Comments about ‘Letters: Tea Party, Mike Lee poisoning all institutions’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Oct. 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Eugene, OR

Excellent letter, Andrew. Expect the usual suspects to start complaining about how President Obama's a socialist anytime now.

Far East USA, SC

"Beliefs determine what we can see."

Exactly. And facts don't matter.

Two examples.

Got a mass email from someone in our scout troop a couple years ago. It explained how Obama wanted to take "in God we Trust" off of the money. This person called for organized protests. He sent this to 50+ people.

When I responded (only to him) with several sources showing that this was completely false, I never heard back. He didn't thank me or express happiness that this terrible thing would not be happening.

Same thing with the ACA. A friend told me that he was Furious with the ACA because Congress has exempted itself. (Seen daily on Fox News.) What a great rant he had. It was his proof as to how bad the ACA was.

I then showed him, with unbiased or right leaning FACTS how this was false. Congress and staff are the only people in America who are REQUIRED by_law to join the exchanges.
(I also gave him the facts about their subsidy and_why)

Was he happy? NOPE.

He would rather rant about something that was false, than be satisfied with the truth.

Ask yourself. "Is that ME"?

Omaha, NE

What I see as sad is that we are stealing so much from our nation's future. So much... they are going to have to pay so badly for our debt.

When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget. They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and spend.

When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk about trying to balance the budget.

I feel for the children. We are literally stealing from them with these unbalanced budgets.

Simple math. Spend less or equal to what you take it. If Congress can't figure that out, why exactly do we expect them to figure anything else out?

Ogden, UT

Excellent commentary about the Tea Party, Mike Lee, and their ilk.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Yes, blame those who believe in freedom, for Obama's usurpation of our liberty. The White House directed the parks and monuments of this nation to shut down. Was that a loss of liberty? Can the Americans who fought WWII to retain our freedoms even visit the monument that was erected, with private funds, to honor them and the sacrifice that they made? Why did Obama shut down WIC when funds had been allocated to that program and funds were still available even if no funds had been allocated? Why would anyone hold women, infants and children hostage? Certainly no American President has ever stooped that low. Yet, the letter writer blames the "tea party".

Who was it that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it those who shouted the praises of King George? Was it those who told the people that the King could do whatever he wanted because, after all, he was the King, whether he was "crazy" or not?

Today, "King Men" shout praises for Obama. They mock our freedoms. They mock those of use who cherish freedom. They want a King. They are incapable of handling freedom.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Deficits...Poisoning...and Don Quixote...

"...Deficits don't matter...".

So said romney's idol, republican vp dick cheney...


rafael cruz = Don Quixote

mike lee = Sancho Panza.

Where do we go from here?

The title of a recent book suggests that...

republicans have lost their minds...

Democrats are useless...

And the Middle Class got the shaft...


lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

So anything with which you disagree is “uninformed and irrational radicalism”? Ah, the typical “tolerance” of the left. And of course, our typical leftist commenters show the same “tolerance”

Capable and well intentioned potus? NOW who is being uninformed and irrational?

There you go,
Who said cheney was romney’s idol? Making stuff up again?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re: "uninformed and irrational".... this letter takes the cake.

You can tell when somebody gets all their information from MSNBC or the news, and hasn't bothered to actually talk to a Tea Party person or even go to a rally to see for themselves.

Tea Party isn't about getting Obama. It was around before Obama. And they have taken on more Republicans and gotten more Republican incumbants unelected than they have Democrats.

This fear that they are just after Obama, and the constant uninformed insistance that it's all about race... is "uninformed and irrational".

They are mainly after out of control Government spending. They can't help it if Obama is the poster-child for what they are against.

I suspect when Obama is gone in a couple of years they will continue, and they will continue to be about reducing our government's spending, out of control taxation to accommodate that spending, reduce the size of the FEDERAL Government (to the boundaries set in the Constitution). They will continue to be about individual liberty (even liberty to make mistakes). And the movement will continue to have zero to do with racism.


The current Tea Party movement began in early 2009. I remember very clearly watching Fox promote them on various programs.

I've also listened to T Partiers discuss the issues and explain themselves--and not through the "liberal" MSNBC or other liberal,programs.

It is very possible the Republicans would have the majority in the Senate were it not for the T-Partiers. For example, the Tea Party promoted "i'm not a witch" Christine O'Donnell in DE over a well-liked and well-respected Republican Mike Castle which resulted in the Democrats winning the seat.

Andrew is spot-on.

Provo, UT

It's ironic that Mike Richards would bring up the King Men from the Book of Mormon on this one.

Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who didn't like Democracy? Wasn't Pahoran democratically elected by the majority voice of the people? Yet, wasn't it the King Men who wanted to negate his election and overrule the majority?

Weren't the King Men those who sought to exasperate a situation for their own political gain?

Weren't the King Men those who rather than follow the rules and regulations of the land, destroy them?

Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and the Tea Party are modern day examples of King Men. The mere fact that they are running away from their constituents and refusing to do any interviews with KSL only proves this point. They don't care about us. They only care about themselves. About representing their tiny (rich) minority.

Provo, UT

"So anything with which you disagree is uninformed and irrational radicalism?"

My Gpa was a very wise man. He taught, "If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it probably is."

Sorry, but sometimes uninformed and irrational radicalism really just is uniformed and irrational radicalism. You may not like this. You may even ignore the evidence that proves this. But you cannot change the fact and the truth that it is.

I'm sure that Pharisees and the Sadducees were in the same denial. "Us? Evil? But we're children of Abraham! How dare you demand to see our good works! We do great works all the time!"

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re: Hamath "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget".

Fact is... last time the budget was balanced Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied the White House, but Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the budget).

Google "who controlled congress when clinton balanced the budget".

You will be exposed to the fact that no Democrat controlled Congress has balanced the budget in over 40 years.

Here's some history on it...

1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. America disgusted with rampant welfare abuse and out of control government spending elected Gingrich and company giving "Contract with America" empowered Republicans (the Tea Party of their day) control of Congress... and they did balance the budget as promised.

Congress is responsible for the budget (not the President). People giving Clinton credit for that budget he fought bitterly against are intellectually dishonest.

Burke, VA

Hamath said, "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget. They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and spend. When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk about trying to balance the budget. "

Part correct and part incorrect. In the presidential campaign of 1980 Ronoald Reagan claimed that the $75B deficit from President Carter's last year in office was "obscene." Then Reagan was elected and tripled our national debt leaving us with $350B plus deficits. Not once did Reagan present anything close to a balanced budget and on two of his eight years in Congress, the Democratic controlled House passed a budget with a lower deficit than Reagans proposed budget for that year.

President Clinton, with assistance from a Republican Congress, passed a surplus budget that the CBO said, if continued, would erase the then $5+ trillion debt within ten years. But George Bush gave tax cuts, most to the wealthy and look where we are today.

J Thompson

Look at those who tell us that because Obama was elected that he has the right to dictate to us anything that he wants, regardless of the restrictions put on him by the Constitution! Look at those who think that bribing Congress (Louisiana Purchase, Nebraska, etc.) is lawful and ethical. Look at those who think that changing the rules at the last second, when ObamaCare was going down in flames, is what the people who elected Obama wanted. Look at those who tell us that the government has the right to ignore 59% of the people who told Congress and Obama that they did not want ObamaCare passed.

Those who tell us that Obama and Reid have the right to hold America hostage until America concedes that those two can dictate to us whatever they want, are clearly wrong. They are the "King Men". They have traded the freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution to the People, for a handkerchief so that government can wipe their noses.

Then, they have the gall to tell us that King Obama has the right to stomp on the Constitution because they voted for him.


Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who didn't like Democracy?


If I have the right scripture it states that the supporters of Amalackiah, who conspired to be a king, .."were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land....And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalckiah, that if they would support him.... he would make them rulers of the people".

Alma 46:4-5

In a later rebellion against the laws of liberty it was "almost all the lawyers" and the "kindreds of ...judges" and even "high priests" that conspired to destroy freedom.

3 Nephi 6: 27-30

Eagle Mountain, UT

@2 bits

Fact is...last time the Republicans controlled the White House, and both houses of Congress they ran up then record deficits. Did nothing to slow down the growth of government (in fact they greatly increased it)

When either party is in complete control they tend to run away with spending, it only becomes an issue when it is on things you don't like.

Far East USA, SC

"Fact is... last time the budget was balanced Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied the White House, but Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the budget)."

Yes 2-Bits. But ...

The GOP also controlled the congress for 6 years under George W Bush?
During that time the deficit jumped significantly.

The passed Medicare Part D which was the largest entitlement expansion in decades.

Hard to portray the GOP as deficit busters. It would appear that they only scream about spending with a Dem in the white house.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The same people who fight big spending by Obama were fighting big spending under Bush (TARP, etc). That's why Bennett got ousted.

Maybe they didn't call themselves the Tea Party back then, but they were still there.

IMO They didn't fight government spending under Bush as they should have. But they did fight it (a losing battle). They became especially active when Obama took office because of his campaign promises to raise taxes (and fighting tax increases on ALL Americans is part of their platform). And no... Racism has never been part of their platform.

I think their message was mostly ignored during the Bush years because he kept cutting taxes and promising to keep taxes low (which is their main thing). But He also kept spending (mostly on the wars). So anti-tax protests under a President who was CUTTING taxes... didn't get much traction.

I don't know if Clinton era Republicans slowed government growth, but Welfare-Reform DID produce a documented decrease in entitlement spending (though it wasn't enough to last long or save them from long term bankruptcy).

IMO best combination in Washington is Democrat President and Republican Congress.

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I didn't say any time Republicans control Congress we have a balanced budget. That's obviously not true (like you pointed out). But I also never said it.

I actually said it's best when there is a Democrat President and a Republican Congress (or visa versa a Republican President and Democrat Congress).

Last time a Democrat President had a balanced budget Congress was controlled by Republicans (empowered by the landslide mid-term election and the contract with America to do something about government spending).

Last time a Republican President had a balanced budget (Eisenhower) Democrats controlled Congress.

The point being... it's GOOD for there to be opposition, checks and balance in government (as our founding fathers wanted). And it's BAD when we have a President, Congress and Supreme Court controlled by the same party (as we had the first years of the Obama administration). During those years Congress didn't even SUBMIT a budget... must less BALANCE the budget!

That's what happens when you have one-party-supermajority, and an arrogant supermajority at that. As you point out... same thing happened during the Bush administration when Republicans controlled everything.

Balance is key.

Far East USA, SC


It appeared to me that you advocated a GOP congress because
"Congress is responsible for the budget (not the President)."

I only pointed out that the GOP congress with a GOP president had free reign.

And they didn't handle it well, deficit wise.

I too believe that balance is best. I am actually pulling for the moderates in the GOP to somehow gain back control and bring a bit more "rational" thinking to the party.

I could possibly vote for a Christie because he would not be a puppet to the wing of the party.
Romney would have been as evidenced by how much he tried to cater to them.
I would strongly consider Rice. I would have probably voted for Colin Powell. Or Huntsman

But, in reality, the wing of the party, who controls the primary process, would not want anyone who will not vote lock step with them. They want someone to rubberstamp only a far right agenda.

They want a Cruz type.

And the independents will not go for Cruz.

Give me reasonable balance. That is what we need. R or D would be fine.

Most cant admit it but Obama is fairly moderate.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments