Rand Paul And Others On The Right Denounce Cliven Bundy
Cliven Bundy still has his defenders among the hardcore right, but many people have joined Kentucky's junior Senator in throwing Cliven Bundy under the bus
Senators Rand Paul and Dean Heller and both made public statements of support for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy in his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees. However, now that Bundy has been quoted in the New York Times making statements that can only be characterized as racist, they have quickly distanced themselves from him:
Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Dean Heller on Thursday both denounced as “offensive” and “racist” Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s recent comments about African-Americans.
“His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Paul said in a statement, according to Business Insider.
“Senator Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” Heller spokeswoman Chandler Smith said in a statement.
Both Paul and Heller have previously defended Bundy, the Nevada rancher who is in a standoff against the federal government. Heller has referred to his supporters as “patriots.”
But on Thursday, The New York Times reported Bundy using the word “Negro” and wondering if blacks were better off as slaves.
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy said over the weekend, according to the Times. “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Appearing on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he hadn’t seen Bundy’s comments. The Republican called Bundy a “side story” in the greater issue of how the federal government deals with public and private land.
Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Thursday released a statement on her official blog: “Let me make this plain: I condemn what Cliven Bundy said about African Americans.” Van Susteren has devoted significant time on her program to the Bundy issue, interviewing bothPaul and Carol Bundy, Cliven’s wife.
“Morning Joe” co-host and former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough on his program Thursday morning slammed Bundy and Republicans who have embraced him. He said that Bundy is demanding “a right that no other rancher in America has.”
The host appeared to be equally upset with conservatives that have championed Bundy over the course of the past few weeks. “There’s nothing conservative about this man,” Scarborough said. “This is where nihilism about the federal government gets you in trouble every time.”
To be before, Paul and Heller weren’t exactly full-throated Bundy supporters to begin with. Their comments were sympathetic to his arguments, but addressed more to the broad issue of Bureau of Land Management policy rather than the specific facts of the Bundy case. Nonetheless, the Senators aren’t the only ones backing away from even mild support of Bundy this morning. In addition to people like Perry, Van Susterin, and Scarborough, I’ve seen others on the right be very quick to dissociate themselves from the Nevada rancher rather than defending what he said. Perhaps this is an indication that pundits and advocates on the right are finally starting to learn from their past mistakes. By contrast, there seem to be others on the right who remain steadfast in their support of Bundy notwithstanding his comments about race and slavery, but that’s just indicative of a wider divide I’ve noticed on the right over this case.
Even before these statements of Bundy’s I had noticed that there was a clear divided on the right about the merits of Bundy’s claims, the manner in which the Federal Government acted, and the responses from Bundy and his supporters from various wings of the Tea Party and militia movements. On the one side, of course, there are those who seen Bundy as the victim of an unjust and arbitrary government, including those who have stated quite publicly that they rejected the right of the Federal Government to own land notwithstanding that such a power is expressly authorized by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. On the other side, though, has been another group of conservatives and libertarians who were just as vocal in their opposition to what Bundy was going and what he stood for. These people pointed out, quite correctly, that the Federal Government’s title over the land where Bundy grazed his cattle had been recognized for more than 100 years, that Bundy had apparently previously paid grazing fees before suddenly deciding not to do so, and that his claims to the land had been adjudicated in court in a hearing that he participated in. Indeed, the entire reason that the BLM and other law enforcement agencies were present outside Bundy’s property was to enforce an order that resulted from those Court proceedings which Bundy failed to appeal. Under this narrative, which I largely agree with, Bundy was little more than a scofflaw disobeying a Court Order. Even if there are legitimate questions about Federal land management policy, that does not justify defying Court orders and threatening to kill Federal Agents if they ventured onto your property to enforce those Orders.
On some level, the division on the right that existed over Cliven Bundy even before the comments that became public today seems to be another example of the growing rift in the party between die-hard Tea Party activists and conservatives who want to actually win elections. That’s a battle that was brewing for some time, of course, but it didn’t really become public until the disaster of the October 2013 government shutdown, spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz and a group of Tea Party linked organizations such as FreedomWorks. The rift would have continued to widen even without the Bundy ranch standoff, but now that it has happened we’re likely to see further examples of Tea Party and “establishment” conservatives going after each other, especially as we head into primary season in states like North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi.
Meh. This “division on the right” is largely a competition for two PR firms angling for a contract. There is a difference in the packaging, but the product is exactly the same.
(There are certainly conservatives that stand by Constitutional principles. None of these worthies are allowed anywhere near levers of actual political power)
Of course Paul also threw his ghost-writer under the bus…a neo-confederate and secessionist.
But there is no trend here.
I’d like to see a journalist ask Paul and Heller flat out if they would support an armed militia coming to their offices in Washington and pointing guns in their faces because they didn’t agree with some law they’d passed. After all, what are the Senators but mere evil government employees who need to be stopped, just like the BLM employees in Nevada, right? Really, is this seriously the way they think things should be handled?
Now someone needs to ask Rand when he’s going to denounce his father for having the same opinions…
Wait a minute, what? He’s a racist? Why, I never. Who could have ever guessed – ever – that some gun-toting, self-pitying, Tea Party character would be a racist? I mean, what are the odds of such a thing?
Answer: about 100%.
@michael reynolds:
Paul? Or Heller? Or Bundy? Or all of the above?
Rand Paul is right on the borderline between the respectable right and the crackpot right, with his father on the crackpot side of the line. I guess he’s going to try to push away from the crackpot right. The problem for conservatives is that the energy and the ardor is coming from the crackpot side of the line.
We’ll see if he can repudiate the wilder ideas of the extreme right, while drawing on their energy and support.
@stonetools:
It’s funny…yesterday he said some sensible things about Climate Change…but then just morphed into the party propaganda about un-settled science.
He’s a double-talker for sure…but he’s a politician…so by definition…
First off, good for Senators Paul and Heller for doing the only possible thing a decent human being could do here. Yes, that’s faint praise, but in today’s environment it’s praise nonetheless.
Second, I agree with stonetools about Paul in particular. Can he both distance himself from the fever swamps and still draw on their undeniable passion? Or, less charitably, can he continue the Paul family grift successfully if he also tries to play serious politician?
The present incarnation of the Democratic party is mostly composed of politicians who stiff-arm their crazies and may sometimes pay a price for it. The leftier-than-thou types usually say that “hippy punching” is the reason Dems don’t turn out more for mid-term elections. I think this is a dubious claim. Obviously by doing this they make themselves more palatable to more moderate folks, and perhaps it’s a wash in terms of votes (though I’d wager the Left’s wackaloons have less money, overall, than the Right’s, and thus the fundraising opportunities on the Right are greater).
As a registered Republican (most of the current party would probably call me a RINO I even voted Obama in 2012) I wish the Republican Party could take a scalpel and cut out the cancer that is the Tea Party and the rest of the racist and zealously fundamentalist elements, but I’m afraid there wouldn’t be much left of the patient after all that.
If it wasn’t for my my state’s closed primaries, I would probably be an independent. I do at times wish I could switch my allegiance over to the Democrats, but there are certain issues I simply cannot compromise on (i.e. especially Second Amendment rights) which keep me from making that leap.
In any case, right now the left is having a ball with this story, and who can blame them? That includes this (incomplete) hit-list of Bundy supporters: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/a-list-of-cliven-bundys-supporters-now-that-we-know-hes-a-pro-slavery-racist/361154/
Ha! This is a pretty good example of a “Rand Paul problem.” He’s quick to back any kind of anti-government nutcase, and just as quick to run from them when it threatens his long-planned presidential campaign. A more disciplined Senator wouldn’t have gotten themselves involved in this mess, but Rand Paul is not that guy.
Bundy has clarified his remarks:
That’s much better. He’s no racist.
Bundy’s supporters are claiming the New York Times made this up. I’m not altogether sure how they explain the video.
@C. Clavin:
Beyond wondering about what Mr. Bundy thinks about people receiving Farm subsidies, it’s amazing how pervasive the entire trope of “slave to the government via subsidies” = “actual historic US slavery.”
Because, of course, the government is free to beat, rape, and kill you, not to mention sell you and your descendants to other governments.
No, no, no. Matt. You forget. It’s:
Being a “slave” to the government via subsidies IS WORSE THAN actual chattel slavery. (also, too: pointing out racism is the real racism)
Of course, it’s utterly delusional.
This is a man who apparently knows nothing about slavery as it was actually practiced in these here United States. Except, apparently, what he got from other Right-wing wackaloons.
@CSK:
“I’m not altogether sure how they explain the video.”
Well, since they faked the moon landing, this was a piece of cake.
/sarcasm
Nothing is sexier in politics than BLM policy disputes.
While my betters (and Lee Atwater) would claim the bedrock of modern conservative policy is a veiled appeal to racists, I think who ends up taking what side in this, the first day of these revelations, will give us a good idea which actors are earnest about the racism. I still consider it too heavyhanded and sloppy to label anyone who supports conservative policy goals as de facto racist.
So Dana Loesch is racist, is what I’m getting at.
@Tillman:
Well if you take her comments at face value. And then there was her husbands rap “performance” at the 2012 CPAC.
The problem is that Loesch being racist in the same (despicable) way that Limbaugh is racist or that Coulter is Anti-Semetic — Regardless of what she actually believes, Loesch know’s what she’s doing, and she knows that it’s going to get her heat from the media and praise from her audience. It’s a completely cynical use of her command of crypto-racism that’s all about meeting the expectations of her audience (including her liberal audience) rather than having anything to do with her core beliefs on race.
It’s the Howard Stern-ification of politics. Which, not surprisingly, has come from people who, for the most part, made their name in radio first.
UPDATE: BTW, I expect that Bondy’s doubling down will allow Loesch to be able to do a quick face saving exit using the classic “I gave him the benefit of doubt.” This will immediately be followed up with an EXTREME denouncing of Bondy to demonstrate how “not racist in away way” Loesch really is. (Anyone who has listened to enough talk radio will recognize this pattern).
Of course, if she doubles down, then yeah, at that point I think chances are she may be speaking from the heart.
@Tillman:
I agree and always have. But that doesn’t alter the fact that Republican electoral support rests on racist votes. Or that the GOP cynically caters to racist voters, that they regularly use dog-whistle racism to attack individuals and policies. Or the fact that racism is the power source for the fanatical, hysterical right wing reaction to Obama. That much heat never comes from policy differences, it’s always something more primal.
So are 100% of Republicans racist? No. Is 100% of their political power dependent on the support of racists? Yes. Subtract the racist vote from the GOP and they’d have about 20 senators.
They chose to build on that platform in the 1960’s, and now it is marginalizing them, turning them into the party of 70 year-old rednecks.
@C. Clavin:
To paraphrase Wally Cleaver (in sit-com conversation with Beaver Cleaver):
“Well, heck no Cliven, ya little goof.”
Again, many current base conservatives are not convinced that ACTUAL slavery was worse than the slavery that addles their minds.
Finally, it’s nice that Cliven has volunteered his services to the Republican Minority Outreach effort.
@Matt Bernius: And people might have wondered why I mourned the extinction of authentic racism.
@michael reynolds:
I’ve got no objection.
He deplores the plight of the poor negro who lives off government subsidies, while grazing his cattle on public land, demanding a subsidy under threat of force surrounded by his militia friends…
Sounds about right.
Somehow, I suspect that his wondering has never quite gotten to “Is there systemic racism that greatly limits the opportunities of African-Americans and reinforces a cycle of poverty for generations?”
You know, I just couldn’t help myself, as I usually can’t in these situations, and had to head over to read the Blaze’s coverage and the comments section.
This group is more representative than most Republicans would like to admit. Glenn Beck’s rush to condemn Bundy is construed as a great betrayal of a man whose honest and, indeed, sympathetic portrayal of blacks has been twisted by the MSM. I really don’t know why I do this to myself, but I guess being a regular reader of the Blaze helps me remember there are plenty of racist, pro-slavery apologists alive in the good ol’ USA today. How a group of people can be so willfully blind and make such bold revisions to history still mystifies me, but I guess that’s the human condition when on the wrong side of history.
@aFloridian:
I salute you, for wading through that. I gave that up years ago (not The Blaze, which I hadn’t heard of or didn’t exist yet, but generally the idea of reading through comments sections on right-wing sites, other than The American Conservative). I just couldn’t take it anymore. It’s depressing as hell.
@aFloridian:
Glenn Beck’s rush to condemn Bundy
Which only came about because Beck owns lands and charges grazing fees, so he understands Bundy is just a thief and someone like Bundy could just as well be ripping off Beck. If it weren’t for his own personal financial concerns, I would bet Beck would be behind Bundy 100%.
It’s similar to those who actively fight against gay marriage until they discover one of their kids is gay, and change their tune.
@mantis:
You may be right. I assumed it was just because he doesn’t want to be associated with this kind of open racism (rather than the pseudo-intellectual historical revisionism he normally engages in) but his own selfish are probably at play here too.
@michael reynolds:
Does it matter when all of their preferred policies have disparate racial impacts?
Where was this all this news exactly at on the networks? I never saw it. I stopped watching CNN the other week when they quit broadcasting from that fligjt simulator.
Is Mr. Bundy’s 15 minutes up?
It’s a damn shame westerners wound up with a white supremacist stereotype. I’ll try to dig up the work done by the U of Washington’s Quintard Taylor on Blacks in the American West and post it.
He documented the history of there once being lots of blacks streaming out west and homesteading for a brief period, and with no big issues made of it. There was lots of land and the more neighbors one had the safer one kinda was. Taylor makes a clear case it was not white supremacy that caused the whites to drive them out, it was a fear, even sure knowledge, that a territory that did not have an outright ban on blacks would be invaded by slavers.
Before modern fertilizers “factory” farmers exhausted their land pretty fast. Always looking for new land.
What’s hilarious has been watching Hannity do a sudden 180 turn and now start bashing Mr. Bundy.
Yet another great success for the Republican minority outreach program, hmmm?
@dazedandconfused: Please do. That sounds fascinating.
All I can think of to rebut that point of view is the movie Blazing Saddles.
@Tillman:
He practically read his books in this multi-part series, but I can’t recall whether he got into it near the beginning or near the end when he gets into the nature of the Oregon territory and how WW2 completely reversed the situation.
For the meantime, here’s a link to the first of the series, 1500’s to the Civil War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKg-iKxfAs&feature=share&list=PL768E614EE78C4D7A
This guy is one of those historians who lived in fear someone would figure out he would still be doing it without a paycheck. Every “vacation” he’d hop in his car and go to small towns in the sticks and dig up records. “Take it to the bank” meticulous.
Thank you Mel Brooks, Gene Wilder, Cleavon Little (RIP).
(Cleavon…Cliven…Navin??? Will the real Jerk please stand up.)
I think I am going to get on the Bundy bandwagon. I like the idea of “ancestral rights”, hell, some of my people walked from Pennsylvania to California 150 years ago, we have been here for a while.
I want to stop paying my property taxes, but still get services. I will use the money for a trip to Italy, something that is high on my to-do list.
I’m really starting to think there is something to this conservative stuff after all.
Shockingly, Bundy seems to have vanished from foxnews.com. And I thought that they believed in this man’s brave fight for freedom. They do have a dandy shot of Kate Upton’s cleavage though.
A gander at Hannity’s page on the Fox site shows that he has shifted his focus to “Dancing with the stars”…
Interesting that the fellow in the foreground of the above photo appears to have his weapon secured in a manner that would cause him some problems should shooting start suddenly.
So is he
A. Someone who is really not equipped to deal with a firefight?
B. Someone who really does not expect trouble, but sure loves looking like a badass?
…Wow, this place has — amazingly — gotten even worse since I took a little time away.
Doug, you really, really need to give up your “staunch libertarian” pose. It’s obvious you’re faking it.
There are several aspects of the Bundy case that ought to have roused the “libertarian” in you, if it actually existed. The BLM treating its mandate to “manage” the land to buy out and shut down farms. Their use of paramilitary forces to enforce a financial dispute versus simply placing a lien on the Bundy property.
Instead, you totally ignored the story (I checked) until an element totally irrelevant to the actual story but guaranteed to appeal to your core audience arose, and then and only then did you deign to give the story any attention. In fact, you and Dr. Taylor each posted two articles about the racial views of someone whose claim to fame has absolutely nothing to do with race. Because that lets him be dismissed as just another racist, and the issues he brought to the national stage can be safely ignored, because racists can never be right and have no rights that can be violated. They are always wrong, and anything that happens to them is just them getting their just desserts.
And the real kicker, Mr. Mataconis? Those regular readers to whom you’re pandering aren’t even supporters of yours. They spend most of their time insulting and denigrating you.
You’re one hell of a Moby for the left, Mr. Mataconis. I didn’t fully get it until I took a little time away and came back with a fresh perspective that it really sunk in.
Charles Krauthammer doesn’t get a lot of love here at OTB, but man, he absolutely nails it on Cliven Bundy:
@Jenos Idanian #13: Ah, it wasn’t until just now that I realized how much I missed your utterly predictable and completely orthodox wing-nuttery. And that’s why I found it hilarious to hear you talk about how you “took a little time away and came back with a fresh perspective.”
Fresh? You can spray Febreeze on the garbage, but that don’t make it “fresh.”
@anjin-san:
And yet he thought it was a good idea to talk to CNN this morning….
At this point, someone needs to tell Bundy that the media can’t help him. They can only make him a sideshow, whether he’s talking to the crotch-sniffers at Fox or the butt-sniffers at CNN.
@Gustopher: Yup, you have to love that right wing self awareness.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
LOL!
I see you spent some time in the fever swamps and have re-emerged even more of a winger, which is to say even more detached from reality.
The man’s argument was bullshit before he said a word about race. The race angle just shows us he is who we figured he was. And it’s amusing to see all the wingers fall all over themselves pretending that his racist viewpoint has nothing – nothing I say! – to do with his anti-government sentiment.
The “substance” of Mr. Bundy’s argument is indefensible garbage. And yet here you are, flailing away trying to defend it. How sad.
@Jenos Idanian:
Not a financial dispute – a deadbeat that doesn’t believe in doing the right thing. Failure to comply with court judgements (4 over the course of 20 years) generally means the cops come to visit you. You don’t pay your bills, your stuff gets repo’d. What in the world makes you think that once that lien comes due, Bundy would have gracefully conceded? Man doesn’t feel like paying his bills, how do you make him? This man has been delinquent for longer then a generation – you get that there are people who are now eligible to vote now who weren’t alive when this started? If they freeze his assets and confiscate the cattle as repayment, this man will gladly start shooting. He’s stealing from taxpayers – you and me. We’re subsidizing this moron when he doesn’t feel like paying up. He’s a thug, plain and simple.
Conservative used to mean respect for the law. The legal system – from Reagan’s laws to the Republicans and Democrats in the courts – has examined his case and found it wanting. He had his days in court and lost.
Just to be clear, btw, this guy had his day – indeed many days – in court. He lost, repeatedly. There was due process here. BUNDY is the one rejecting due process and the rule of law. BUNDY is the one who is, to use a term so beloved by wingers a mere 10 years ago, “anti-American.” The man is a deadbeat who refused to pay (rather low) fees to use public lands. Lands owned in common BY US ALL, Jenos (of course, I know, you don’t actually have any respect for the commons). Not only did he try and freeload, but when he was finally (20 years down the road!!) called on it, he chose armed resistance. And you back him.
As for Doug, Doug pretty clearly doesn’t care what his commentors say, whether it’s me or Jenos. He gets it from left and right, and that probably bolsters his self-esteem, if anything.
Mikey – Krauthammer nails Bundy, but his real target isn’t Bundy. It’s Jenos & those like him. And there he scores a near-bullseye.
Mr. Mataconis: You say that you “largely agree with the narrative (describing the facts and legal background of Mr. Bundy’s dispute with the BLM).” What facts that you recite don’t you agree with? There is only one I disagree with: Mr. Bundy had several judicial hearings (plural) on his claims that he could ignore the law, including an unsuccessful appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This controversy has nothing to do with “legitimate questions about Federal land management policy” but with crackpot notions about “ancestral rights” and the purported nonexistence of the federal government.
What’s amazing to read is someone waving his hands saying “this entire racism thing is distracting us from the *real facts of the case* — and then lectures about how legitimate Mr. Bundy’s case is while ignoring the *real facts of the case.*
@Matt Bernius:
Indeedy.
It’s funny, but I did notice that this site had largely ignored the Bundy thing. It was all over progressive blogs and all over conservative ones too, before he opened his yap about The Negro.
Since I generally avoid whining about what a blog does and doesn’t cover, I didn’t say anything. I wondered, though, just a little bit, if the front pagers here thought: a) it was just embarrassing; or b) it was so self-evidently absurd that they didn’t see the point in tackling it. Option C of course is “they were busy in real life and didn’t get to it” which is probably the most likely option.
If they HAD tackled it, the facts of the case are really, really clear. Whether it was Doug, James or Steven, I think the conclusion would’ve been the same: the guy is a crank, and totally in the wrong. Doug is the most prolific poster, so it would most likely have been him. Maybe he would have made vaguely simpathetic noises in Bundy’s direction without actually backing him (especially his armed resistance to court orders), but maybe not. If Steven had gotten to it first, his condemnation would probably have been rather more emphatic. But the difference would’ve been of degree, not kind.
The guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s bullshit, all the way down. But because he lined up against “the government” he’s a hero. Idiocy.
@Rob in CT:
Not enough drum circles.
@Rob in CT
Fair points.
Personally, I never can complain about what anyone chooses to write on here (since I have a set of the keys too). Hopefully, new job permitting, I’ll get back to posting soon.
@slimslowslider:
Yes, Doug was very derpy about Occupy.
@ Jenos Idanian #13
It is certainly long past time that the crucial issue of cattle welfare was brought to the forefront. You are right, we are all in Mr. Bundy’s debt.
Right-wing crank says cranky things. Film at 11.
That’s the main reason I suspect no one posted on it here until the eeejit turned into a hero to Hannity and Sons and they started tub-thumping him all over Fox News.
Then the amusement has been watching how quickly Rand et al. could do a 180 and get rid of all the Bundy-cooties all over them.
While Fox’s reaction has been to suddenly go from BUNDY BUNDY BUNDY to…..crickets…..
It’s always fun to watch the media make a predictable ass of itself.
@Rob in CT: The “substance” of Mr. Bundy’s argument is indefensible garbage. And yet here you are, flailing away trying to defend it. How sad.
Robbie, you’ve been taking reading lessons from Cliffy and wr, haven’t you?
I didn’t say anything about the substance of Mr. Bundy’s argument. Not word one. I spoke about the issues his protest brought about, and I spelled them out — the BLM’s use of grazing fees to buy out and shut down farms, and the descent of the paramilitary forces (which predated the armed Bundy defenders, BTW).
And I’ve greatly enjoyed the coverage of Leland Yee, the California Democrat who was both staunchly pro gun control and busted in a gun-running sting. That, and the exposure of Harry Reid’s funneling tens of thousands of dollars of campaign funds to family members. I mean, the guy’s made himself a multi-millionaire while on the public dole; can’t he share some of that wealth with his family, instead of using campaign funds? And a host of other stories.
I’ve enjoyed that coverage because I haven’t been here, where they’ve gone completely unnoticed. I figured the Yee one would at least get some play for the sheer entertainment value, but the “only push the stuff that makes the GOP look bad” rule seems to be fully in force.
And I don’t think I’ll stick around much. No one like the punch in the turd bowl.
Worth a look:
So much for “government land grabs”
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/23/a-history-of-blm-law-enforcement/
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I spoke about the issues his protest brought about, and I spelled them out — the BLM’s use of grazing fees to buy out and shut down farms
Yes indeed, let us all thank Mr. Bundy for (not really) prompting the debate over whether Congress should pass the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 or not! I’m for it. How about you guys?
the descent of the paramilitary forces
They were law enforcement forces there to protect the BLM personnel as they carried out a lawful, and much adjudicated, order. And they were obviously necessary.
Those are, indeed, very important issues that Bundy failed to really introduce but his devoted followers grasped at when they realized he was just some nutball scofflaw without a legal leg to stand on. I do hope we, as a nation, come to a consensus on whether to pass the Taylor Grazing Act and whether law enforcement has any duty to enforce the law.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Really, Leland Yee is all you got? Do you remember how he was on Ed Schultz’s show every night and how all those armed thugs showed up to support him when he was arrested? How all those liberal blogs and websites declared him a true patriot and great American?
See, we remove the turds from the punchbowl. We don’t pretend it’s fruit garnish and serve it up to unsuspecting rubes.
@mantis: The one thing I’m curious about is whether the states in question really want the land. If the states get the land, will they keep it as it is and continue to use it for grazing cattle or will it be turned over to large corporations for whatever uses they might have for it (are there mineral or oil issues with this land)? Is this push to give the land to the states coming from the states or is it coming from big business (in which case the ranchers would lose access to it)? I’m not trying to be cynical; I’m sincerely curious.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The BLMs grazing fees are absurdly low and were signed into perpetuity by Reagan.
It did not predate the Bundys letter stating they would respond with armed force if the feds came to collect.
@beth:
Is this push to give the land to the states coming from the states or is it coming from big business
Both, as it is a tea party issue and an energy exploration issue (tea party people just hate the federal government and want it largely dissolved, while energy companies want to frack, build solar fields, etc.).
But that’s an entirely separate argument from those surrounding the management of those lands. And those arguments wouldn’t go away if the lands went from federal to state ownership, as the states would still have to manage them, and that includes things like preservation and conservation, grazing fees, etc. Bundy, for instance, would just refuse to pay Nevada for his use of their land, because he’s a deadbeat who doesn’t want to pay his bills.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Bundy is a deadbeat. He hasn’t paid the fees for 20 years.
I can see why he’s a hero to the Right.
@ beth
Democrats in the bay area threw Yee under the bus about six seconds after his arrest.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Oh God……
Leland Yee???? Might as well wear a T-shirt that says, “I live in a bubble.”
@Jenos Idanian #13:
One thing I especially love is how pro-military (but never served), pro-police, and tough-on-crime folks are the first to start ranting about “paramilitary [law enforcement] forces” the moment someone tries to enforce the law on *them* (or someone they identify with).
I wonder how many of Mr Bundy’s supporters heads spun in the 90’s when Ice Tea released the track “Cop Killer.”
True or false, has Mr Bundy ignored the many rulings against him, and threatened military reprisals if the government dared actually carry out that court ordered action?
And can you find evidence of other cases of “paramilitary forces” driving innocent people off of their land? That, you know, might actually help your argument.
Wondering if any OTB staff or commenters have committed suicide yet in light of this terrible news…
@mantis: Thank you for the info. I really haven’t seen much discussion of this issue at all in all this coverage. I would think the states really don’t want to have to deal with hiring people to run the land; they’d just want to lease it out or outright sell it which would have the ultimate outcome of putting the ranchers out of business too, wouldn’t it?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Your “issues” are also garbage. There is no “there” there. The guy is utterly, totally wrong. There is not “bigger picture” here. Just a guy who didn’t want to pay to use public lands, and thought he could avoid it by the use of force.
“Paramilitary force” my ass. Federal agents, yes, of course. Note that the first, second, third, and so on attempts to get Mr. Bundy to play by the rules did not involve armed agents of the state. After he lost in court again and again and again and then refused to respect the rulings, THEN they resorted to force. And he responded with armed resistance, and they backed down (no doubt fearing another Waco/Ruby Ridge fiasco).
As for your flounce, excellent. The door is thataway. Don’t let it hit you in the ass on the way out, pardner.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Interesting, Sarah Palin said much the same thing after her interview with Katie Couric – you know the one where Sarah was ‘ambushed’ by an unnecessarily complex question like, ‘what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read?’ She didn’t stick around much either.
By the way, as an aside: there are plenty of left-wing pet rocks that OTB doesn’t cover. PLENTY. For the most part (though not entirely), the lefties here avoid trying to work the refs by whining about non-coverage of this or that.
@Rob in CT: Well, there’s also we have enough connection to reality that we realize that our lefty pet rocks are lunatics. We don’t shove them in front of the microphones and tell everyone how marvelous they are.
Let me also note that back when Jenos blogged at Wizbang under the name Jay Tea, he would often get annoyed at liberal commenters for complaining about what he and his co-bloggers would choose to write about or not. In his time here, he seemed to specialize in posting the kind of comments he would critize when he was a blogger. I’m guessing that’s a big part of why he changed his handle, though I can’t quite figure out why he chose to troll OTB, where a former regular at Wizbang (yours truly) moved to once they started deleting comments that pointed out the rampant dishonesty of some of their bloggers, and Jay Tea himself started advocating violence against his fellow citizens (for others to undertake, not cowards like him).
Hey, I think I was mistaken when I said that Bundy was right.
Nope, my bad. I never said that. I apologize.
But his stand — right or wrong — highlighted the BLM’s policy of using grazing fees to buy out and shut down farms. At what point did that become official policy? Did any elected officials ever approve that, or did the BLM just take it upon themselves?
Eh, who cares? The guy who made it national news is a RAAAAACIST, so whatever he gets he deserves and anyone who does anything besides condemn him must also be a RAAAAACIST and should be ignored and shunned. Besides, as far as the law goes, that doesn’t matter any more — if it gets too bad, Obama can just arbitrarily rewrite it and say that what he says is “the law of the land,” regardless of what the actual law says.
Leland Yee? Yeah, great entertainment value — unless people remember that he is a Democrat, a leading one, and was a leading candidate for CA Secretary of State when he was busted.
Oh, and let’s just toss one more rhetorical hand grenade into the mix — the Washington Post took a press release from a liberal activist group, coordinated with Congressional Democrats, and ran a hit piece on the Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL pipeline that was 100% false and 180 degrees from reality, and never admitted was complete bullcrap.
But hey, instead we found this right-winger who holds less than poltiically-correct views on race, so let’s have that story suck all the oxygen out of the room.
Let’s get a betting pool going: if Mr. Bundy should offer an opinion on gay marriage, what’st he over/under on stories about that here at OTB? Put me down for six, and a minimum of 120 comments combined.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
highlighted the BLM’s policy of using grazing fees to buy out and shut down farms.
What policy is that, exactly?
@ Jenos
If it’s important to you, do some research, and then you will know. Right now you just sound like a low information voter who is dancing on cue because the right wing entertainment industry knows exactly how to push your buttons.
Or you could just hang out here and alternate between whining about how OTB does not write the posts you want them to write and threatening to take your marbles and go home.
I’m thinking it will be the latter.
BTW, it’s noted that you don’t seem to be spewing any outrage about the impending indictment of Michael Grimm.
So what you are trying to say is that you did not generate a single new thought in your time away.
In other news…
Gasoline Prices Rise As U.S. Refineries Send More Fuel Overseas
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/25/306842160/gasoline-prices-rise-as-u-s-refineries-send-more-fuel-overseas
@anjin-san: BTW, it’s noted that you don’t seem to be spewing any outrage about the impending indictment of Michael Grimm.
I’m OUTRAGED and appalled at the potential indictment of… who? Michael Graham? Benjamin Grimm?
Oh, that guy. Heard about him once. Looks like he took 15K from one donor. That’s about half as much as Harry Reid spent in campaign money for stuff from his daughter’s company.
Meh. Guy looks like he’s gong down, and no great loss. Like Yee. Unfortunately, not like Reid. But again, OTB has
evolveddevolved into yet another “trash the GOP and cover up for the Democrats” site. Sic transit gloria mundi.@Jenos Idanian #13:
Why don’t you link to actual policy and actual instances rather than just saying that something bad is happening and that this spotlighted this practice that noone is talking about.
@Grewgills:
Haven’t you learned by now. Folks who are “always right” like Jenos and Eric F. have access to special facts.
Of course these facts are so widely available they never show up on google searches. And when you ask them provide hard reference, they tell you that, because you asked them to prove the fact that *they* are using, it’s *your* responsibility to find that reference. But, trust them, it’s out there. Because the conservative… err I mean “realz amerikanz” viewpoint is always right.
And, don’t forget that neither of them have EVER been caught arguing contradictory points of view. Or repeatedly using incorrect facts after being corrected with links to actual evidence… because, you know, there super secret evidence always trumps those liberal “available facts.”
I did a few searches for “BLM farm seizures” and “BLM farm buyouts” – it’s basically a fast track to tin foil hat country.
The Batman and Robin of bullshit – except that they are both Robin types – the annoying kid wearing the funny shorts that you can’t get rid of.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So basically, you are saying that you do think his concern is correct in a broader sense — i.e. that the BLM *is* buying and shutting down farms. Which means you, actually, support what he’s doing and that he’s right when it comes to BLM.
And clearly you support his overall argument and apparently his mode of resistance.
Listen, whatever drugs you are on really aren’t helping your cognitive abilities, You usually don’t contradict yourself this quickly or obviously.
@Jenos Idanian #13: if you ignore the fact that BLM grazing fees are a fraction of what private land owners charge, your argument might make sense… Wait, even then it doesn’t.
@ David in KC
Reagan locked sweetheart rates in for ranchers in perpetuity. Even that was not good enough deadbeat Bundy.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/132781-cnn-goes-bundy-trolling-racial-issues-gets-retort-black-bodyguard-dont-expect/
so, tell us, why this guy’s opinion of Bundy is less valid.
why should we take your bleating of racism, when this black guy, who actually knows him, says he is nothing of the sort?
For that matter, tell us all how your opinion on much of anything prevails, given the likelyhood of it being equally accurate as your charge of racism?
A black guy says he’s not racist, so that totally cancels out all that “negroes better as slaves” stuff. Got it.
@JoshB: So, you have a better grasp of racism than the black guy. Right. Got it. I’ll be polite and not mention how that makes you sound.
I wonder if what annoys you isn’t the depth of what is being charged here, by Bundy.
Dana, whose quote is above I think nails down very well indeed. Ponder the damage a government must be doing, to be worse than slavery. And frankly I think that to be the situation. As a parallel, consider what happened to the American Indian.. similarly “helped” by the all powerful government.
One, I don’t have to be black to recognize blatant racism. Two, one black guy giving Bundy a pass does not mean he isn’t racist. This isn’t subtle, dog-whistle racism. He said negroes were better as slaves, and now all they do is abort babies and go to jail. You’re defending that??
Hmph, it turns out it was a case of the grass always being greener.
(Apologies for the brick joke.)
@JoshB:
Some folks only care about African American’s views on race when it support their side.
Said people are also usually the first to complain that any black person talking about racism that they’ve experienced is “playing the ‘race’ card” or is just another “race hustler.”
Funny how that works, huh?
Beyond that, many of us have encountered people who are pretty blatantly racist in what they say, but have no problems working alongside a “good” African American. It’s the “I don’t hate black folks, I just hate ni**ers” line of thinking. Of course, when said people look at the country as a whole, they somehow seem to see a lot more ni**ers than black folk.
To that point, I have no problems believing that Mr. Bundy could be very nice and friendly to this African American gentleman who clearly supports his cause and has his back. However, the true measure of a man is not how he treats those who support him, it’s how he treats those who don’t hold the same view. So call me back when we hear about Mr Bundy from the black folks he’s disagreed with.
@Matt Bernius: Yes. This is all Chris Rock’s fault.
@Tillman, that reminded me. Another thing about said people (i.e. who listen when a black person says that there *isn’t* racism) is that they tend to be the type who don’t seem to notice all the Christians who repeatedly tell them that there is no war on Christians or war on Christmas going on.
Funny how that happens, huh?
@Matt Bernius: So basically, you are saying that you do think his concern is correct in a broader sense — i.e. that the BLM *is* buying and shutting down farms. Which means you, actually, support what he’s doing and that he’s right when it comes to BLM.
And clearly you support his overall argument and apparently his mode of resistance.
Listen, whatever drugs you are on really aren’t helping your cognitive abilities, You usually don’t contradict yourself this quickly or obviously.
Bundy also thinks that cattle need grass to eat, that they need to eat so they can survive and grow until they can be sold, and selling those cattle is how he supports his family. But since he’s a RAAAAACIST, he’s obviously wrong about that, too, right?
His family’s lived there for well over a century. He just might have more of a clue what happened to his neighbors and fellow farmers over the past few decades than you do.
I realize that actual experience is considered a liability on the left — you seem to prefer blank slates who have little to no actual experience or proven expertise or accomplishments — but there’s a principle that one concrete example trumps a thousand theories. You might not recognize it, as it’s from actual science.
It’s why I am a global warmening skeptic. The “experts” on your side have to constantly rework their theories as their predictions keep failing miserably. But oddly enough, no matter what the arguments they make, the “cure” is always the same: more centralized control of everything.
When the treatments keep failing and the diagnosis keeps changing but the prescription stays the same, you have to wonder if the real motive of the doctors is to push the prescription, and not cure the patient.
At least, people who actually believe in science have to wonder. Those True Believers in the Cult instead demand that the heretics be burned at the stake. (That’s rhetorical, by the way.)
@Jenos Idanian #13:
His neighbors are in much the same position with one major exception, they pay the fees to graze their cattle on land they don’t hold title to. He simply doesn’t want to pay the minimal grazing fees or pay for feed. He figured he could get away with feeding his cattle off public lands without paying. When he was called on it, he threatened violence. He is a scofflaw stealing from the federal government.
It is rather interesting how people who are so dead set against welfare for poor people are pro welfare for Bundy and his cattle.
Except they didn’t. They bought the ranch in 1947.
Except again you are wrong. Their predictions have been born out again and again. You and others like you have continued to move the goalposts.
@Grewgills: His neighbors are in much the same position with one major exception, they pay the fees to graze their cattle on land they don’t hold title to.
What neighbors? It’s been reported that he’s the last farmer in his neck of the woods (well, desert). The BLM bought out all the rest — with the grazing fees you mentioned.
And let’s bring up another point. Your side is all about how the “federal government” can’t be the enemy because they’re really us — we elected them, and we’re responsible for them. Well, isn’t the logical extension of that argument that “federal land” is really our land? As one of the owners, I don’t care for how the BLM is “managing” my land, and think they should be supporting farmers, not shutting them down.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So many words and not a single link to actually back any of them up.
Care to comment, for example, on the *factual* claim that @Grewgills raises that records don’t back up Mr. Bundy’s “century” of grazing claim.
Jenos, as always this is why we don’t take you seriously. You can’t ever seem to actually summon *fact* to back up your opinions. And all too often, when confronted with hard facts, you just fade away or change your argument.
If that’s what “populism” is, give me the “establishment” any day.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
What the hell does that even mean? That the BLM charged them grazing fees and they didn’t want to pay? (BTW — that isn’t “buying out”)
So where are they grazing their cattle today? And what are they paying?
Again, links to actual facts speak far more loudly than regurgitated talking points.
OMG. Seriously? This is an inane an argument as “my taxes pay for the Military, therefore I’m a General and should be able to declare war on whomever I want.” Or conversely, the “leftist” version “my taxes pay for the Military, therefore I should be able to bring them home from battle on my whim.” Please tell me that you are not making that stupid of an argument. Really, thats beneath you.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You keep claiming that the federal government are ‘shutting down’ farmers. You have yet to offer one scintilla or evidence to that effect. Given the falsehoods and inconsistencies that have come from Bundy his say so does not qualify as evidence of anything outside of his head.
By the way, if you think more local control would have helped Bundy, the state of Nevada charges $12 a head per month to graze cattle on state owned land. Private property owners charge on average $15 a head per month as opposed to the federal charge of $1.35 a head per month.
Why is it you think he deserves to graze his cattle for free on government land?
BTW the Nevada Cattleman’s Association disagrees with Bundy as do his local representatives. Among those representatives is Tom Collins, of the Clark County Commission who is also a rancher. He said, “You’ve got hundreds of ranchers in Nevada who pay their fee regularly. On the grazing fee issue, Bundy doesn’t have sympathy from the ranchers.”
The people who do support Bundy are coastal media elites at places like Fox News and militia loons and of course you.
Something has gone terribly wrong when Glenn Beck is the voice of reason.
The money quote from Bundy that shows just how wrong he is
Bundy apparently thinks the land belongs to Nevada rather than the US government and is only willing to pay the Nevada government. Given that Nevada charges $12 a head per month, Bundy can pay Nevada 240 months * $12 per head for back grazing fees and Nevada can pay the US Government, then everybody wins.
@Grewgills:
I read somewhere that Bundy once tried to send a check to the local sheriff, and it was returned. I’d bet a decent chunk of change that said check was for the amount he owed the Feds, not the higher rate charged by the State of Nevada.
Funny how it all seems to boil down to Mr. Bundy saving money. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not really any more complicated than that. The rest of it is a bunch of mental gymnastics by someone who would be in the “challenged” division of the games…