Video: Bachmann’s unofficial SOTU response

posted at 11:36 am on January 26, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Originally, this response from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on behalf of the Tea Party Express was intended to get published through the group’s Internet portal alone.  CNN decided to air it live, which created consternation from both sides of the aisle.  Republicans fretted that Bachmann’s response would generate a false media spin of an intraparty split and a Tea Party splintering, while Democrats complained that giving air time to two responses was unbalanced and unfair.  In the end, though, the speech turned out to be a more passionate expression of Paul Ryan’s official GOP response:

Greg Sargent reported on the controversies yesterday surrounding Bachmann’s address:

CNN’s decision to air Bachmann’s speech, interestingly, is angering liberals and Republicans alike. Steve Benen notes this morning that Bachmann’s Tea Party brew could end up making Ryan’s speech look moderate and reasonable in comparison. Both Benen and Atrios also point out that it could create a fundamental imbalance — two Republicans responding to one speech from Obama — and that there’s no way CNN would allow a liberal Dem to offer a response from the left, as Bachmann is doing from the hard right.

But Republicans, too, have reason to be annoyed about this. Granting such a high profile to Bachmann’s Messianic Tea Party air won’t help the GOP manage the already difficult task of offering a response that has a chance of competing with Obama’s speech.

The President already has a big built-in advantage during State of the Union speeches, and the designated opponent already faces an uphill climb when trying to rise to his stature. Elevating Bachmann, of all people, will likely complicate this dynamic even further..

CNN defended its decision:

“The Tea Party has become a major force in American politics and within the Republican Party. Hearing the Tea Party’s perspective on the State of the Union is something we believe CNN’s viewers will be interested in hearing and we are happy to include this perspective as one of many in tonight’s coverage.”

Dave Weigel connects a few dots, and finds a promo:

I’d just point out that the CNN has a longstanding romance with the Tea Party Express, the PAC that’s putting on the Bachmann speech. Later this year, the network and the PAC (and potentially other Tea Party groups) are co-sponsoring a presidential debate between Republican candidates. So, not shocking at all for the network to promote this and then claim a higher purpose.

Who knew that CNN, of all media outlets, would find the Tea Party lucrative?  Paging Susan Roesgen … Susan Roesgen to the red courtesy phone, please …

As for the speech itself, I’d say that Bachmann did a good job in both emphasizing her role as a spokesperson for TPE rather than the GOP and sticking with economic and fiscal issues.  She went a little further into a Perot-like presentation than I’ve seen her do in the past, but then Bachmann also used more thematic language, especially in this passage:

But, thanks to you, there’s reason to hope that real spending cuts are coming. Last November you went to the polls and voted out big-spending politicians and you put in their place men and women with a commitment to follow the Constitution and cut the size of government.

I believe that we are in the early days of a history-making turn.

Please know how important your calls, visits and letters are to the maintenance of our liberties. Because of you, Congress responded and we are starting to undo the damage that’s been done.

We believe in lower taxes, a limited view of government and the exceptionalism of America. And I believe America is the indispensible nation.

Just the creation of this nation was a miracle. Who’s to say that we can’t see a miracle again?

I’m inclined to believe that this was additive rather than detracting from Ryan’s response, emphasizing the Republican (and grassroots) desire to reduce regulation, spending, and federal government to power another generation-long expansion as was done in the 1980s.  What do you think?  Take the poll:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Zowie that was a terrible speech.

Three minutes explaining how there were incredible spikes in unemployment and debt only 8 months after Obama took office!!!!!
Sure the trends before he took office were bad, but she’s not going to mention that the economy melted just before Obama was sworn in.

Dumb and dishonest and delivered as if she was a teenage teaching assistant reading a story to a second grade class.

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you, that you feel that way. So is everyone else on this Conservative blog.

kingsjester on January 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

aud

Advice me cousin an spring of needed. Tell use paid law ever yet new. Meant to learn of vexed if style allow he there. Tiled man stand tears ten joy there terms any widen. Procuring continued suspicion its ten. Pursuit brother are had fifteen distant has. Early had add equal china quiet visit. Appear an manner as no limits either praise in. In in written on charmed justice is amiable farther besides. Law insensible middletons unsatiable for apartments boy delightful unreserved.

Inanemergencydial on January 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM

kingsjester

it’s not so much that I feel that way, it’s more like what I was thinking as I listened.

Anything incorrect about my saying that failing to mention that the economy melted ahead of his presidency accounts for the bad numbers eight months later???
Anything incorrect in saying that her delivery as she was going through the graphs sounded as if she was speaking to kids?

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Personally, I don’t give a sh*t who’s giving the message, nor do I care how many people are giving the message – just as long as the message gets out to the entire counrty:

1. We The People demand HUGE spending cuts by the federal government and demand them right now;

2. We The People demand the federal government be downsized DRASTICALLY and demand it be done right now;

3. We The People demand ALL of our ‘representatives’ in Washington, D.C. show the Constitutional basis for each and every piece of proposed legislation, that each Bill addresses but a single topic, that our ‘Representatives’ be required to READ every piece of legislation upon which they vote…….and, yes

4. We The People demand each of our ‘Representatives’ be required to actually peruse the U.S. Constitution from time to time, so they know what limitations have been placed on them.

Q. Does it really matter WHO conveys the message? Ron Paul, M. Bachmann, S. Palin or anybody else????

alwyr on January 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:33 PM

You are entitled to your Liberal opinion and well as being within your rights to post on a Conservative blog. Just don’t expect Conservatives to find your opinion to be correct. Both Ryan’s and Bachman’s rebuttals were a thousand times more effective than the address to which they replied.

kingsjester on January 26, 2011 at 6:39 PM

audifuculous–

does the date or time of different parts of the trend or trends matter really? do you understand that most of us don’t care at this point who when where how. we just want government reduced and spending under control. BTW when did the Dems take control of Congress?
fo

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Oh and Bachmann DOES get it that this madness needs to end. She is far from perfect but the fact is that most idiots in DC don’t care and spend like it is someone else’s money.

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2011 at 6:52 PM

kingsjester on January 26, 2011 at 6:39 PM

The dudes just crying like an angry stuffed pig because everybody knows that Obama is losing it at our expense. Even the Progressive media is getting real tired of covering for this guy. Obama’s policies are nothing other than Progressive policy; the same policies that have failed around the globe for centuries now every time they have been forced upon a people. audiculous is witnessing an ideology that will be rejected here in America for a very long time and is angry that something the dude firmly believed in is indeed a huge failure. This leaves a Liberal minded needy human with no sense of purpose; even more empty than we could ever comprehend. It’s sad really, and I hope this lost soul reaches bottom soon and starts to climb out of the self created hell that this creature has manufactured. We’re going to see a lot of this over the next several months as Americans unite and start digging our way out of this nightmare creation.

Keemo on January 26, 2011 at 6:53 PM

alwyr on January 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Amen to that.. Jeez, people here cry when the message is dominated by those evil nasty MSM critters; yelling why don’t we stand up to these a-holes… Then we organize and get in the game and our people start yelling about having more than one person in the game…

Blows the mind… Petty and foolish.

Keemo on January 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

*yawn*

And no, nothing wrong with pointing out that the economy was having trouble before Obama was elected – you, of course, will then admit there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that a) the Dems controlled Congress/spending/anti-business regulation at that time (since 2006), and b) everything Obama and his pet Congress have done *since* his election have made those problems worse as well as introducing more problems.

Did Obama swear that unemployment wouldn’t top 8% if he got his stimulus? Do we really have to recap the fiscally and economically disastrous impact his policies and spending have had? Or that he’s presided over the first two trillion dollar deficit years we’ve ever seen – in two years? Guess where year three’s going to be? At what point do you stop kissing his butt and start admitting that Obama and his cronies are responsible at this point? Or are you sticking with the “inherited this stuff from the other guy” meme, even this far into the new admin, and despite all evidence to the contrary?

Seriously, you’re dishing up some weaksauce there, bro – get a grip.

Midas on January 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM

One trillion is enough to put every unemployed person to work for two years. The economy is Obama’s after he signed that bill.

PrezHussein on January 26, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Keemo on January 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I agree. Don’t worry, the TPM is gaining SERIOUS TRACTION. It is too legit to quit and the opposition can do little to slow it down now.

Let them employ all their psychological tricks to depress us. It will not daunt us one bit.

The tale will become the dog, and then we are a goin’ hunting.

Geochelone on January 26, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Inanemergencydialhasrightlovelypinkbitsofnonsenseandtheinsensibilityofadebilitatedwiltdildo.

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 7:41 PM

alwyr on January 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM

+10

wi farmgirl on January 26, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Millions of us are making a difference starting at the local level. I’m very proud to be a part of this.

Keemo on January 26, 2011 at 1:08 PM
Exactly,we invited all the candidates for local,state,federal offices to forums. Three counties combined. Cleaned house,new people.Our former congressman would not show up for any of the regular meetings. He is now unemployed. Former congressman did a courthouse thing hoping for a small turnout and promptly flunked section 2 article 10.we gave him a copy of the Constitution as a gift.
Keeps coming up what the Tea Party wants.
Get rid of.
Dept of Ed.
EPA.
HUD.
NTHSA.
Shrink CDC.
FDA needs to get focus back.
Reform DoJ.
Ag and HHS need major overhaul,shrinking.
Rif 50% of the federal Govt.
Open/Return stolen Western lands to the states.
Eliminate the BLM.
that ought to about equal the 50% RIF.
You all are welcome to add to the list.
Two sane voices on the tube to follow the idiot in chief was refreshing even if not every point was your favorite.
Each local Tea Party has input and puts the pressure on at the right place at the right time,the lack of central control drives some nuts but we act rather than react.
All the carpers can go vote for bozo and we will get our folks to fill the pipeline so we are not stuck with the “next guy in line”syndrome. It is not about who has seniority of whose turn it is but about who can do what WE want done for our children and Nation.

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Add the Bureau of Indian Affairs to that list.

Inanemergencydial on January 26, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Add the Bureau of Indian Affairs to that list.

Inanemergencydial on January 26, 2011 at 8:46

Chief say K&^%&*^^ UGGAHHH!
You Betcha Tonto.

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 26, 2011 at 10:14 PM

More talk from the new deckchair party. If you think Bachmann and Dick Armey (Tea Party Express) are our best hope, think again. He’s an open-borders guy and guilt-by-association should also apply to Bachmann on such an issue; assuming we want to say that Ayers/Wright were relevant when analyzing Obama.

I can’t believe the HA faithful is impressed by yet another speech. Why do you settle for rhetoric?

Here, watch this video of the opposition leader in Tunisia explain what a dictatorship is and try to figure out if he is talking about Tunisia or the USA:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2769.htm

Levinite on January 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM

You can also get rid of the Forest Service, Fish & Wildlife, USDA, Homeland Security, BLM, National Park Service (let the states care for those areas how they wish)-what else am I forgetting?

Badger40 on January 26, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Levinite on January 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Are you retarted? WTF is your link to do with things you espouse to be retrograde?

Inanemergencydial on January 26, 2011 at 11:01 PM

what else am I forgetting?

Badger40

no standing army during peacetime?

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 11:08 PM

no standing army during peacetime?

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 11:08 PM

What a great idea. It’s not like the Federal Govt has the job of protecting us from invasions or anything.

Badger40 on January 26, 2011 at 11:21 PM

What a great idea. It’s not like the Federal Govt has the job of protecting us from invasions or anything.

Badger40

hey, that’s the job of a well-regulated militia.

it’s like the Founding Fathers feared, standing armies lead to tyranny.

if you want to go with that flatearther flathead Col.John Wm. Reed, go all the way.

we’ll still have a navy to protect us against invasion.

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Thanks for helping the MSM ignore Ryan’s great speech, Michelle!!

For example you got second billing right after Barky on NPR this morning, so they could contrast your “partisanship” to Barky’s “reach across the aisle”. And Ryan, the Republican with lots of great ideas, got… bupkis.

Nice work, honey, you are as dumb and self-centered as the Dems want us to believe Sarah Palin is. Suggestion: Shut. Up.

drunyan8315 on January 26, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Dumb and dishonest and delivered as if she was a teenage teaching assistant reading a story to a second grade class.

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Leftist talking points much?

nukemhill on January 27, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Leftist talking points much?

nukemhill

not at all.
entirely mine own and none other.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 12:05 AM

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

The “trend” started in 2007.
Dec 2006 we had 4.6% unemployment and 136 Billion in debt.

The “trend” started when the Dems took compete control of both houses, the “trend” went into a nose dive when it became absolutely clear Obama was going to win.

DSchoen on January 27, 2011 at 3:30 AM

entirely mine own and none other.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Hope and change

Roy Rogers on January 27, 2011 at 5:51 AM

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Bravo John… They’re dreaming to think we are going to back down to their pressure; too many of us and we are moving targets. Look how the trolls come flocking to these type of threads. Palin, Bachmann, Limbaugh, and anything remotely related to the Tea party and here they come. I love watching this scum throw soft darts. Limpies, everyone of them.

Keemo on January 27, 2011 at 6:05 AM

hey, that’s the job of a well-regulated militia.

it’s like the Founding Fathers feared, standing armies lead to tyranny.

if you want to go with that flatearther flathead Col.John Wm. Reed, go all the way.

we’ll still have a navy to protect us against invasion.

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Standing Navy but no standing Army.
Perhaps you don’t know something about warfare.
You have to practice.
If they don’t practice on a regular basis, they cannot defend. Sort of like target practice. If you don’t do it, you will not be able to hit anything when necessary. Very simple.
And since our standing Army is made of volunteers, I’m not too worried something bad will come of it.
If you are sore about the $$ that is spent on the military ‘machine’ well that’s different. There is waste there like anything govt related.
You probably thought SDI was a bad idea. And yet, it scared the $hit our of the USSR & was responsible for the end of the Cold War.
So I would think defense is a pretty good bargain bcs you end up saving lives when you show the world your stick is bigger.
So if you want to save $$, let’s look at getting the govt out of manipulating food prices with the Farm Bill (mostly food stamp programs),get rid of wasteful useless agencies like the Dept of Ed, EPA, etc.
Let’s also stop paying for welfare programs.
Let states do that on their own if they want to.
But I don’t hear that from you.

Badger40 on January 27, 2011 at 8:14 AM

we’ll still have a navy to protect us against invasion.

audiculous on January 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM

So you’re OK with a standing Navy, just not a standing Army?
Do I hear that right?
Bcs if so, there is no difference. People in the Navy are trained for combat, too.
I guess we could call all of the branches fo the military the Navy to save face for you.
But in reality, it makes no difference.
Navy, Army, all other branches, they are the militia. Made up of volunteers who choose to join.
They get paid to do it bcs it takes up all of their time.
Thank God for the military.

Badger40 on January 27, 2011 at 10:05 AM

US Con
Art I Sec 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

see, our glorious Founding Fathers instructed Congress that fighting invaders was the job of the Militia.
That’s why citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM

So you believe the 2nd Amendment protects my rights to own missile launchers now? I mean since this invasion might be Chinese jets I’m going to need some SAM’s or something for defense aren’t I?

At that point, might as well get some LAW rockets and really be prepared.

Or is your plan for defense against planes to let them drop bombs without doing anything to stop it? Do we get to keep the Air Force as a standing force? and if so, why not the Army… if I have to have one or the other being abused by the government; I’m not sure there’s less damage you could do with our bombers…

You go explain to your lefty friends that you really think the common man should be allowed to own varieties of missile launchers for the common defense; and it’s unconstitutional to try to limit this in any manner… I mean why only troll here?

gekkobear on January 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Good god that was awful! Who was she talking to? She did have a little of that faux Katie Couric perkiness, though. And that sing-song-y delivery just made it worse.

She seems a good person, but that was bad.

Pablo Snooze on January 27, 2011 at 2:47 PM

US Con
Art I Sec 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
see, our glorious Founding Fathers instructed Congress that fighting invaders was the job of the Militia.
That’s why citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM

As I said, these are volunteer military that get paid to be the militia.
In addition, the right of the citizen to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Another militia member.
We’re all militia members. AD military, National Guard, & citizen.

gekkobear on January 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM

LOL!
I really do think citizens ought to be allowed to bear some of those ‘arms’; anything that meets the basic definition of a firearm.
From Merriam Webster:

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder

So if the ‘shot’ is discharged by gunpowder, then I guess anything goes.
Bcs remember, the right shall not be infringed.
Somebody here at HA was commenting about Czechs owning tanks, rocket launchers etc. & remarked how they’re not killing each other all of the time.
Perhaps this one link will give us a small idea on how that has worked out for the Czechs.
As usual, trolls have no clue.

Badger40 on January 27, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Good god that was awful! Who was she talking to? She did have a little of that faux Katie Couric perkiness, though. And that sing-song-y delivery just made it worse.

She seems a good person, but that was bad.

Pablo Snooze on January 27, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Bad public speakers can still be good leaders.
I for one do not judge a person by their public speaking abilities.
From what i remeber, Clinton wasn’t too bad at public speaking.
He is a snake.

Badger40 on January 27, 2011 at 2:58 PM

“..a more passionate expression of Paul Ryan’s official GOP response..”

..or a “Poor Man’s Palin” as Megan McCain would say, which is why I don’t listen to anything that comes out of the mouth of a McCain. They give more respect to, and request more Conservatives to speak politely about, people like John Murtha or John Kerry who call our troops murderers before they’ve had a trial. At the same time they speak in horrible terms about the people they supposedly agree with and respect as members of the same Party. I realize now that John McCain doesn’t know anything about Family Values. I wouldn’t let my children talk disrespectful smack about my friends without giving them a verbal tongue lashing for a poor display of character that reflects poor parenting skills upon myself. But I digress.

So the standard GOP country club establishment line is that Bachmann’s response was a “Perot-like presentation” but was “additive” rather than subtractive? How is that possible? My recollection of 1991 was that Perot ended up being subtractive for George H.W. Bush than “additive”.

Sultry Beauty on January 27, 2011 at 3:18 PM

So you believe the 2nd Amendment protects my rights to own missile launchers now?
gekkobear

well, let us be guided by the sage words of the Militia Act of 1792,,,,,

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;

No mention of missile launchers …..

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 3:24 PM

That’s why citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Did anyone else see what she did here?

We are not ALLOWED to keep and bear arms, it is a RIGHT. The way you stated it makes it sound like the govt has some choice in the matter. They do not.

runawayyyy on January 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Levinite on January 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Are you retarted? WTF is your link to do with things you espouse to be retrograde?

Inanemergencydial on January 26, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Firstly, is your question in English? Maybe you need to learn grammar prior to calling others retarded. My link has everything to do with illustrating how similar the USA is to any Middle Eastern dictatorship when considering the variables discussed by the opposition leader in the video. If you didn’t watch it in its entirety, you would most likely have failed to make the link that anything being spouted by our elected officials, left or right wing, is tantamount to the propaganda spewed by any dictatorship to discourage unsettled masses from uprising.

I argued some posts back that Bachmann’s and Ryan’s speech were vague, vapid, and weak. When the GOP grandstands and spouts a bunch of weak-willed rhetoric, most of the people on the right assess that they’re doing the best they can and are satisfied. The truth is that this new Republican Congress is unlikely to change anything. They have the power of the purse and watch how they’ll fail to defund anything.

To bring this full circle, if Bachmann and Ryan aren’t going to do anything other than talk a bunch of trash, the only thing they are attempting to do is to pacify us and continue the majority of the tyranny and theft being imposed. Furthermore, these false prophets of the right have very questionable associations and I am surprised that no one seems to care. Anyone who associates themselves with the Tea Party Express is hardly a worthwhile conservative given the “open borders” mentality of the leadership; the very same reason I would never donate to Heritage Foundation.

Levinite on January 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Did anyone else see what she did here?

We are not ALLOWED to keep and bear arms, it is a RIGHT. The way you stated it makes it sound like the govt has some choice in the matter. They do not.

runawayyyy

feeling a bit paranoid?

the way I phrased that was to shed some light on the purpose for the inclusion of that right, not to spark debate as to whether or not it’s a right.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Levinite on January 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Are you retarted? WTF is your link to do with things you espouse to be retrograde?

Inanemergencydial on January 26, 2011 at 11:01 PM

retarded was indeed poorly chosen.

unhinged and not well oriented would have been more accurate.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 3:59 PM

That’s why citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Did anyone else see what she did here?

We are not ALLOWED to keep and bear arms, it is a RIGHT. The way you stated it makes it sound like the govt has some choice in the matter. They do not.

runawayyyy on January 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Yes. And I don’t believe this at all:

feeling a bit paranoid?

the way I phrased that was to shed some light on the purpose for the inclusion of that right, not to spark debate as to whether or not it’s a right.

audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 3:56 PM

You are, IMHO, full of it.
The word ‘allowed’ has an exact meaning to it.
Far from the notion of a ‘right’.
Either you know exactly what you were doing by that inclusion of the word, or you really are that stupid.
Which in the end, does not matter.
Bcs your very use of the word, no matter what the motive, serves to illustrate the deranged thinking of those who would limit the rights of the citizen, as set forth in the Const. & Bill of Rights.
Concrete definitions mean nothing to liberals & RINOs.
Such things can be twisted & used for any purpose.
Bcs the end justifies the means.

Badger40 on January 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Anyone who associates themselves with the Tea Party Express is hardly a worthwhile conservative given the “open borders” mentality of the leadership; the very same reason I would never donate to Heritage Foundation.

Levinite on January 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM

So the Tea Party Express is an actual organization?
I confess, IDK.
And they are for open borders? Never heard that.
And the Heritage Foundation is also for open borders?
Never heard that either.
I’m not being a smart a$$ here.
It would be helpful if you could direct me to where this can be substantiated.

Badger40 on January 27, 2011 at 4:17 PM

CNN defended its decision:

“The Tea Party has become a major force in American politics and within the Republican Party. Hearing the Tea Party’s perspective on the State of the Union is something we believe CNN’s viewers will be interested in hearing and we are happy to include this perspective as one of many in tonight’s coverage.”

Wow! A far cry from just a couple of years ago!

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 27, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Time until Allah gives us meggie-mac thread where she dis’es Michelle Bachmann….5….4….3….2…

csdeven on January 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM

POLL: Bachmann’s speech helped the GOP. But of course, not in the way that the establishment members would want. It certainly helps Ryan, by pulling perspective of his response toward the center. The only reason that worked is that Bachmann’s message was consistent, straightforward, and aimed at the best wishes for the American public.

I won’t get cliche and call it Reaganesque, but it was strong and honest.

As for CNN, watch the other hand. They are playing the wedge angle, expecting the “two responses” meme to foment chaos for the GOP as a whole. They haven’t learned the lesson of last November yet. The movement from which Bachmann stands out as a national voice is not going away, not going to sleep, and not going to lose.

Freelancer on January 28, 2011 at 1:45 PM

but it was strong and honest.

except for the honest part.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2