Government Shutdown: GOP Called Terrorists In Budget Battle

The government shutdown debate is heating up with Republicans being compared to suicide bombers and terrorists in the debate over the interrelated issues of the continuing federal funding resolution, defunding Obamacare, and raising the debt limit.

After the Gabby Giffords shooting in January 2011, lawmakers from President Obama on down called for more civility in political discourse.

Since then, there have been numerous examples of overheated rhetoric that departs from the so-called new tone, but the outrage from the news media has often been selective.

The latest instance involves a fundamental disagreement over federal spending. The constitutional separation of powers means that the branches of government sometimes/often disagree over the direction of the country. That was certainly the case during the Reagan and Bush administrations, where there was little if any talk in the news media of congressional “obstructionism.”

President Obama has already said he won’t negotiate with House Republicans over spending cuts (even though he will negotiate with Syria, Iran, and Putin among others), which prompted White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer to say that the Obama administration is “not for negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”

Added Pfeiffer: “It’s a negotiation if I’m trying to sell you my house and we are debating the price of it. It is not a negotiation if I show up at your house and say, ‘Give me everything inside or I’m going to burn it down.’ ”

Harry Reid (D – Nev.), the US Senate majority leader, previously referred to the Tea Party as anarchists trying to take the country hostage in connection with the attempt at Obamacare defunding.

Yesterday, former VP Al Gore compared those efforts to defund Obamacare and risk a government shutdown as “political terrorism.”

Separately, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D – Md.) referred to Sen. Ted Cruz’s Tea Party supporters as “tea baggers.”

About Pfeiffers comments specifically, Noah Rothman of Mediate wrote that “But [Pfeiffer’s remarks] merited hardly a peep from the Beltway set that once rent garments over the excesses of the tea party and the threat their discourse presented to American self-governance. Why? Perhaps because they are acclimated to this administration’s all-too-common practice of linking their opponents to violent and deranged criminals… But the Democrats latest series of rhetorical offenses against comity have demonstrated something rather important: the media does not really care about excessive partisanship, acrimony, or incitement in politics. At least, they don’t care when it is directed at Republicans.”

In a radio interview, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R – Calif.), a Marine combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, said he dealt with real suicide bombers during his deployment and added that “[Pfeiffer] should go to MCRD and become a Marine or a soldier and get his ass over there, because he hasn’t seen what real terrorists are. It’s disrespectful to the men and women that are on the ground overseas… fighting real terrorists… to make those comments now just shows you how disconnected these guys are from reality, from who the real bad guys are…”

As we previously reported, with three days until the so-called government shutdown, the Senate passed a stop-gap funding bill — which also restores the appropriation for Obamacare — to keep the federal government running. The bill was passed along party lines in the Democrat-controlled chamber by a vote of 54 to 44 and will keep the government in business until November 15 with a $986 billion spending level. The continuing resolution will go back to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where legislators will have the option of passing it or making changes and sending it back to the Senate. Both chambers must agree on the final language for it to become law. If Congress doesn’t act before midnight on Monday, the government will lose its legal authority to spend money for routine activities. Temporary solutions to an impasse might also emerge.

Vivid, often militaristic rhetoric has been part of politics since the beginning. That being said, do you think we have reached the point where it is acceptable to demonize in this way lawmakers as well as grassroots Americans who want to rein in the size and scope of government?