Many of the statments are outrageous...absurd...out of the mainstream...and even ludicrous. So, why do they say them?
You decide.
We’ve all heard them – outrageous statements from the far right, sometimes later modified, softened and even denied. But, the question remains: why do they say such controversial, out-of-the-box comments sure to bring down fire on them from both opponents, and even their supporters?
Well, there are a number of possible theories, so let’s examine them with a multiple-choice quiz.
Choice 1: They are often naïve, inexperienced, first-time candidates who run off track and inadvertently say things they shouldn’t. As an adjunct to this theory, the candidates often complain "they were trapped by the liberal media". This excuse started with Sarah Palin in the Katie Couric interview, when she failed to answer the simple question: "what papers do you read"? It was extended by Rand Paul when he inadvertently noted how grievous the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was. Anyway, that is choice #1.
Choice 2: They deny or were misquoted on what they said. This is Michelle Bachmann’s favorite response. She never "really said" BP would be chumps to do a deal with Obama as compensation for their near destruction of the Gulf of Mexico. She never meant that such compensation was a form of "extortion". What she "really" meant was the U.S government should not be given that money because they may spend it the wrong way. Sharron Angle (running for Senate in Nevada) is another denier: she has expunged many of her outrageous comments from her previous website.
Choice 3: They are playing to their base, and are only saying things they think will win them votes from the solid right. The Republican candidate for governor from Minnesota (Tom Emmer) said many restaurant servers earn over $100,000 per year, thus we should not continue paying them minimum wages because they get such generous tips (a play to the corporate interests supporting his campaign). It got positive nods from his right wing base...if only it were true (it was later determined to be ridiculously false).
Choice 4: Things are said in the heat of battle, only to be regretted thereafter. Representative Joe Wilson called out "you lie" during the State of the Union speech – only to later say his emotions got the best of him. Representative Joe Barton apologized to BP for his government acting so harshly against the oil company – later saying it was a mistake to say that and he regretted it.
Choice 5: All of the above
Choice 6: None of the above.
Well, most likely you picked Choice 5 – all of the above. Not me. I picked Choice 6, and here’s why. These folks are not naïve; they were not misquoted by the "liberal" media; they may be playing to their base, but that is not at the heart of their statements; they may have done so in the heat of battle, but probably not. The real reasons they make such statements is deep down in their heart this is truly what they believe! Sarah Palin and Rand Paul would turn the clock back to times and policies that are antithetical to our rights and liberties as we know them today. Sharron Angle, given the power, would not allow the option of an abortion to a young teen ager raped by her father, believes we should privatize Social Security and get rid of Medicare. Tom Emmer, Michelle Bachmann and Joe Barton would clearly favor corporate interests over the interests of individuals, given the opportunity – and power. And Joe Wilson sincerely does think Obama lies. And that is why they are so scary.
Every one of the aforementioned people is either in office or candidates for office now. All, if elected, and given sufficient added persons of the same ilk, would change the face of America to a time and place unrecognizable and undesirable, as we know it today. And that not only makes them scary, it makes them dangerous. But, we do have one more choice to add to the 6 above. We have an additional choice when we vote.