You know, I've been warning that there may be some serious unpleasantness ahead if the Tea Partiers find their planned takeover of the government falls short come the day after Election Day.
It seems a Republican congressional candidate and Tea Partier (and frequent Glenn Beck guest) agrees with me:
WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.
In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."
Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.
In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.
"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."
Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."
"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.
Watson asked if violence would be an option in 2010, under the current government.
"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."
Let's not forget, of course, that Broden is a pal of Glenn Beck's and frequent guest on his show. Here he is in an earlier Beck appearance:
[oldembed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ofr3fSusYuM?fs=1" width="400" height="241" resize="1" fid="21"]
But gee, isn't it mean of people like the NAACP to point out that the Tea Party movement is riddled throughout with violent radicals? Why, who would think that? And why would they think it?