Radtke rips Reid regarding “Tea Party” and women comment
By JR Hoeft | Sunday, April 10th, 2011 | PolicyOn Friday, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), majority leader, said this about women and the Tea Party on the Senate floor:
“Now the Tea Party is trying to sneak through its extreme social agenda – issues that have nothing to do with funding the government. They are willing to throw women under the bus, even if it means they’ll shut down the government.”
Extreme social agenda? Defunding Planned Parenthood throws women under the bus and is extreme?
Regardless, Jamie Radtke, former leader of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots and current U.S. Senate candidate for the GOP nomination in Virginia took exception to Reid’s statement:
“Does Harry Reid think women are stupid? The Tea Party, which by the way counts women like me as the majority of its supporters, are Americans who refuse to sit quietly on the bus while Harry Reid drives us off a financial cliff.
“One look at the national debt will tell you that politicians have been throwing taxpayers under the bus for a very long time. And now Senator Reid is trying to use women to shield himself and his party from blame.
“Senator Reid, stop insulting women and patriotic Americans for your own failures and get out of the way so we can start saving our families and our country.”
A deal was struck late Friday that trims $39 billion from the remainder of this year’s budget, in addition to the $12 billion that has already been cut through continuing resolutions. However, Planned Parenthood remains funded.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
47 Responses to "Radtke rips Reid regarding “Tea Party” and women comment"
This “deal” was disgusting. But most “deals” are, in the end. I don’t have a dog in the “planned parenthood” debate but, like NPR, does it really need federal funding? I agree with Radtke on this one. Maybe not for the same reasons, but I agree.
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and all the Democrats are pounding the anti-woman message hard and heavy because the message of the lunatic fringe that wishes to kill women is much easier than justifying a $1.6 trillion deficit.
If it takes off, the Dems cannot run unless the Republicans get wrapped up in it. But the news media is helping push the propaganda like the “Useful Idiots” they are.
It’s all about diverting the message. I am glad the Bearing Drift crew doesn’t participate in such propaganda. It’s about the Deficit and debt, the message is the same.
[...] I thought this statement by Jamie Radtke was an opportunity well-seized, and liked its tone. Curiously, no other Senate candidate picked up on Reid’s comment. Score one for Radtke: “Does Harry Reid think women are stupid? The Tea Party, which by the way counts women like me as the majority of its supporters, are Americans who refuse to sit quietly on the bus while Harry Reid drives us off a financial cliff. [...]
What does Harry Reid and the Democrat’s allegation of “war on women” do when they are called out by a woman that doesn’t let that just go by unanswered?
Good job on the part of Senate Candidate Jamie Radtke! What part of “We don’t have the money” does Sen. Harry Reid not get? We need Jamie Radtke in the Senate calling out the Democrats and others bent on fiscal ruin.
Great reply, Jamie, well-worded and to the point! I, for one, am tired of having the damned bus keep running me over and then backing up over me so it can hit me again. When the House and Senate were quibbling about $30 Billion of a $1,600 Billion deficit, I heard the backup warning beeps again.
From one Reid to another – Senator Reid, this spin is so dumb and transparent it is beyond laughable.
Jamie Radtke hit this easy pitch out of the park.
Poor Radtke. She just got the Palin Kiss of Death.
Jaime Radtke shows once again she’s a political wolf – and obviously not one to miss an opportunity to make news – regardless of truth or accuracy. I’m so not impressed. Does Radtke think voters are stupid? Reid’s actual remarks:
“My wife and I have been married for more than 50 years. We have one daughter and nine granddaughters. I love these women. One day, one of them may need a cancer screening. It’s not a pleasant thought, but that’s the reality of life. Over their lives they’ll also need other tests like cholesterol and blood pressure screenings – tests that are less serious, but just as important. They should be able to get the tests that could save their lives. So should every single woman in America. I believe that – and frankly, that’s not so controversial of a belief. Some women, of course, have doctors. Others, including many of the poorest among us, do not. So where do they go to get blood pressure or cholesterol or cancer screenings? Thankfully, there is a little-known part of a little-known law that saves many lives. It’s called Title X, and it’s part of a public health law. And it means that women and girls can go to their local health department or a community clinic and get these tests. More than five million women use centers funded by Title X every year. Five million.
Some watching us today – and we know the whole world is watching – may be asking why I’m talking about women’s health. When the question before us is the budget of the biggest economy on the planet, some may ask why we’re talking about this smallest corner of it. With a government shutdown looming not weeks away, or days away, but just hours away – why are we talking about whether women can keep getting something as simple and as non-controversial as cancer screenings? The answer is that Republicans want to shut down our nation’s government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need. And by the way, that does not include abortion. It is illegal to use federal funds for abortion services. So anyone who says this debate is over abortion isn’t being truthful. It is about simple and important health services.
Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there is nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings? That is indefensible, and everyone should be outraged – women and men. Republican leaders in the House have only a few hours left to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how positively shameful that would be. For months, this conversation has been about billions and trillions of dollars. It has been about weighty issues and difficult decisions. This debate used to be about saving money. No longer. We have an agreement on the cuts and savings. And that agreement includes a historic level of cuts. But now the Tea Party is trying to sneak through its extreme social agenda – issues that have nothing to do with funding the government. They are willing to throw women under the bus, even if it means they’ll shut down the government. Their agenda is an extreme agenda. I don’t agree with their ideas on social policy. But in our democracy, those ideas, however radical, deserve a debate if they want one. But that debate does not belong in an urgent budget bill to keep the country running. And it especially doesn’t belong here at this late hour. The consequences of letting our country’s funding expire would be devastating. It would be devastating to our troops, to our small businesses and to Americans’ everyday lives – people who just want to get a home loan or get their tax refund or get their paycheck. It would damage our image and credibility around the world. But Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health and my nine granddaughters’ health. They’re asking me to sacrifice the health of women in Nevada and across America. I won’t do it. As a legislator, I’m frustrated. And as an American, I’m appalled. As a husband, a father and a grandfather, I’m personally offended.”
I’m shocked Jay D., you don’t get it! This whole thing is a distraction from the overall mess. That being our giant deficits, hyper spending on everything, and near impossible debt. If you really wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, and I do, this wasn’t the best opportunity. That and more prep work needs to go into, because this “war on women” stuff ain’t over.
The point is, in the distraction, Harry Reid spun it into an attack on the Tea Party. He derides their extreme social agenda. Sure, the Tea Party does have many from the social conservative side, but there are also a great deal who are fiscal conservatives, but liberal or libertarian on social issues.
Despite the BS Harry Reid is spewing, the Tea Party is not a coalition on social issues! When the Tea Party goes on to social issues, they will lose core groups and their ability to cooperate will be diminished.
Harry Reid attacked the Tea Party in this distraction. So, Jay D., just what group does this “political wolf” come from? The Tea Party? So, she shouldn’t respond? He ABSOLUTELY IS hiding behind women and children in this spectacle of a distraction. This is about righting the ship. Planned Parenthood was probably being used as a chip to trade for concessions. There are not enough votes in the senate to defund PP. That is the REAL issue. Radtke was right and called him out on his distracting spin move.
In principle, and this is for later reference, Planned Parenthood is not the only place you can go. Fact is, Jay D., despite the smoke & mirrors Harry Reid put in front of you, government funds are in effect fungible. You take it for health sedrvices and swear up and down you won’t spend it subsidizing abortion. Guess what? It is a matter of accounting to use that money ANYWHERE YOU WANT. Reid’s point of it being illegal is a technicality that doesn’t prevent subsidizing abortions. Frankly, some people don’t want to pay for what they see as murder.
If you are truly concerned about women’s health, how about we set up replacements for Planned Parenthood that don’t offer abortions? We can fund them and then cut Planned Parenthood off until they also stop.
But Planned Parenthood is an issue for another time when there are enough votes. We do need to cut. Yes, all you sanctimonious bastards, EVEN SAMLL MISUSES AND WASTES OF MONEY COUNT!. Gee, a few billion here and a few there….soon you’re talking about REAL MONEY! Then you have the princple of the thing. Look, I know plenty of Pro-Choicers that would never ask someone to fund abortion if they held it as against their religion and murder. The government shouldn’t be in the abortion business and despite Reid’s rhetoric and quoting of the law, it certainly is. Indirectly or not.
If you are pro-choice, fine. However, when defunding PP does come up as a real target for cuts, think twice before you demand social conservatives or any that object on a religious basis pay for it. Don’t expect us to believe abortion isn’t indirectly funded.
I just wanted to make an important qualifier to what I previously posted. Good fiscal stewardship involves honesty and adhereing to principle. Especially if you are spending the hard earned money of taxpayers. Yes, when compared to entitlement spending or defense spending, things like NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the study of chipmunk mating habits, don’t amount to much. However, little white lies often lead to big dark ones with practice. Small theft or mispending leads to more egregious issues. We DO need to “sweat the small stuff” in this regard.
I am very often frustrated by the game where some people preach that those little cost saving don’t matter. They certainly add up and are moral precedent for further behavior. When I said,”sanctimonious bastards” I meant that in a general sense. I don’t want anyone, or more importantly, Jay D., to think that was aimed at him. It wasn’t. Just me venting in general. Jay D., I very much enjoy reading your posts. We just have a minor disagreement here, on Radtke. That wasn’t aimed at you.
It is not that what Radtke said about Reid is wrong. What is wrong is that some of us are willing to help Radtke make hay with her attack on Reid, an attack of one self-serving politician on another.
Jamie is indeed a political wolf — and a political hog, and a political sheep. So is Harry. For all the disparity in their political rhetoric, there is not a comparable difference in substance between the Reids and the Reidtkes.
Britt,
There is a big problem with focusing on the minor — even if it adds up in the end — at a time when we are being swallowed by a major. The word “priorities” comes to mind in the context of the monumental failures throughout history.
Jacob, at absolutely no point did I advocate ignoring the big issues. All I am saying is the little stuff adds up. Additionally, a little cheating or stealing adds up to more abuse of the taxpayer.
If you can justify a little misuse of funds because it is only a billion, that is your fiscal and moral deficiency. Not saying you do, just making a point.
I do advocate entitlement reform and yes cutting defense. Don’t try to paint me as only focusing on small amounts and ignoring the greater problems.
Britt, no worries – this topic gets everyone riled up. But I do “get it”.
#1. The PP rider was strategic. Toss it on the table, watch the Democrats squeal – then trade the rider for cuts AND both sides collect political cover on the abortion issue…political theatre by both Reid & Boehner – and Jamie Radtke.
#2. I understand your frustration with folks acting like pennies don’t add up to dollars, but the $350 million/year PP receives really is barely a “fart in a windstorm”
and the rider had nothing to do with fiscal restraint and everything to do w/ ideology and pandering to the base(s). Jaime cherry picked Reid’s statement and then used the ‘woman card’ to do her own grandstanding. She could have shown true TP colors and called out both sides, IMO.
#3. There are a whole bunch of things I would prefer NOT to fund – but I don’t get a choice. Why should evangelicals be given exclusive, preferential treatment and a ‘say’ about how their tax dollars are spent? BTW, FYI – of the 5 million men and woman per year PP services … 2% receive abortion services. That’s it – 2%.
#4. While the TP is a mixed group, Jaime Radtke, OTOH, chose Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University to earn her degree… a pretty big clue as to where she stands on social issues. Liberty is a fairly mediocre institution generally chosen if/when Evangelical Christian values trump other education considerations.
#1 I basically agree.
#2 From a fiscal stand point, I agree it is a “fart in the wind”. How colorful.
After that we disagree. It is like saying I don’t mind if you only steal one dollar from my wallet and leave the other 29, my credit cards, and ID. It is like “a little illegal”. Tell your wife you only cheated on her twice and both ladies were unattractive. Little things lead to bigger ones. You let the fox into the hen house, but only on Wednesdays.
Grandstanding with Reid? if it drives a point home, good for her! I’m not saying ideology isn’t involved. I am saying the money, even if small is as is the principle. There was no need to cherry pick. Reid’s statement was laughable. Grandstanding and hiding behind a contrived issue that he falsley claimed Republicans supported keeping medical care from women. He threw the “woman” card. Jamie Radtke picked it up and threw it back in his face. Good for her!
She did call out both sides. She called out the GOP side of things in saying how bad the agreement was.
#3 You are correct. Evangelicals should get no preference. You do get a choice. You need to team up with like minded folk and make your issue a weighty one. I know I sound very pro-social conservative right now. I do have a Libertarian streak. There are MANY things I don’t want to fund. We probably agree on some.
2% matters, Jay D. Steal 2% from your employer. You might get 100% fired. You know the answer from pro-lifers about only 2% going to kill babies, right?
#4 Jamie is socially conservative. I am not 100% with her on those issues. I am more focused on the fact that the USA is in dire shape. Our fiscal matters need aggressive attention. I believe Jamie Radtke and her Tea Party brand of fiscal conservatism will fight for proper fiscal redirection.
As for your belittling her choice of schools, I understand having a different preference. No reason to down that school. Besides, you ignore the rest of her resume:
In 1995, Jamie graduated from Liberty University with a B.S. in Government.
Jamie received her Master of Public Policy from The College of William and Mary in 1998.
Your beef with William & Mary is ????
Britt,
I neither said nor suggested that you do not care about big things. My point was only that worrying about little things when in dire straits leads to dire consequences. There is time and place for worrying about little things, and that is well before or well after the situation gets dire.
One of the reasons two years after coming into existence the Tea Parties are still clueless as to the roots of our problems and, obviously, what to do about them is the Tea Parties are distracted with a host of secondary matters different tea parties wish to pursue. This is deadly to the cause, and is one of the principal reasons opportunists like Radtke are able to hijack and manipulate the movement that has no vision and no direction. Make no mistake about it, just about everything the Tea Parties have been able to secure to date are things that are minor next to the gargantian problem we face.
Ah those secondary matters that are symptoms of fiscal mismanagement. The devil is in the details of those “secondary matters”. Perhaps you disagree with the Tea Party that obamacare is a big problem. Maybe some of us are more than capable of multi-tasking and paying attention to the debt/deficit as well as secondary waste and mismanagement.
Britt, Reid’s statement (when you cut out all the hyperbole) is factually correct. Planned Parenthood serves 5 million people a year:
–35% for contraception and birth control,
–34% for STI/STD testing and treatment,
–17% for cancer testing and screening,
–10% for pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility,
–2% for abortion services.
I have terrific insurance and private physicians; the poor and uninsured visit PP for contraceptives, emergency contraception, breast, cervical & testicular cancer screening, pregnancy testing, pregnancy options counseling, STD testing & treatment, comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments, vasectomies & tubal ligations, and abortions. If Radtke wants to kill off access to these services, she should simply say so … she has not.
Re Liberty University and Radtke: bad choice of words on my part – sorry! I should have used the more correct “Tier 2” instead of “mediocre” . I personally have little respect for this scandal-ridden institution but understand the push behind it and why evangelical families and students choose it. That data point on Jaime IS important. The TP may not swing socially right, but Jamie Radtke does -–and rigid ideology impacts Senate votes. And absolutely NO beef with W&M – Go Tribe!!
Let’s be honest on this one point … the $360 million could (and will) easily be cut from somewhere else. Targeting PP was purely ideological and political. AIMO, political ideological tactics (on either side) – INCLUDING the abortion dispute – do not belong in this fiscal debate. In point of fact, in a purely fiscal sense, PP services are probably a highly effective method of controlling social welfare costs; cutting PP funding would be penny-wise but pound-foolish.
[PS: Don’t pound me for eugenic sympathies … I’m talking purely fiscal – not moral. Abortion is grisly and I don’t promote it.]
My father, a Milton Friedman relative I might add, told me long ago “look out for the pennies and the dollars will look after themselves”. Mrs. Radtke gets this concept JayD. What bothers you about Jamie Radtke is your business and you are entitled to discredit her or any candidate all you want. However, being a graduate from Liberty and W&M are positives for me.. Mrs. Radtke IS a long time Virginian WHO WENT TO SCHOOL IN VA… Something I think deserved further discussion with regards to all the candidates. A Virginia education is in her DNA.
Turbo, your father was wise and dead on right; had our congressional leaders followed his advice (during the last 40 years) we wouldn’t be drowning in unsustainable debt and obligations. He might also tell you, “If you want to cleanup a rubble pile, start with the boulders – leave the pebbles for last”. PP is a comparative grain of sand in the US budget. I get that. Reid gets it. The republican leadership gets it. Michelle Bachmann and Jamie Radtke do not.
Regarding Radke’s Liberty U. credentials … first, we have 4 granddaughters in private faith-based schools and our youngest attends a church founded (and supported) university. I’m not a paganistic heathen and respect faith based education. I am also old enough to remember the televangelist sexual & financial misconduct scandals … and Jerry Falwell’s role in several. Falwell was a bigot, a crook, and a fraud; so pardon if I don’t have quite the same respect for his institution (or quality of graduates), as do others.
What ‘bothers me’ about Jaime Radtke is simply her lack of originality and depth. She gives the appearance of a one-issue, “all broth and no beans” stock politician with a Christian right wing edge – like we don’t have enough of those in D.C.?!
Jay D., good, PP can do 98% of those services. That drop in the bucket you speak of can then continue to flow. You are spinning! Radtke does not object to women getting health care, she objects to back door accounting moves funding abortion. I gett that, many pro-choicers get that distinction. Why don’t you see that for what it is? Our tax dollars shouldn’t be involved in abortion. If you’re going to cut, that seems like a logical step. I am sure the lefties will find a way to privately fund abortion financing assistance.
One issue? Her issue isn’t just abortion. LIBERTARIANS FAVOR DEFUNDING PP! Even the pro-choice ones. You are just focusing on that. Her issues are Tea Party Related-a variety of fiscal issues, and some socially conservative issues. She is a Republican, not just Tea Party. She is a social conservative, but far from being the fire & brimstone radical you are painting her as. She has stated she would like to be a senator in the realm of Rand Paul & Jim DeMint.
In my opinion, Radtke is better than Bachman.
Britt, I see it for exactly what it is, but this issue has no place in a zero hour debt/deficit negotiation. Frankly, I agree with Rand Paul – if PP provides the same services as Medicare, with equivalent access, then duplication of services (and costs) study is reasonable (and responsible) and changes should be made. I also understand federally funded abortions aren’t popular, especially within the GOP. Taxpayer funding will disappear and PP will eventually have to choose which market is most profitable to service.
My point is … not now, not in this debate … and don’t insult voters with the con this rider was fiscally motivated. That’s it.
On Radtke, the “one issue” I referenced wasn’t abortion, it was deficit/debt reduction. It’s high-priority, for sure, but certainly not the only issue to cross a Senator’s desk. Radtke may be all the things you say, but at this moment in the campaign her branding is ‘vote for me because I’m not George Allen’. By 2012 international events & energy will join jobs, economy, and budget as front-line issues. Ms. Radtke must show proficiency in foreign & domestic policy; so far, all she’s done is rehash TP slogans and harp at GA and democrats. Her recent smack at Reid was simply more of what she’s put up so far. FWIW, I’m not an Allen fan and would like to see a strong alternative. So far, Jamie hasn’t shown she’s THAT candidate.
Britt,
I wanted to respond earlier to your above 9:39 AM post, but could not get to it until now.
Fiscal mismanagement, debt, and budgetary deficit are only symptoms of a real problem the Tea Parties hardly notice, and certainly do not talk much about: control of our government by powerful special interests: banking, oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. The budgetary woes are in large part result of the policies that have exported our industries, decimated our skilled working class, driven up the oil prices, inflated and then crashed the housing market (with devastating consequences for millions of homeowners, small investors, and the nation at large).
There is so much more to our financial crisis than the obvious reality of huge national debt and budget deficit. And Obamacare is too a consequence of the devastation wrought on the nation by the controlling special interests. If it (Obamacare) falls, something similar will be implemented anyway by both Democrats and Republicans, without all the theater that has surrounded the fight over it.
You can scream and demand all you want that our government take us back to the good old days, but the hard realities make this impossible without fundamental changes to which the power elites cannot and will not consent, and the current federal budgetary “fights” have reflected the intractability of the problem – something that has been lost on the Tea Parties, whose view of the controversy has been at best simplistic and naive.
And for the aforesaid reasons, your belief that the Tea Parties can multitask is both misplaced and out of place. To date, the Tea Parties have failed to properly focus on even a single task of fundamental importance, and have instead demonstrated a propensity to squander energy and resources on things that will not leave a lasting impact. Agenda 21 may be bad, but it deserves no immediate attention in our dire times. Sharia law is bad, but it deserves no immediate attention in our dire times.
A movement that knows what it is doing would never permit itself to be hijacked by visionless, self-serving “organizers,” let alone become a willing accessory in the “organizers’ ” pursuit of personal political ambitions. The labor of replacing one dud in Senate with another is hardly deserving of an imposition on an intelligent multitasking movement.
To add to what I just said … The depths of movements are reflected in the depths of the respective leaders, and with leaders like Radtke the movements can never be more than knee-deep.
This does not mean, of course, that all those who are involved in such movements are idiots; people have different reasons as to why they choose to get involved. If you want to engage the intelligent and fair person in you into a reflection as to the complexity of the problems we face, consider the JFK’s warnings, to which you may have already listened, but then would almost certainly not have heard, in part on the account of your multitasking and multifocus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejgEHqBwpcI
Jay D., meet Jacob Roginsky. Jay says that Radtke has one issue (debt/deficit) and Jacob doesn’t think she is focused enough. Two critics, critical for opposite reasons.
I could tell Jay D., that Radtke was one of the first out against our actions in Libya. We could talk about the TSA or the Patriot Act, but then. Jacob could use that as wishy washy multi tasking that leaves everything at a shallow level.
I could point out what Jamie Radtke has said about the debt/deficit, entitlement reform and one of her ideas that I really like, and the need for agressive action to break the intractible power elite. I could point out that adding Senator Radtk to Senators like Rand Paul, jim DeMint, etc would add to the numbers of senators that could break the trap of the entrenched special interest “warlords”. However, Jay would just say he told me so. Radtke is just a “one trick pony”.
I’m at a loss! Any suggestions for me on how to handle this?
Jay D., I guess we actually agree mostly on PP after all. Except as a bargaining chip, you are probably right about zero hour negotiations on a vote this critical. PP is not the debt. It is not on the magnitude of Obamacare etc.
Rand Paul pointed to duplication and *cough* I did too. I did point out that if PP refused to change and would somehow go bankrupt, you can get those services elsewhere. That went to H.Reid’s bull crap response that Tea Partiers want to deny medical care to women.
In the end, you do give that chip away in negotiations. You’re right there. However, you brought that chip to the table and it becomes an issue. When you get a majority in both houses, you damn right you bring back that chip and you ram it down their throats like they did to us with Obamacare.
PP does have fiscal ramifications. It adds up and it gives precedent for spending tax dollars where you shouldn’t. It also has social ramifications. You are right this is important to the GOP, but again……..even pro-choice Libertarians want to defund PP. It is the right thing to do.
Britt, Jacob brings interesting big picture analysis to the table, but we disagree on TP expectations. IMO, the movement’s rapid growth is grounded in its pit bull determination & focus on one issue. Regardless of how one views TP (pos/neg), it was TP organizations that forced debt (and now entitlement) discussions and action. You build a strong, sustainable organization one success at a time. Plus, it’s a losing battle –there is absolutely no way today’s TP could reduce “control of government by powerful special interests” ; as long as cash feeds campaigns, contribution related influence is impenetrable.
Not sure exactly what you asking … suggestions as to how to sell Radtke? or suggestions on what Radtke needs to do to transform herself into a serious contender for this seat?
Britt wrote: “Jay says that Radtke has one issue (debt/deficit) and Jacob doesn’t think she is focused enough. Two critics, critical for opposite reasons.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of my positions on Radtke. Nowhere did I say she is not focused enough. To the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that she is extremely focused, on getting herself as high in the political chain of food as she can. It is furthermore logically fallacious of Britt to suggest there would be a vindication for Radtke or a discreditation for two of her critics if the critics were “critical [of her] for opposite reasons.” One of the critics could be right as the other would be wrong.
The lack of focus to which I referred concerned the Tea Party, and not as an absemce of a sustained focus on any issue, but rather as an absense of sustained focus where great national impact is possible. And I respectfully disagree with Jay D that a return to free and prosperous America may be had through incrementalism. This defies the laws of nature; corruption does not retreat gradually.
Britt says that Radtke has stressed “the need for aggressive action to break the intractible power elite.” Pardon my great skepticism, but where can we find one citation to such a statement? The Radtke I have seen is much too shallow and too cowardly to speak this kind of language. The Radtke I have seen ia a wheeler and dealer, a pleaser, a manipulator — not a rabble-rouser. The Radtke I have seen gets positive publicity in the elite “mainstream” “conservative” and “liberal” media and backing from such fronts for the elite power establishment as the Heritage Foundation. Such never happens for true reformers, let alone those openly voicing the need “to break the intractible power elite.” To the contrary, this is an indication that the power elites have been assured that Radtke will not rock their boats.
Jay,
Even if you could fairly attribute to the Tea Party the saving to the American people of $20 Billion in the annual federal budget, we are talking pittance compared to the size of the federal budget. However, given the theater (deception) factor of the American politics, wisdom can’t side even with that much of a hypothesis.
Jacob
Jacob, I credited the TP movement with forcing discussions and congressional action on the debt – not the outcome (which lies squarely w/ Congress).
Corruption, cronyism and government have been conjoined since George Washington’s administration and grow synchronously w/ government. What you suggest is possible – with revolution. As long as the ballot box is the instrument, change will be slow and incremental, unless there is one party rule – which engineers collateral problems and simply limits cronyism to a single party’s buddies.
The answer, IMO, is a more informed, engaged, educated, intelligent, and active electorate that utilizes the power of almost instant-information and communication to expose corruption and cronyism and toss out the offenders. And we need to encourage our best and brightest to run for office (a.k.a. General Bert Mizusawa!) and then support them when they do. In essence, the answer and solutions you seek lie not within a specific party, candidate, or movement, but within us.
Jay,
Even if I were to agree that the Tea Parties in fact forced the Congressional discussions (something I question), there would not be much value to the discussions unless they lead to significant pulpable results. Don’t you agree? It seems to me that unless you envision how the Tea Parties will force real changes, you have no reason to claim that they serve a beneficial to the public purpose.
Under the leadership of Radtke and her cronies, particularly such characters as Karen Hurd, the Tea Party in Virginia became a distraction at best. It has dissipated the grassroots energy on worthless and unwinnable undertakings, and has served to promote the agendas of Radtke and McSweeney at the expense of the people’s causes. VTPPF was born corrupt and witless.
We agree that that corruption in our government was born with the govenrment itself, and that it has grown with the growth of the government itself (faster than linearly). This is natural; government is power and power naturally corrupts. We also agree that the answer to the current level of corruption is within us and that education is key.
However, we are at odds as to the mechanisms the people must bring to bear. Finding and running good candiates for political offices will never assure that the selected bunch in all its wisdom and goodness will get its act together and act effectively to return us on the path of rights, freedom, and prosperity. The people must chart the course of national revival first, and then elect good officials to navigate our ship according to the chart. Our problems are more profound than of state in accor amd . To me this is merely an adjunct to the necessary, more profound approach.
Sorry, through an inadvertent sequence of key strokes I submitted the above piece before it was ready (completed and spell-checked). What I intended to say at the end is that our problems are far more complex than anything the Founders had to contend with, and that it must take people of their caliber (we’d be hard-pressed to find a higher caliber) to devise and implement a plan of national revival. This is simply not a job for politicians.
Jacob Roginsky
Jacob, you are twisting and turning. YOU are the one being fallacious:
“with leaders like Radtke the movements can never be more than knee-deep. ” -Jacob Roginsky
Furthermore, your above posts are riddled with ridicule of the Tea Party to multi-task. In fact THE ONLY THING YOU GIVE RADTKE CREDIT FOR BEING FOCUSED ON IS TRYING TO CLIMB THE LADDER!!! Don’t pretend that when you criticize the Tea party you are not also aiming barbs at jamie Radtke. Who are you kidding?
Look Jacob, you don’t like Radtke? Fine. You’re a Tea Party hater? Fine! Stop bs’ing all of us and trying to worm out of the point you made. You made your bed – sleep in it!
You and Jay criticized her for exact opposite things. Other readers can make of that, what they will. I was just pointing out the obvious. That and how stuck I am if I am to argue against both opposites.
Then Jacob, you come up with this utter crap about Radtke not being aggressive and willing to take strong measures. I guess you haven’t been reading this blog or other sources where Radtke came out against the budget compromise as did Rigell and Forbes (in their votes against). Radtke and others disagreeing with the compromise were criticized for being reckless. That Jacob, right or wrong, is AN AGGRESSIVE stance by Radtke and like minded folks. She has called for raising the age of retirement and suggested people and employers be allowed to keep taxes in exchange for not retiring. She argues against raising the debt ceiling. That is not the safe position. That is an aggressive position.
Jay D. actually is correct that she and the Tea Party focus a great deal on the fiscal aspects. As well they should;we are in deep trouble fiscally. I would point out that Radtke is Tea Party, but she is also a Republican. She is a bit more socially conservative than I am. That said, our crisis revolves around a horrible state of budgeting, damage to our currency/reserve status, and cronyism/corruption.
You guys say she can’t change that. Some say nobody can. Alone……you can’t. With Radtke added to the Rand Paul’s and other fiscal hawks YOU CAN FORCE CHANGE DOWN THE THROATS of those intractable self interested prostitutes in the legislative branch. And really…..if you are so hopeless, why bother with politics at all? Why even vote. I say it can be done. With enough fiscal hawks elected to office, we can right this ship. Then we can worry about other issues that don’t threaten our country so strongly or immediately.
Britt,
Although I know you have difficulties in the area of logic, what you are doing here is nothing short of slimying your way out of the tight spot, in a most obvious way. Surely you do not think I argue both that Radtke exploits the Tea Party movement for her personal agenda and that Radtke is the Tea Party movement. Neither do I think you are such an idiot to actually believe that it makes sense to equate Radtke to the Tea Parties.
However, since you also struggle with reasoning, let me give you a little pointer on how not to interpret some of the things I say about the Tea Parties. When I criticize the Tea Parties for allowing themselves to be manipulated by Radtke to support her political ambitions and do other things that fall short of advancing the cause of national revival, I do not criticize Radtke for allowing herself to be manipulated by herself into supporting her political ambitions and distracting the Tea Parties from what is essential to their cause. If you get this, I may entertain setting you straight as to some of your other logical fallacies.
Jacob, clearly it is you with difficulties. Let me break down what you PRETEND not to understand.
1) Jamie Radtke is not the Tea Party. They are not the same. In theory, yes, you can criticize one and not the other.
2) You obviously have issues with both the Tea Party and Jamie Radtke. You attack them both
3)One way to attack a Tea Party candidate is to demagogue the Tea Party and attach it to the candidate that has a relationship to it. THAT is what you are doing.
You are also practicing another common trait of politicians & operatives that are coming from the wrong side of things. You accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you are doing.
Doctor, first heal thy self!
Every time I hear Marco Rubio, Mike Lee or Rand Paul speak, it is so rejuvenating to hear such patriotism and freshness within the Senate Chambers. These guys are true revolutionaries and they ask questions that need to be asked. To think if we had listened to mainstream politics, we would be stuck with Charlie Christ, Trey Grayson and Bob Bennett. Thank God for the Tea Party movement.
We can even go to the House with Allen West. Democrats, Republicans, mainstream media, Hollywood and you name it have demonized the Tea Party.
Who’s to say that Radtke can’t do the same? These same voices are the ones that put down the Tea Party in general. It’s nice hearing someone call Harry Reid on his stupidity.
I believe, Tea Party members are willing to put up with the ridicule from others to ensure an American, patriotic view is heard. That’s a message we don’t hear much now days. Hopefully, it is not too late.
Britt,
Thanks, you are fun. In your April 13, 2011 14:32 pm post you said “Jacob doesn’t think [Radtke] is focused enough.” After I objected by saying I only leveled such a charge against the Tea Party, you “countered” that I shouldn’t pretend that my alleged attacks on the Tea Party are not attacks on Radtke. For me to presume that your refusal to admit the misrepresentation was sincere and that you are not an idiot or a crackpot – none of which I take for granted — I have to conclude you are saying that 1) Radtke and Tea Party are one and b) I have to know so. Let me Repeat this for you s-l-o-w-l-y: If you believe that by accusing the Tea Party of something I knowingly accuse Radtke of the same, you believe the two are the same and that I know so.
Of course I realized you don’t believe Radtke and TP are the same, but that was an inescapable conclusion of your transparently dishonest attempt to save face when I pointed out the misrepresentation of my stated position on Radtke. You just piled up more crap and barged right into it. All I did was point my finger at buddy Britt’s sorry predicament. As your argument could deceive no one who paid attention, it lost the race in stupidity to its maker.
John Jackson,
If you paid careful attention to what I have been saying, you would realize that I am not an enemy of TP, but, to the contrary, someone who is deeply concerned about its lack of vision and direction.
The ploy by the Radtkes and their bootlicks to attack constructive criticism as hate for the Tea Parties is a specie of old propaganda tricks. Do not let it deceive you. Radtke and her cronies stifled all dissent in VTPPF of their agenda and leadership. The Tea Parties cannot go along with this kind of totalitarianism without turning into a force for evil. We need open-minded and honest discussions of the TP direction and vision, in this forum and everywhere. Such will obviously not come from such Radtke’s mouthpieces as Britt, who have a conflict of interest where it comes to the truth on Radtke and her agenda.
You are entertaining as well, Jacob.
Of course I already pointed out that they are not the same. I already pointed out it is possible to criticize one and not the other. I already pointed out that you attack the Tea Party, attack Radtke directly, and attack Radtke indirectly by demonizing the Tea Party and Radtke because of her connection to it.
You claim now not to be an enemy and turn right around and attack them again. Of course, you do add more Radtke attacks and pretty much call me stupid for disagreeing with you. You can try to muddy the waters, but most people will understand the differences on those 3 points and which apply to you.
You are the one needing to save face. Like I said, you accuse others of doing what you are doing. You talk about how ineffective the Tea Party is when it is obvious they have had a big effect. Like them or not, recently they have been a big factor. Your saying otherwise just confirms your lack of honesty in arguement.
Britt,
Pointing out the lack of truth, consistency, and logic in your posts is an endless proposition, whose entertaining value wears out rapidly. In one of his poems, a great Dagestan poet Rasul Gamzatov said, “All the mountains will have fallen before an argument with a fool has been won.” Dishonesty in an arguing fool equips him with yet another level of impregnability.
John Jackson and Others,
Here is an article from the Tea Party Tribune that is highly critical of the state of affairs in the Tea Party movement. Interestingly, the author lays much blame for this on the Tea Party leaders of Radtke’s ilk, who sacrifice the Tea Party cause for the advancement of personal political careers and agendas. In fact, as I read the article I was wondering if it was not directed specifically at Radtke. I hope you will read the article and understand that the author is a true friend of the movement, and certainly not its enemy. The author’s criticisms of the movement significantly parallel my criticisms of it.
See http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/03/24/tea-party-the-decline-of-americas-last-resort/
Jacob,
Do you find Marco Rubio talking about his humble beginnings refreshing or Rand Paul talking about oppressive federal regulations? It’s nice to hear some patriotic comments about the American people and America coming out of Washington. Is that rejuvenating to you? It is to me.
Besides the Tea Party represents the greatness of America because individual groups represent different paths to get to what needs to get done. It would not be the first time a liberal infiltrated a Tea Party group and it will not be the last.
Next year, when Barrack Obama is reelected, we will be living under a central planning government, armed with a $3.6-plus trillion treasure chest ready to pay off any cronies and regulatory agencies able to enforce anything necessary. But the question is…what is necessary? The practice of making a mockery of the Constitution has already begun. With massive healthcare, financial and food safety bills, what aspects of your life do you have the ability to make a decision? I question you, where are these questions from you?
For years, we have been given the choice of the Socialist Left (take choices away from us) who wishes to ban light bulbs or the Communist Left (makes choices for us) who wishes to dictate what we eat. All corporations and people are under attack unless they fall in line with the Central Planners in Washington. These Ivy League, lawyers with no practical experience feel they have enough knowledge to develop a Central planning government. This has been tried throughout our history and even today with government’s throughout the world with dismal results. It’s a shame that we must go down that road.
Do you question the antics of our federal government? If you don’t, then why not? Do you feel that $3.6 trillion amongst 536 individuals is excessive, especially if they are distributing someone else’s money how they see fit? So, while you’re bombarding the Tea Party with these questions about our direction, where are you on these questions?
You should be getting tired by now Jacob. You’ve been projecting like a wild man and building a few straw men doesn’t help either.
Jamie Radtke and the Tea Party are opposite reaction to our sorry representation that got us in this mess. Yet, you take the faults of those losers that sold the country out for self gain and you project those personal failings to people and organizations trying to fix it. Like Radtke. Like the Tea Party.
You continually and purposefully misrepresent what the Tea Party and various leaders have done and their motivations. Having a lower assessment of their effect on politics than I have, is not in itself unreasonable. However, you take it to the point of ridiculousness. If the Tea Party had as little to do with recent political changes and were not a credible force, you nor the media would even be talking or filming the Tea Party and their activists.
You bash the Tea Party and later pretend to care for it and offer us warning and advice. How noble of you!
How can you possibly hope to have any credibility, Jacob?
John,
In one form or another I already addressed the questions you pose to me in a number of prvious posts in this and other BD threads. However, I am willing to answer them one more time.
Q1. “Do you find Marco Rubio talking about his humble beginnings refreshing …“? I was born and raised in the Soviet Union, and came to the United States in 1979 as a political refugee, at the age of 23. (Needless to say, I do not need any indoctrination on the evils of central planning.) As a child, I wondered what it would feel like to enjoy at one time as many oranges as one may want to eat, or to have every day a piece of meat, or to have ice cream whenever one wants, or to have more than one pair of pants and three pairs of shirts, or to have an indoor sink and an indoor shower, or what it would be like to wake up in the middle of the night and be able to use an indoor bathroom, rather than to walk 100 yards in snow in –30 F to an outhouse. Sorry, but Marco Rubio’s humble beginnings have not caught my attention.
Q. 2 “[Do you find refreshing] Rand Paul talking about oppressive federal regulations? I have not heard Rand Paul complain ½ as much as I about the excesses of the federal government, and have not heard him complain at all about some of the federal government’s most unconstitutional and egregious, such as the IRS abuses and the denial of most basic Constitutional protections to Americans by the federal prosecutors, and, especially, the federal judiciary, an absolute taboo subject in the media. With the exception of the foreign affairs, I am much more impressed with the wisdom and scholarship, as well as the Founders’ spirit in Rand Paul’s dad. And in my opinion Ron Paul has a much better grasp of what it would take to save the nation than his son. Rand Paul has time to grow, and he seems to be growing. As his dad predicted in a joint interview after Rand Paul won the senatorial seat, Rand Paul is learning that changing Washington is a much more complicated problem than he had envisioned on the campaign trail.
Q3. “It’s nice to hear some patriotic comments about the American people and America coming out of Washington. Is that rejuvenating to you? “ NO!!! I am a scientist and realist. I do not allow myself to be rejuvenated by patriotic rhetoric coming from the politicians. I judge their patriotism based on their actions, not words. I can also assess the American people better than most of them as someone who grew up abroad and traveled extensively around the world. I believe that when asking your question you set out to test my patriotism. Let me answer your curiosity directly: I am a truer patriot than most of the politicians who beat themselves in their chests and wrap themselves in the American flag. I prove my patriotism by investing countless hours and sleepless nights in fighting for the return of the America of the Founders’ ideals, America that used to be the beacon of freedom and respect for individual rights to the entire world. I care deeply about this, which is why I mince no words in confronting those in the Tea Party movement and elsewhere whom I consider distracters and phonies, and those I consider incompetent and self-serving. I could have arranged my personal life much better by doing a host of other things, but then I would be a different person.
Q4. With massive healthcare, financial and food safety bills, what aspects of your life do you have the ability to make a decision? I question you, “[W]here are [the] questions from you” as to “, what aspects of your life do you have the ability to make a decision” “[given] the massive healthcare, financial and food safety bills”? As I have stated repeatedly in these forums, some twelve years ago I founded a national legal reform organization A Matter of Justice (AMOJ), of which I have been president since that time. Speaking out against and confronting Constitutional trespasses by both federal and state governments have been part and parcel of my activities as president of AMOJ and as citizen. I have addressed these issues at legal reform demonstrations, party conventions, pro-Constitutional conferences, etc. As to Obamacare, I have been its outspoken critic from the start, and I have taken stronger positions on it than Cuccinelli, whom I criticized for litigating against it as an AG merely on the basis of its invasion of State Rights, rather than, first and foremost, the individual rights. It is after I convinced Attorney Patrick McSweeney, who has direct access to Ken Cuccinelli, that the state has a Constitutional rights and obligation to fight against the invasion of Constitutional rights of its citizens by federal government that Cuccinelli, using my citations of authority, began to represent that his suit is first and foremost in defense of Constitutional rights of the citizens of Virginia.
Britt,
I have been more than generous with you; my time does not permit me to debate politicians’ lackeys.
Jacob, that is ok. I don’t expect you to want to debate me. Doesn’t mean I won’t repsond to your off base attacks on the Tea Party and Jamie Radtke.
You ignoring me won’t change my responses much.
I am no persons lackey, but I understand your need to say that. I am a man of conviction and I see Jamie Radtke as someone that can deliver what I am looking for. I side with the truth. It is WAY easier to defend. You don’t have to work nearly as hard taking on arguements coming from bright guys like yourself if the truth and principle is on your side. You can call me stupid all you like. I don’t have a fragile ego. It isn’t like I have never encountered ad hominem. I will disagree with you all day on Radtke and the Tea Party. Even regard you as being mistaken or agenda driven, but you are far from stupid.
At least we agree that Ron Paul has a lot of good things to say and could serve the country well given the chance. Also glad that we agree on Obamacare.
Don’t worry, if you ignore me, I can work with that. If we accidently agree on another topic, feel free to converse with me.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.