Quist defends statements on battle against terrorism, Democrats
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm
- 9 Comments
Photo: quistforcongress.com
Allen Quist, a Republican hoping to secure the nomination to run against Rep. Tim Walz in Minnesota’s First Congressional district, responded to criticisms over a YouTube video in which Quist said the battle against Democrats like Barack Obama and Walz was bigger than the battle against terrorism. In emails with the Minnesota Independent, he says his words were taken out of context.
“Our country is being destroyed. Every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom,” he said during a Dec. 7 event taped and posted to YouTube. “Terrorism? Yes. That’s not the big battle. The big battle is in D.C. with the radicals. They aren’t liberals. They are radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz: They’re not liberals, they’re radicals. They are destroying our country.”
That video prompted an uproar on liberal blogs and prompted Walz to respond in a fundraising pitch and a strongly worded statement on MSNBC’s the Ed Shultz Show.
“I don’t find it real radical, Ed, that I want to help provide affordable health care for all Americans,” Walz said. “I don’t find it radical that we want to try to make sure our economy is strong. I don’t find it radical that we want to have an energy policy dependent on America and not the Middle East. This type of rhetoric does nothing to help us move in that direction…. It poisons the dialogue. The idea of a high school teacher like myself — football coach and 24-year Guardsman –somehow being worse than people who killed people in New York and have tried to do so again is so incredibly distasteful.”
Quist tells MnIndy he was taken out of context. “On that video I spoke extensively about the huge marriage penalty in the health care bills.” Quist has been pushing against the health care reform bill because he says it penalizes married couples.
“By the way, I have been speaking on, and writing on, the marriage penalty in the health care bills and doing so all over the First District,” said Quist. “Someone needs to ask Walz why he doesn’t respond. His silence is verifying the truth of my analysis.”
“Let me add that you will see I said radicalism was a threat to our freedom, not liberalism,” he said. “Why do the liberal blogs feel they have to misquote me in order to manufacture a story?”
Quist also responded to Walz’s statement that Quist’s remarks poison the debate on public policy.
“Walz should defend his votes and avoid the name-calling type language like ‘poisonous,’ ‘spiteful’ and ‘distasteful.’ He is using that emotive language because he is trying to excite his supporters in the hope of getting donations from them. He knows he is in big trouble.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter9 Comments
Comment posted January 11, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
Yeah, right, Mr. Quist. We believe every word of your explanation. /sarcasm off
Comment posted January 11, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Ok, Mr. Quist, so if your problem is with “radicals”, and those are different from “liberals”, then put out a list of “liberals” that you feel aren’t “destroying our country”. Its clear you are the definitive expert of who is a radical and who is a liberal.
Comment posted January 11, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Maybe he meant it as a compliment? The etymology of “radical” is from the Latin radicalis, “of or having roots.” The meaning “going to the origin, essential” dates to the 1650s.
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
majii, why don’t you, simply, admit that you don’t understand rational discussion. While Walz chose to react emotionally to his misinterpretation of Quist’s remarks, Quist clarified his statements and asked why Walz refuses to justify his voting record.
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Dennis, why don’t you look at the video and see nothing was taken out of context. Quist was caught being a raging buffoon, and no amount of spin will change that.
Comment posted January 13, 2010 @ 6:28 am
Quist is a backpedaling opportunist politician that would make Norm Coleman blush with shame. He made the idiotic statement because it was red meat for the crowd he was speaking to and then lied about it later. Quist was going for applause and got caught, now he is doing everything in his power to LIE about it. How lame can Quist get? Well effectively comparing President John F Kennedy with bloody minded murderous terrorists is pretty low to me.
Comment posted January 15, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
IF Mr. Quist claims are such a concern, why didn’t MN Republican delegation voice them in the letter written to Pelosi protesting health care reform ?
This is NOT a “penalty” on marriage. No, this is NOT “raising taxes on the middle class” (indeed, this isn’t a tax at all). This is offering breaks on the potential cost of health insurance to those who need it most, grading those breaks out as the necessity (based on income) becomes less; and that only in a relatively rare hypothetical scenario would it apply.
Mr. Quist has laid out his claim and anyone should be able to see holes in it. WHY is it that if you make $90,000 that there is no difference ? Maybe because then you do not apply for the program.
Of course, to even reach this scenario you have to have the following circumstances:
- The individual/couple would need to make more than enough to qualify for Medicaid, but less than 4 times the poverty limit for any cap at all.
- The individual/couple would have to NOT be eligible for health insurance through an employer.
- The individual/couple would have to buy the most expensive possible respective plans they could find under the exchange plans.
- The insurance companies selling policies under the exchange plans would have to be charging the most they could (the hope is that an exchange there will drive people to the lowest-cost provider).
Mr. Quist’s claims are confusing the healthcare debate … which is probably his objective.
Comment posted January 15, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Quist seeks to undermine the legitimacy with his gutter-quality indictments of “radicals” like President Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid.
But those three politicians have long track records of sound, responsible, sane public service. Mr Quist has a track record of extreme off-the-cliff right wing stridency.
He doesn’t believe in equal rights for men and women. He doesn’t believe that all Americans should have access to health care, regardless of ability to pay. Those are not radical concepts – they’re bedrock to most voters.
Mr. Quist is the radical – he’s really not credible
Comment posted January 18, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Paul Schmelzer …. if you can believe that, i just might too. But i’m still hoping for miracles where ever I can find them. Meanwhile, the evidence about Republican use of the term “radical” going back to the 1960s …
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
