enumerated in the Constitution, all parties need to have honest, open lines of communication. With kind regards -- Geoff.

Dems are just as guilty.

It's why I shed my Democratic voter registration and once again am "non-affiliated". Both parties are nothing more than suck-ups to their respective special interests, while ignoring the common folk just trying to make a living. I've been called quite a few names by some openly Democratic folks simply because of my position on transit investment in Portland, and it's hardly been respectful from the left side of the gallery. Likewise the right side has been just as disrespectful.

I'm done with politics and if it gets any worse, why should I bother voting. It's not like my vote, or my voice is heard by anyone. It's all about who pays the big campaign contributions.

So, the Ludtites regard themselves as a party?

@Erik H. -- I feel you.

"believe if we are to stand for individual liberty and the rights enumerated in the Constitution,"

To build respect, anyone in politics needs to remember the words of the First Amendment include "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances".

Note the words peaceably and petition.

Many good souls in this country do not include yelling bad words or trying to shout down a speaker in the definition of those words peaceably and petition.

It was wrong in 2000 for the Nadershouters to chant LET RALPH DEBATE at an outdoor speech of Tipper Gore in Salem in 2000. Drowning her out was going to result in his being invited into a debate? Yeah, right, tell me another one.

It was equally wrong for people in the library auditorium in Salem to attempt to shout down Cong. Schrader and not let him answer questions.

It was within the free speech rights of a woman leaving that auditorium to say "never knew there were so many rude people in Salem".

Maybe just waving copies of the Constitution but not trying to shout him down may have been more successful? Or at least not alienated as many people?

The question movements which try to shout down speakers need to ponder is this: what is your objective?

If the objective is to tell the world you are angry, I believe we have gotten the message by now.

If the objective is to elect someone else, is that the most effective way to do it?

I've known people who were undecided, but when someone was spectacularly rude to a particular candidate they decided to check out that candidate (and sometimes vote for that person) as a statement against rudeness.

I was in that auditorium and on the way out asked someone why they were so angry at the congressman.

"He's going against the Constitution!", someone said.

I asked which part of the Constitution. The person said ALL OF IT!

I asked why they thought he had violated a particular article of the Constitution which had nothing to do with Congress, and got a blank look.

Gingrich has said that anger doesn't win as many elections as a positive program.

What is the positive program of the Oregon Tea Party?

You don't like the play on words of "Rain on Their Tea Party" but I'm glad to see that you " fully support" her right to use the name .

You say you "believe it may serve to deepen the chasm"

If the name were changed to "protect Val from the rude people" would you present a positive alternative? Or would you say someone had a lot of nerve in calling the Oregon Tea Party rude?

I have a button which says COURTESY IS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

JFK said "Civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof".

Barry Goldwater said, "You catch more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head".

Not a partisan sentiment--just the views of well mannered people.

An amazing number of people don't register with major parties these days. Some voters actually make it a point to vote for the more civil, courteous candidate. I once voted for my second choice in an election because of a nasty commercial run by the candidate I had originally intended to support.

Yelling creates press coverage, and gets a lot of attention.

But carried too far, it can create the impression of what a friend of mine has said,

"When they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

There are elections in this state which have been decided by very slim margins. If a group of friends get together and decide to tell all their friends they are voting a particular way because........ the vocal campaigners, the consultants, etc. may never find out about those discussions. But they could sway an election.

Geoff Ludt ---I am glad to see you are a person with good manners.

In 2000, I ran into some friends of mine in the fall and discovered they were Nader supporters. They were shocked when I said "Gee, I'm surprised at that, as I always thought of you as having good manners" and then told of being at the rally.

I told them about being at the speech and trying to move to a place where I could actually hear the speech I came to hear. One of the Nadershouters yelled at me YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH FREE SPEECH, LADY?

I responded that I believed free speech included the right to hear the speaker!

There may be some positive ideas from Oregon Tea Party. If so, we have the right to debate those issues openly and decide as individuals whether we agree or disagree. That is what democracy is all about.

Those of us old enough to remember the 1960s remember the violent wing of protests. There were those who said it was OK because they were protesting the war, and those who said that was unacceptable behavior and in the long run peaceful protests were more successful.

There was as wide a chasm between those 2 sets of folks as between any partisan groups.

Wise movements police the actions of members. This is why the nonviolent demonstrations (for civil rights or whatever) win out in the end.

I'll close with a statement which is the opposite of us vs. them.

It is the Beatitude Blessed are the Peacemakers.

Does the Tea Party believe in that? Or are they just another group trying to convince us that whatever they do is acceptable because they are doing it?

Many of us are tired of being told we have to choose a side, and then never question the wisdom of that side.

Last I heard, we still have the right to make decisions as individuals.

I support people who are pragmatic, have a positive agenda, and are willing to discuss details.

@Kurt Hagadakis -- interesting comment considering that the battle cry of the Luddites, "smash the machines" sounds strangely parallel to some progressive positions on SUV's, Coal Power, Logging Trucks and, LCD TV's ...

Kari, please help me understand the difference between "gabby broad" and "brassy babe" because I ain't seeing it.

@LT -- I don't mind her using the word play at all. My thoughts were that the reaction itself (a facebook fundraising campaign that capitalizes on division) may not serve to foster open communication. That said, I understand that she is an elected official and, has a need to take opportunities to raise funds where she can and, I also feel it is her right to do so but, it all feels so strangely cynical and sort of unproductive.

Most of us in the Tea Party movement really are the folks you grew up with and can be communicated with as such.

Just my .02,

Geoff.

Geoff

The real people we need to fight back against are faux-progressives who call women names on the radio yet think their namecalling is superior to the teabaggers.

Kari called me this morning and copped to using a poor choice of words on the radio. I was glad to get the call and accepted his apology immediately. See how easy it is to be civil? Also, major kudos to Kari's lovely bride.

Great coverage on KPOJ, nice job.

So offhandedly using a term like "brassy babe" is now worthy of disdain and accusing one of sexism? I suppose that qualifies as "hate speech" as well? Give me a break.

See, this is why I'm unable to take hardcore progressives any more seriously than many of the loons on the far right. The incessant outrage over the most innocuous comment or action, seemingly always looking to take offense to something. What a bunch of hand-wringing ninnies we have become.

I don't know Kari Chisholm personally but I'd wager that he's far less sexist than your average male.

For the record, I was raised by an ardent feminist and view all humans as equals. Do I use "brassy" language with my female companions and get the same in return? Damn straight. Wont catch me pretending to be a neutered male and don't find weak women particularly appealing. Being human, respecting our differences and having a good time is far more mutually rewarding.

Kari sexist? Bah!

LT your quote-

"Geoff Ludt ---I am glad to see you are a person with good manners."

Thanks LT it was nice to see you intellect, calm, and level headiness. Your article and words even though lengthy were need.

That's so true, Geoff. I was thinking more about the principle, that "change scares us".

George Washington didn't "talk it out" with the British and Loyalists--he shot them.

"George Washington didn't "talk it out" with the British and Loyalists--he shot them."

Nor did Johnson, MacNamara, Westmoreland, Nixon and Kissinger "talk it out" with Ho Chi Minh until 58,000 American lives were sacrificed in vain and countless others returned with PTSD. Not to mention the estimated 1.5 to 3 million Vietnamese dead that you, Boats, probably couldn't care less about.

"George Washington didn't "talk it out" with the British and Loyalists--he shot them."

Not the same kind of shooting. The only shooting he did like that started WWI, which is what the French and Indian War should be called. Then, he was like the TEA people. When gov looked to pay for the war he started, he got all tax sensitive.

Bill's point is well taken that we still fail to grasp the full obscenity of Nixon and Kissinger. Even Hitler didn't have Himmler play good cop/bad cop with him, in dealing with the Jews. We still don't get the fundamental difference between gunboat diplomacy and having no alternative.

"Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death, or victory."

Val Hoyle is a bull-shit artist like most of the Blue Oregon sheeple.

She was exposed on a previous thread as self-identifying as a vapid stereotype on her Facebook money-bomb fan page:

Just another mini-van driving soccer mom trying to make the world a better place, at least my corner of it.

Her shrieking trolls started attacking Democrats (people in her own party!) who recognized immediately she is an embarrassment and a joke.

Now she has a quote from a former REPUBLICAN U.S. Senator (Margaret Chase Smith R-Maine) as her blurb on her money-bomb page. Smith was a strong supporter of the Vietnam War for those of you too young and dumb to remember and no friend of true progressive causes through out her career. And she became an obnoxious, aloof, jerk who didn't even have keep an office for her constituents in Maine by her last term.

Hoyle is such a transparent fraud. And she has now shown not once, BUT TWICE, between her and whoever is helping her with her campaign she doesn't have even have an original, even half-way intelligent comment of her own, to use as a blurb as she begging people for money. Her comments above are as vapid as the stereotype she obviously embraced and is now trying to run away from.

The issue in 2010 is confronting the frauds in our own Party who are using the fringe on the other side to distract attention from what losers they are. The Tea Party movement is the distraction scumball Democratic leaders used to screw over poor and working people in this bogus health care reform so they could give the private insurance companies they actually represent a windfall. What a surprise that today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said they could live with this "reform". That's the kind of change you morons can believe in.

Anybody who lines up behind her to "stand up" to the numerically insignificant fools on the other side rather then the obviously venal, transparent politicians like her is being played as a fool by Val and those supporting her.

The richest thing, though, is how she bad she makes those in Lane County who appointed her.

By the way, that very quote Hoyle has chosen by Smith has a controversial background in it's own right.

She originally said it in a Senate speech in 1950 to criticize the McCarthyites. In 1970, however, she repeated this as the them of a speech attacking the anti-war movement. Then, like now, Democratic and Republican Congress members didn't do squat to end the war and people like her resented the fact the American public was making their life as poiticians exactly what is should be: Difficult and unpleasant if you are elitist, self-centered, and arrogant.

She started out, as all good politicians do, supposedly making her point calling out the extreme "left", those she said, who in her mind espoused all manner of violence, genuine acts of which, as it happens, few were wholeheartedly defending at the time. Midway through her speech, however, she switched from a rather pedantic criticism of of generic "leftist" violence (which included "trespass" by the way), to her real criticism of those who had been criticizing her for her unwavering support of the Vietnam War, and for generally just not deferring to the elites like her running the country:

Yet, excesses on the extreme right, such as those 20 years ago, can mute our national conscience. As was the case 20 years ago when the Senate was silenced and politically intimidated by one of its Members, so today many Americans are intimidated and made mute by the emotional violence of the extreme left.

Oh, and by the way, as unsympathetic a figure as Smith was by that point in her career, she made that speech in which she revived that comment in June 1970 in response to the national shock and outrage after the National Guard had fired into crowd of students, killing four at Kent State on May 4, 1970, two at Jackson State on May 14, 1970, and wounding many others.

She didn't criticize the Guard, or Nixon, or Governor Rhodes, or any of the politicians who didn't take responsibility. She was, as much as anything, passive-aggressively blaming the anti-war movement as being responsible for a climate that to her diminished the outrageousness of those killings.

I wonder what a suburban white, middle-class, obviously arrogantly elitist mini-van driving soccer mom like Hoyle thinks of this quote by Smith, properly viewed in the context of the time, (although she's apparently is to young to have much of a first hand sense of the context of the time):

Said Senator Margaret Chase Smith, "The press has become more sympathetic to the enemy than to our own national interest." (Congressional Record, June 16, 1971)

Smith essentially was the intellectual parent of the Reagan and later Bush-neocon re-writing of history that the press and protest movement, being part of the larger social liberalism movement of the 60's, was responsible for losing the war and most of what they saw as going wrong in the U.S. in the last half of the 20th century. It is not a wholly indefensible argument that she was an ideological grandparent of the Tea Party movement.

If ever there as an intellectually dishonest moral equivalency it was how Smith arrogantly reverted to equating McCarthyism with anti-war protests. But that was vintage Smith. Either Hoyle is to ignorant to know the history of that quote, or she thinks most of the people she can scam money out of are too young and dumb to know about it. Or maybe she actually is that vapid stereotype of she first identified as and actually has contempt for the better values that define progressivism for which Smith did not have much respect either.

What is truly rich about Rep. Val Hoyle is that she had a stellar rookie season in which she sincerely considered the needs of her district, one that has been hit hard by the recession. House District 14 has a high concentration of mobile home parks and a high percentage of mobile home owners who are behind on their property taxes. What's worse is that Lane county often spends more in their attempts to collect these back taxes than they would recover if the original debt were paid in full. Rep. Hoyle's legislative solution to provide property tax relief for the county's poorest was simple, fair, and cost-effective. What's not to love about a bill that keeps people in their homes and saves money for cash-strapped counties? Support for her bill was unanimous, just as the decision to appoint her was unanimous. Anybody who comes out this strong and this smart is somebody to watch--and support--in my book.

"Most of us in the Tea Party movement really are the folks you grew up with"

No, actually, the folks I grew up with in Michigan were of the IKE/ Gerald Ford persuasion, not the sort of folks who yell at others. A relative in politics, another relative who taught school, so no, I never grew up with the idea that "public sector" and "private sector" were 2 diff. classes of people.

Then in 7th & 8th grade it was living out in rural Calif. and being active in 4-H.

Then in high school living in a small town near a military installation---knew lots of people from either small business families or military families.

Although he sounded hot-headed in the 1960s, many of the people I grew up with lived by an idea Goldwater later described as "you catch more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head".

Tonight I went to a candidate debate---2 candidates for local office who are living by a pledge to be civil to one another. When I mentioned the Goldwater quote to the candidate I don't support but had congratulated on the civil tone of the campaign, her response was a dignified version of RIGHT ON!

Huge rallies get publicity, but what do they solve? What if it turns out that independent minded voters are looking for intelligent, civil, solution-oriented candidates of whatever persuasion?

You might want to talk to your fellow TEA folks about pondering that question.

What is truly rich about Rep. Val Hoyle is that she had a stellar rookie season in which she sincerely considered the needs of her district, one that has been hit hard by the recession.

The answer to HKnight's propaganda is that Hoyle's bill was not controversial in the slightest. It was an easy "win". What kind of idiot at any time defends regressive taxes on those at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale? It's a strawman argument saying her work on that bill is a sign of anything, much less that she has the right values and intents.

Politicians do the right things for the wrong reasons all of the time. Or because it's no skin off their nose. Or because it's the "right" thing to do so long as it keeps the social order roughly in place. The charade of the health care reform battle proves that where the whole Tea Party sideshow was just a convenient distraction for Democrats as they really sought to give a permanent windfall to the industry while hypocritically painting themselves as being the ones sticking up for working and poor people.

So she doesn't get credit for doing the minimum someone claiming to be a Democrat would and should do. And for not slamming Democrats who let it stand that long if she really is trying to claim hers was a difficult moral battle against tough foes. In fact, it raises a question whether there she and her supporters are propagandistically trying to paint a little too heroic picture of her in that case as in the Tea Party case.

She might be "smart", but mainly in that way that people need to keep a close eye on a politician and not trust him or her because the really odd way she presented herself in this effort to raise money suggests there is something not quite right there. And there's something not to be trusted about HKnight who tries to distract from the fact there is something not quite right there.

Whenever someone uses the term teabagger, I stop reading because I know what's coming. Either bad sophomoric humor (that may be redundant), or an irrational angry rant that rationalizes its mean spiritedness by arguing the equivilent of..."but they said it first". That doesn't work with my children, and its embarrassing from self professed grown-ups and pundits.

And just as importantly, if you want to get realpolitik about it, that tone not only doesn't work, it is counterproductive.

@Robert Harris: I can say the same for "Democrat Party."

"...their bul**** will backfire..."

Obamacare is going to backfire. The Dems are going to lose BIG in November.

Robert Harris,

How about all of the "America Hater", "Socialist", "Fascist" rhetoric that's been coming from the right lately. Is that also counterproductive? Have you gone on right-wing blogs and called in to right-wing radio shows to complain about it?

Posted by: fbear | Mar 24, 2010 9:52:03 PM

Robert Harris,

How about all of the "America Hater", "Socialist", "Fascist" rhetoric that's been coming from the right lately. Is that also counterproductive? Have you gone on right-wing blogs and called in to right-wing radio shows to complain about it?

It's also hypocritical and ignorant of history, as mainstream historians have just published new research that establishes that Prescott Bush was, in fact, one of the major architects of the Nazi financial system. It's not a conspiracy theory anymore. When they praise the Bush family legacy, they are suborning treason. Those are facts. The rest is talk.

I never understand why, when I criticize Obama, I get asked, "are you a racist" first, and then something like, "well he's better than McCain" as a close second. Doesn't anyone understand that the left and right are the same? Bush handed a blank check to the military industrial complex and Obama just handed a blank check to the insurance and medical industry. So what? We all lose. What most people forget in their hurry to demonize the "Tea Party" is that it is and always has been about the outrageous taxation that comes out of DC, core American values and the Constitution as law of the land. That we are now to be forced to buy a product that most of us neither want, need or can afford, is atrocious AND unconstitutional. I would like to see Oregon jump into the ring with the now, 38 other states, making a mandate to NOT participate in ObamaCare. Name calling and divisive tactics from the 2 parties in power is shameful and non productive. When it all comes undone, remember, those that you derided, the voices you tried to quell, will rise up and trample you into the dirt like so much sod. History WILL repeat itself. And if I remember my history, the tyrants always fall.

<hr/>