Previously:

The state of the U.S. Senate race (May 8, 2012)

There’s a difference between rhetoric and insanity (May 9, 2012)

The video (May 9, 2012)

The republican cult of victimhood.

Sarah Steelman (r), a republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, defended the teabagger “kill the Claire bear” comment in a telephone interview on KZRG radio in Joplin today:

Radio interviewer (KZRG): …I know that, uh, ver, a lot of people are very passionate about getting Claire McCaskill out of office. They feel like that she is just the bane Missouri’s existence, one, ’cause she doesn’t listen, and two, she has a dramatically different plan than most Missourians agree with, very much lining up with President Obama most of the time. I know that there’s been a lot of strong opposition to her, that was very much voiced in a tea party rally in Springfield. Scott Boston making the statement, um, he wa, he, he was talking about Claire McCaskill, how she needs to go, then he says, we need to kill the Claire bea, Claire bear in reference to her. What do you make of that statement and, and, you know, what’s your stance on people using that type of rhetoric.      

Sarah Steelman (r): Well, look [inaudible], here, here’s the deal. When I was at this rally he was using that, those, those words as a metaphor. He was talking about those little cuddly care bears that, uh, were popular some time ago with the rainbows on their stomach.  

Radio interviewer (KZRG): Right.

Sarah Steelman (r): [inaudible] And he did not, there was nothing violent about what he said, he did not personally threat, threaten her, no one perceived it as a threat. There was no anger. [laugh] He was, he was using that as metaphor and, you know, he, the, here’s what happened. The, the Democratic trackers, you know, the people who follow me around with their video cameras [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] were there. They took, the videotaped the whole rally. You know, couple days later they take it back, they find this [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] little, little thing and they, they, you know, what he said. And what do they do? They, apparently took it to the Post Dispatch [laugh] first, because the Post Dispatch called him and asked him about it. That was right before the FBI knocked on his door. I mean, this was just kind of a, a, a bad joke, uh, metaphor that he used regarding care bears, there was nothing violent about it.    

Radio interviewer (KZRG): Right. I guess, I just, I just have [crosstalk] one…

Sarah Steelman (r): In the delivery of what he said, there was nothing violent about it.

Radio interviewer (KZRG): I think perhaps there, there’s a better way to voice opposition than to u, than start using words like kill when you’re anywhere even near referencing a politician in, in any way. Would you agree [crosstalk] or disagree?

Sarah Steelman (r): Here, well, I, you know, I would have used a different choice of words, obviously. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] I, I don’t talk like that, but, here, here’s the thing, I mean, are we just gonna abandon all common sense in this country and every time somebody says anything they’re gonna, the, the government is gonna come down and send out the F, FBI agents to knock on your door? [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] Are we gonna have thought and speech police? You need to take things in the context of which they were given and use some common sense in government today. This part of the problem in Washington, there is no, absolutely no common sense. And people jump on somebody like Scott Boston, an individual, and they can put the whole, uh, force of the federal government down on this guy and don’t look at the context in which he said it. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm. Well, Sarah…”] And there was no, there was nothing violent in his, in the way he said it. And furthermore I would say that you didn’t see the rest of the tea party rally, did you? You didn’t see the mother who stood up there who, uh, lost her, her son, the first Navy sea, SEAL casualty in the war on Iraq. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] You didn’t see her discussion. You didn’t see all the patriotic songs that were sung. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] You know, this, this is what I have a problem with. Let’s use some common sense.

Radio interviewer (KZRG): Sarah, we’re out of….

There is a difference.

Apparently Senator Claire McCaskill (D) is cuddly and has a rainbow on her stomach. We’ll need to ask her about that the next time we see her.

“…there was nothing violent about what he said…”

It’s interesting that the operative word no longer has a violent connotation. When did that happen? Was there a memo? If so, we didn’t get it.

“…no one perceived it as a threat…” Seriously?

“…There was no anger…” At a teabagger rally? Seriously? They were singing Kumbaya?

“…They, apparently took it to the Post Dispatch [laugh] first, because the Post Dispatch called him and asked him about it. That was right before the FBI knocked on his door…” Think about that for a second. The newspaper got it first and called the guy, and immediately after that the FBI, traveling at near the speed of light, having heard about it second, knocked on his door. Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

[from KZRG] “…I think perhaps there, there’s a better way to voice opposition…”

Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

You see, that’s appropriate language for criticizing a politician. It has a long and distinguished tradition in America.

“…I mean, are we just gonna abandon all common sense in this country and every time somebody says anything…” Uh, it wasn’t just anything. Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

“…You need to take things in the context of which they were given…” At a teabagger rally. Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

We rest our case.