So says Politico's Glenn Thrush, citing the transcript of a Bachmann radio interview:
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”
(Glenn's emphasis, not mine).
Barring some sort of forthcoming correction, or a really, really good explanation, may I just say this woman is once again coming off as nuts and the kind of person one would prefer not to be associated with by virtue of partisan affiliation?
Look, I'm not convinced cap-and-trade is definitely the way forward in terms of combating climate change (it hasn't exactly worked in, say, Europe, it is likely to create a big, new, complicated regulatory regime, the costs likely to be associated with cap-and-trade are arguably less clear and predictable than would be the costs associated with, say, a straight up carbon tax-- the financial costs of which are, of course, higher than would be the financial cost of not instituting any of the aforementioned policies). But saying she wants people "armed and dangerous" strikes me as just a tad hyperbolic and unecessarily incendiary-- and you'd really think that at some point the woman who was mercilessly attacked for implying (to be charitable) that there should be an "expose" of anti-Americanism in Congress might have learned to rein it in just a tad more. I guess you (and I) would be wrong. Nice one, Michele. [intro]