Mark Noonan – Supahstah!

Posted by: ST on September 30, 2005 at 10:30 am

Mark Noonan over at Blogs For Bush wrote a post at B4B asking the question: "Do the Democrats Want a Civil War?"  In it, he said:

I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge – you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received. If you can’t defeat Tom Delay in the electoral field, then you will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives – and you’d better start accepting political reality before things get really bad.

Apparently that post hit a little too close to home for folks at the Daily Kos as Mark’s follow up post notes. Yikes!

File this under "you know you’ve made it big when …." emoticon

PM UPDATE: Air America host Mike Malloy has advocated physical violence against Mark Noonan as a result of his post.  Pathetic!  Matt Margolis has the audio here.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 Responses to “Mark Noonan – Supahstah!”

Comments

  1. PCD says:

    I do believe the Liberal/Progressives want a civli war, but on their terms. The main term is that we don’t get to shoot back at them.

    They’d better becareful of what they wish for. They may be wishing they’d made good on their threats to leave the country. I’ve got one question about that: “Is there any country that would accept these malcontents if they aren’t rich like Theresa Kerry, George Soros or a Hollywood actor?”

  2. Walter E. Wallis says:

    A point of philosophy – If a talk show host makes an outrageous statement but nobody is listening, did he really say it after all?

  3. Brian says:

    Tom Delay is one of the most, maybe even the most dishonest, unethical members of Congress. He has been rebuked multiple times by Democrats and Republicans on the congressional ethics committee. The idea that the indictment of a corrupt Republican congressman is the start of a civil war is completely ridiculous. Tom Delay’s position in Congress doesn’t give him immunity from prosecution.

    Going on the radio and calling for people to beat someone up is completely stupid but so is calling for a civil war and making threats against the political opposition. I really doubt most Republicans consider Mark Noonan to be their spokesman.

  4. “The idea that the indictment of a corrupt Republican congressman is the start of a civil war is completely ridiculous.”

    That wasn’t Mark’s argument. It was a “this is the straw that broke the camel’s back” argument.

    “Tom Delay’s position in Congress doesn’t give him immunity from prosecution.”

    That’s a stawman argument as no one has argued that here or there at B4B.

    “Going on the radio and calling for people to beat someone up is completely stupid but so is calling for a civil war and making threats against the political opposition.”

    “Making threats”? Get REAL! Do you think Noonan’s comments equated to calling for physical violence against the opposition? If so, I respectfully suggst you re-read them.

    “I really doubt most Republicans consider Mark Noonan to be their spokesman.”

    Republicans can speak FOR THEMSELVES. And Noonan has been defended by quite a few of them, including myself. It’s not about being anyone’s “spokesman” it’s about Noonan giving an opinion on something and a certain segment of the left flipping out over it, including a talk show host who called for physical violence against someone. That is wrong – period. No qualifiers necessary.

    To Walter: LOL :)

  5. Brian says:

    Sister Toldjah,

    I never said that I equate Marks comments with calling for physical violence, only that he threatened the prosecutor and Democratic Party.

    Mark wrote, “We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received.”

    I take this to mean that if the Democrats continue to prosecute Tom Delay, the Republicans will “pay back” the Democrats “with usury”. I see this as a threat to the prosecutor for pursuing a case against Tom Delay. I also see Mark as being way off with this statement and also with his title “Do the Democrats Want a Civil War?”. The decision to indict Tom Delay was made by an individual prosecutor, not the Democratic Party.

    Mark wrote, “we on our side”. By saying “we” and “our side”, Mark is making himself out to be representing the Republican Party, which he isn’t. I seriously doubt that the Republicans in Congress will be out to seek revenge against Democrats if Tom Delay is convicted. From what I’ve read, there are a few Republicans that won’t be too disappointed to see Tom Delay permanently removed from his position.

    In this case, I don’t know whether or not Tom Delay broke the law. If he did break the law, I hope he is convicted, and if he didn’t break the law, I hope he is acquitted. If he does get convicted, it is my prediction that most Republicans will distance themselves from him rather than start a civil war with the Democrats.

    Mark also wrote, “If you can’t defeat Tom Delay in the electoral field, then you will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives”. By writing that if the Democrats can’t defeat Tom Delay, they will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader, is implying that he shouldn’t be prosecuted or is immune from prosecution. If he did break the law Democrats do not have to accept him as Majority Leader regardless of whether or not they can beat Tom Delay in an election. Just because he was elected Majority Leader doesn’t mean a Democratic prosecutor can’t indict him.