Posted on 12/17/2011 6:49:10 PM PST by TBBT
Check out this interesting story: Updated: 13 SC Tea Party Leaders Blast Bachmann Tactics – Patch Nearly a month after a SC spokesman for Rep. Michele Bachmann accused Newt Gingrich of trying to buy off the state’s Tea Party leaders by bringing them on as staffers, more than a dozen of the movement’s leaders are fighting back.
In a strongly worded letter issued Friday afternoon, 13 leaders of the SC Tea Party movement accused her of “attacking the tea party movement by accusing tea party supporters of Newt Gingrich of being bought off” and said she has escalated the battle by making it national news by discussing it with John King on CNN Wednesday night.
“Now that Michele Bachmann herself has decided to throw fuel on the fire, and this issue has become national news, we as leaders within the South Carolina tea party movement feel we must speak out to defend our integrity,” reads the letter, which was circulated on Twitter and on at least one Tea Party website.
They accuse Bachmann of trying to divide the Tea Party movement, and defended Gingrich, who has said time and again that the only real opponent is President Barack Obama
(Excerpt) Read more at sfluxe.com ...
I agree.
She’s gone after Romney many times, as I documented earlier in the thread.
That proves nothing except that Newt was making come claims again. Her attack was correct, and you know that.
Not recently. She’s focused on Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich—anyone who threatens her position as the not-Romney.
Just plain not true. Go back and read the links I posted.
It is the venom that bothers me. She WANTS this as much as Romney does, but she feels it slipping away. People jump on Palin for walking away from this, but I think she has a colder eye than Bachman. I think she looked at the odds and said, no dice.
What venom? Criticism of your candidate is ipso facto venom?
Not the criticism but the outrage. It doesn’t look pretty. There is no wit, just heat. She can’t turn a phrase like Palin. Just political fire and primestone.
Outrage? What outrage? I have only seen a candidate stating her positions strongly.
Well, call it a prosecutorial if you like. Seh forgets that a debate is not a courtroom. She didn’t do herself any good by punching on Perry and Gingrich. That hurt them, but didn’t help her.
You are ready to oppose the only realistic alternative to the Commie-in-Chief so I don’t want to even hear your pretenses about “conservatism”. What that means to you would get no more than 2% of the vote and assist The Worst Enemy Conservatism has, Obama.
Reality has a big impact on wishes and hopes.
“Our political system is one which is designed to prevent radical political changes.” I should have said “violent changes” although the design does limit radical change as well. The Civil War is more an example thwarting political change than fostering it. Change is intended to proceed through the Constitution which channels the intentions of the People. This is one reason the development of the People is so important.
IMHO...
Well, for the Civil War, I always am amazed at how just a few years before, the official Federal government stance was to uphold slaves as property. Within perhaps 2 decades, the entire stance of the Federal government on slavery was reversed. But there was no breakdown of the whole political system, aside from the succession, and even then both the Union and the Confederacy both kept the basic representative governmental framework, i.e., the Constitution was not abolished in the Union, the Confederacy did not institute some other form of government such as communism or monarchy to replace the Constitution, but the came up with a Constitution based on the original (I’ve never been taught that or heard it mentioned anywhere, had to look it up). Despite differences on issues, the basic idea of representative government was not rejected, even when things got so disagreeable that it resulted in succession.
I guess I’m thinking of political change in terms of individual issues, those kind of changes, where representative government allows for government policies on issues to flip and flop back and forth according to what people want at the time. Correct me if I’m wrong, when you say “thwart” political change, you’re referring to the French or Russian revolution style of throwing out the whole political system. Yes, representative government is something a sane and moral people do not want to give up once they’ve got it. IMHO, we’re on the same page.
Keep swallowing.
My lack of clarity is to blame for any apparent disagreement here. What the Founders wanted to avoid at all costs were the violent changes which eventually destroyed “republican” government in Athens and Rome which they carefully studied and used as a model (in some respects) for our own. Victorious individuals and parties often killed their opponents and civil war was frequent. Look at Rome during the first century BC or Athens in the third. Millions probably died as a result of the Social Wars and Sulla and Marius contesting for power and as many during the establishment of Octavian’s empire. That is the type of violent and sudden “political changes” which were to be avoided.
And it is true that the CSA constitution was based upon the US differing in the former allowing secession and greater specificity on states rights. Most of these changes actually undermined the CSA’s war fighting ability and did not reflect the intention of the Declaration of Independence for equality of men.
When you can’t deal with reality insult your educator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.