Ben over at Not Larry Sabato has a post up about the recent threats of violence that have been made on both sides of the aisle. As Ben is one of the top Democratic blogs and we are one of the top Republicans blogs, I feel it is important that we echo those sentiments. There is absolutely no place for violence in our system of government. The threats and publication of Tom Perriello’s brother’s home address and the cutting of his gas line are deplorable, as are the gunshots fired at Eric Cantor’s campaign headquarters.
.
This is America. We resolve political fights at the ballot box, not with the bullet box (Catherine Crabill’s statements notwithstanding). No matter how angry anyone feels at the passage of the health care law, the days are long past when the right answer to a political debate was violence or the threat of violence. Those who cut the gas line should be prosecuted completely. Those who shot at Cantor’s headquarters likewise should be prosecuted. And we should all take a hard look at our rhetoric and our feelings and take a step back. At the end of the day, no matter which side of the aisle we are on, we are all Americans. We all want to see this country thrive and prosper. We may disagree on the best way to do that, but in the end, our goals are the same. Whether we like what the Obama Administration and the congressional Democrats (or Republicans) are doing, whatever feelings we may have, we should channel those feelings into electoral efforts, not threats and vandalism.
.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a statement today and it is one that I believe we call can agree with 100%. Here’s the text:
.
Attorney General Cuccinelli statement on vandalism to Perriello home, threats
.
RICHMOND (March 25, 2010) – Statement from Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II:
.
“In our system of constitutional government, we have civil, non-violent ways to express our disagreements with our elected officials, including speaking up in public and at the ballot box. Threats and intimidation are not part of our political system and are not to be tolerated.
.
“We will do everything we can to assist in bringing the perpetrator to justice. We have contacted the local Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Virginia State Police and offered our assistance.”
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Mar 25th by Brian S
Where is Governor McDonnell?
Democrats need to stop attacking their own offices and crying about it.
Republicans need to stop attacking their own offices and crying about it.
Both parties need to stop this, so they can resume their bi-partisan attacks on the American people.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head and sigh.
You do know that the Richmond PD has stated that a random shot (one bullet, not ‘gunshots’)into the air, then came back down and had only enough force to break the window. Their description said that the force was not even enough to go past the window blinds.
I don’t mind you defending your views and your party, but at least get your facts straight.
Cantor’s “secret” campaign office (i.e. it was unmarked and had no signs indicating that it was used by Cantor) was struck by a single spent round that had apparently been fired in the air some distance from the unmarked office building. The single bullet strike was apparently at random and for Cantor or anyone else to imply that it was part of an intentional attack on a marked Cantor office with multiple “gunshots” is dishonest.
http://therichmonder.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-cantor-bullet-stray.html
Sorry Mark, no one knows if the shot was random as it is still under investigation:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/possible_shot_fired_at_office_building_of_cantor_consultant/332877/
*
I agree with KC, but I do think someone might want to tell President Obama to stop being such a sore loser. If he is concerned about rhetoric and threats maybe he should rethink taunting Republicans in front of supporters AFTER and fanning the flames. One might get the idea he enjoys the brush fire.
AFTER winning
How is Obama a sore loser when he won?
Mark, I’m defending both parties. The details to do not matter. They aren’t the point.
.
The point is that there is no place for violence in our political life.
.
If people can’t agree with the idea that violence has no place in the political process, it’s truly a sad day.
There is appropriate and inappropriate violence. Vandalism, any personal threats, assaults, etc, are inappropriate violence. And strategically and tactically unsound. The Left WANTS the Tea Party to erupt in violence. That is the only way to discredit them.
Defense is the appropriate violence and that is it. We have, in no way, reached the point in this country that demands that free men take up arms.
But, the Left has cried wolf too many times and has committed violent crimes and then tried to frame the right, too many times. In every single one of the….incidents….for lack of a better word, I demand proof. The Black Caucus just slandered the Tea Party as racists and lied about the event. So, until I see evidence, I will not apologize for “right wing” violence or decry it. I will just state all of the violence should stop.
Sore winner, sorry.
Right on Brian!!
However, Choochie has lost the benefit of the doubt with me. With great misfortune, I read his comments as being a back handed slap the left based on the Cantor gun shot. I don’t think he would have made the same statement if the shot had been towards a Democrat. I don’t trust him, and he’s earned that reputation. And so true, where is our Governor on this?
.
LL180, Obama won! You are in total denial.
If Mr. Jefferson was here he would tell everyone that for Liberty to be preserved we must have occasional blood-lettings. He would be fully supportive of the armed overthrow of this, and any other government, that has ignored our Constitution (especially the way that Bush and, now Obama, have done).
Only when the government fears the people, shall there be liberty.
Garber shows up again…as crazy as ever.
Some might say Mr. Cuccinelli has a lot of nerve coming out with a statement that defends speaking out in public but condemns threats and intimidation. Mr. Cuccinelli was the lawyer for John Grigsby in a defamation suit a few years ago. Mr. Cuccinelli fervently but unsuccessfully argued to a jury that Grigsby accusing an opponent’s husband of adultery and portraying him as a drunk was a perfectly acceptable, even amusing way to carry on a political debate.
What was that you were saying about intimidation, Mr. Cuccinelli.
The Republican party is never going to get back its soul until it turns its back on those who think political discourse in America should include bullying, threats, and intimidation.
Also been thinking that the woman who put the backwards B on her cheek is probably in the same category as Eric Cantor’s bullet.
Here we go with the grigsby lawsuit again.
elderberry, were you there the day that happened?
Were you there the previous meeting when the woman whose husband filed civil charges of slander projected her version of a flag behind the BoS, and called them the taliban, among other things?
Were you there a few years previously when the same woman, her husband, and Burton’s aide appeared before the BoS in full-head rubber Halloween masks?
Were you there when the same woman stood at the pdium with a pound of bologna to tell the BoS they were full of it, and said for the record she wished it were fresh horse manure, but she didn’t think it would be a good idea to bring a load of that in and dump it in front of the dais?
Cuccinelli argued that the behavior shown by his client was part of a pattern of theatrical behavior by all sides of participants in Loudoun politics (true!).
The charges brought by the husband (a stretch) were that people would think Grigsby really really was HIM, and it would hurt his business.
The trial was pretty interesting, and did not result in the $1M+ damages sought by the rubber-head wearing, bologna-dumping, terrorist-flag-waving plaintiffs.
I WAS there for all of the above, including the trial.
I realize this is a two-fer–attack Cuccinelli, AND attack Grigsby so he can be waved like an unrelated flag.
However, more violence was displayed and threatened by the moonbats Grigsby was mocking than he ever displayed in that sad episode.
BO, Believe me – I am fully aware Obama won, but the pompous President seems to take great pleasure in reminding people everyday that he won with a na-nanny boo-boo look on his face. He’s a sore winner, as are you.
“with a na-nanny boo-boo look on his face”
.
Loudoun Lady, I find it interesting that you perceive it that way. Are you sure that your dislike for the president (to which you are completely entitled and which I would defend vigorously until the next pint of Guinness appeared) isn’t causing you to see something which is not really there?
.
I recall hearing people who didn’t like President Bush referring to “that smirk on his face” on a regular basis. I remember thinking, what smirk are they talking about?
.
I suspect they were seeing something manufactured in their mind’s eye based on their dislike for his policies. Perhaps what you perceive is similar.
.
Just a thought.
.
More on topic, could everyone tell their crazier friends to stop throwing bricks and shooting at people and calling the offices of elected officials and motherf*cking them. Enough already.
.
Even in less crazy times public servants get a certain amount of this. Something to keep in mind when we interact with them in the future. These folks have worries about the physical safety of their families that most of us, thankfully, don’t have.
.
One thing is certain. The continuation, or worse, escalation of this crazy has the potential to create an environment where civilians might be endangered.
.
Let’s agree that those who have committed criminal acts belong in a cell. And let’s all tell our more unstable, foaming at the mouth partisans that, in America, we have more constructive and effective ways to express our point of view.
Dan, your comment, and elderberry’s reminding me of the wars in Loudoun, recalls something I heard during Miller’s abortive run for the 86th.
Apparently he purchased a gun, and sought a concealed carry permit.
His right, not disputing that, but it was apparently during the time when he was killing overdue schools for his political cronies, and trying to do a different school deal for another crony, AND violating his oath of office by taking legislative action in that direction before the county staff report was even complete on the schools he killed.
Understandably, lots of passionate people showed up at community meetings and public hearings (and this was also during the time the hospital app was going through the process again, and some in his own community had though he would be hearing that with his neighbors concerns in an open mind, instead of becoming head cheeleader and threatening the BoS with an FTC investigation).
he made a big show of having deputies at those meetings, and having them walk him to his car, and he was overheard at one meeting arranging a signal with the deputy he had requested if people started getting fired up.
Bear in mind, these were basically school moms (yes, some in the dreaded PTAs) and people who did or didn’t want a school or a hospital in a particular area.
His constituents and neighbors, IOW.
Looking back, I think the idea of a paranoid megalomaniac with a persecution complex having a gun under his jacket in case he feels threatened by a kindergarten mommy is plenty dangerous all on its own.
Barbara, I am waiting for the comments telling us that everyone would have been “safer” in that situation if the kindergarten mommies had come to the meeting with pistols strapped to their hips.
.
Other issues aside, that guy was an idiot if he thought an elected official should be packing heat in order to enhance his security. If a genuine threat is perceived to exist we have professionals to provide security. Elected officials drawing down on the bad guys ain’t the way to go.
.
Although I’m sure the gun nuts who get a chubby fondling firearms will disagree.
“Public servants”?!
.
That’s a good one, Dan!
Agreed on the idiot part.
I was amazed (as were some others) that we were paying for extra deputies for meetings.
Afterwards, when I found out about the gun business, I was not only somewhat stunned by the hypocrisy present in all the posturing about them (no money to help restore the courthouse statue because it was “pointing a gun” at him), but also genuinely concerned that he may have been armed while attending those meetings, relying only on his own poor judgment as to whether or not he needed to use it.
I don’t have a gun, although I’ve done some target shooting and enjoyed it, andf I do love fresh game courtesy of hunters among our acquaintance!
Those among my relatives and friends who are knowledgeable and responsible gun owners do not frighten me in the least–they have too much respect for what it takes to have guns safely to posture like that.
I shudder to think what could have been in the wings if he had felt the need to draw down at a community meeting, as well as how it would be imaged after the fact–would the bleeding mommy, daddy (or kid) surely have had it coming as a rabid attacker?
“Public servants”?!
.
That’s a good one, Dan!
.
Jack
on March 26th, 2010
.
.
.
Jack, I think your comment illustrates the problem very clearly.
.
Yes, they are public servants. And they do make sacrifices in both running and serving. More importantly their families make sacrifices.
.
Those sacrifices are what often make it so very difficult to persuade quality people in the community who have never run for office to do so.
.
People who mindlessly mock our public servants cause people to check out of the system or to never participate in the first place. That surely doesn’t improve the situation.
Where were these meetings where Miller was supposedly carrying concealed? Obviously not on school or county property.
*
Despite the “chubby” comment, if Joe citizen has a CHP and they are at a meeting in a gun friendly location, I have no problem with them carrying.
*
Dan, On Obama’s pompous nature, ideology, poor attitude towards the American People, his political opponents and governance in general – no, I don’t think this is personal. The fact that he taunts and cajoles after a political victory, while his fellow party member lash out about taunts and cajoling leading to violence – is the epitome of hypocrisy. If only he could use the same hubris against our foreign enemies, instead of our allies and fellow citizens.
The AG statement was thoughtful and on the money. Those of you inserting doubt and less than noble motives need to grow up and get a life. Ken was elected with over whelming numbers, he is the AG of the Commonwealth. He is involved in the current debate as is our legislature and Gov McDonnell.
When events take place that require the attention of the AG is right for him to get involved , this includes making public statements on acts of violence and political intimidation. Had he remained silent these same voices would be screaming, where is the AG !
Ken Cuccinelli is acting like the grown up in the room. His actions to date regarding the Commonwealths complaint against the Federal Gov’t as well as his response to the less than orderly political debate tells me he has a pretty good understanding of the job of the AG. General Cuccenilli is performing his duties protecting the interests of the commonwealth with integrity and professionalism. We should be supporting his efforts.
Barbara:
I would support Millers right to carry concealed any where it is legal to do so. I don’t like people second guessing my state of mind and deciding that my rights should be varied or infringed in any way due to amateur psychiatric observations. He may be a bit of a political loon, however that in and of itself has little or no bearing on his ability to carry a firearm if he meets all the criteria set forth in the law.
I would agree his self inflated sense of self is at the root of the majority of his issues. Hopefully after 2011 we will not have to concern ourselves with him anymore. One can hope.
Realizing it may be a baited hook…
“Those among my relatives and friends who are knowledgeable and responsible gun owners do not frighten me in the least–they have too much respect for what it takes to have guns safely to posture like that.”
Barb, are you implying only certain people should be allowed to “pack heat”?
G.Stone, in the case that Barbara was describing it was not the man’s right to carry a firearm that was in question. The issue was the poor judgement involved in choosing to carry it in a particular place and under particular circumstances. Just because you have a right to carry doesn’t mean it is a bright idea in every case.
.
That is why most celebrities (the ones who aren’t stupid anyway) don’t walk around with guns. They hire security people. This makes them far safer in any number of ways. I think the same holds true for elected officials.
as much as it KILLS me, i am behind LL 110% on this one. I was watching Obama on MSNBC this morning (i know, i’m a ‘liberal’ for watching the retired republican congressman joe scarborough) and they were showing clips of the President on stage daring republicans to oppose healthcare. he is very quickly turning into a pompous, arrogant wind bag.
Sure, Dan, Nancy Pelosi’s family has made HUGE sacrifices. Her husband has had to contend with all the business funnelled to his company, her kids have had to contend with flying on government planes at government expense, etc.
.
Rough life.
Local, I knew eventually we would agree on something. Cheers.
Jack, if you would let go of your talking points and your cartoonish characterizations of those whose views you oppose you might be able to see that what I said is correct.
.
I’ll bring it closer to home and use a couple of examples of Republican office holders so you won’t go into your default knee jerk partisan mode.
.
In the last election in the 67th General Assembly District the Republicans put up a first time candidate named Jim LeMunyon. He is a business man, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and a professor at George Mason. A very qualified candidate. He certainly didn’t have to run. He had no need to run. And I bet if you asked him or his family if they made any sacrifices to run they would answer yes. The man won and is serving the public. Which is a noble calling. Worthy of respect. Certainly not worthy of your snide derision.
.
A year ago there was a special election to fill the Braddock District Board of Supervisors seat in Fairfax County. Again the Republicans fielded a first time candidate, John Cook. He was a leader in his profession as well as a civic and community leader. Another quality guy. He was endorsed by the Washington Post. Ask him or his family if they made sacrifices to run and to serve.
.
These are precisely the sort of people we need in public service and who we need to encourage to run for office. Which is made much more difficult when mindless dolts deride their efforts and their service and are blind to the sacrifices they make.
.
I am sure the death threats we are seeing recently serve to discourage some of the very people we need to jump in from getting into electoral politics. Gunshots and bricks and idiot extremists publishing home addresses don’t serve to encourage these people either. And that hurts all of us because the substandard types will always want to run. There are always so many of them. It is the best among us we need to serve.
.
That is another reason that, as the title of this post says, This Has To Stop.
Dan, I’m not getting in a pissing match over this, but if Miller has followed the law and retained a CHP permit – which means taking a 4 hour class, passing a written test, passing a state background check, and filling out a detailed form to submit to the county clerk of courts with all attached documents – he is qualified to carry concealed. You might not like it, but it is the law.
*
Personally, I think flaunting that you need to carry to protect yourself and walking around with Deputy escorts seems a bit dramatic – but I have no idea if Miller had an actual threat of just a perceived threat. I can’t make that judgement even though I think he is a jerk. Being a jerk doesn’t disqualify you from your rights.
*
The reason most celebrities hire security is because they live in CA – the guns laws are very restrictive and carrying a gun means you agree on some level that we have 2A rights. This is complete anathema to most celebrtities, so they are just blatant hypocites and hire security. It’s easier that way.
As I said, I don’t dispute Miller’s right to own and carry.
Given his checkered record of statements, actions and outbursts, my OPINION is that I don’t like the idea of the potentially poor decision he might make in assessing threat.
I think he already made some poor assessments of threat in that scores of constituents speaking strongly on issues made him feel he needed an escort.
That may just be ego drama of an introvert on his part, but again, his judgment on so many issues is so poor
I don’t doubt he could pass the course and win a permit.
And Eric, as you yourself often point out, the government already makes a variety of determinations on who may or may not do what, including who may vote, who may purchase liquor or tobacco, who is allowed to own and “pack”, and so on.
My issue with the drama queen is his hypocrisy on the issue (guns scary bad and not okay, but I need one), and the potential for decision making as poor as his track record in other areas.
“My issue with the drama queen is his hypocrisy on the issue (guns scary bad and not okay, but I need one), and the potential for decision making as poor as his track record in other areas.”
*
Then put Miller in the same category as celebrities, only he has the stones to actually carry and display his hypocrisy.
Loudoun Lady, we have no disagreement about gun rights or concealed carry. My point is simply that having a right to do something doesn’t mean that doing it in every situation is wise. In fact, it may show incredibly poor judgement.
.
On the celebrity thing, Plaxico Burris is probably a bad example because he was actually in violation of local law. But let’s say he wasn’t in violation. For a celebrity to go clubbing without a body man and carrying a gun is stupid in the extreme. If a minor confrontation develops (and people are always hassling celebs) does he really want to place himself in the legal jeopardy that drawing that weapon may cause? Or the civil liability?
.
Sometimes carrying a gun is about the dumbest damned thing you can do. Your right to carry it isn’t the issue.
I am with LL on this one. If he passed the test and got the permit, he should be able to pack anywhere he wants regardles of anyone’s view of his “judgement”. I support the right to bear arms BUT I also support the right of the gov’t to reasonably regulate this right (that might be where LL and I part ways). I think it is disturbing to infer that certain people I agree with are more gun trustworthy while others I don’t agree with shouldn’t be given permits.
“The issue was the poor judgement involved in choosing to carry it in a particular place and under particular circumstances. Just because you have a right to carry doesn’t mean it is a bright idea in every case.”
If he carries concealed, then it is a moot point. You or anyone else would never have known, Now, if he bragged about it in order to make a political point, then you have a case for him being a dumb ass, that is a whole different deal.
“That is why most celebrities (the ones who aren’t stupid anyway) don’t walk around with guns. They hire security people. This makes them far safer in any number of ways. I think the same holds true for elected officials.”
Let’s get real here, a member of the LC BOS is not likely going to be in a position to hire an executive protection agent. However, If I am wrong, I am available should he or any other elected official feel the need for such services.
Eric, if you have ever been to a class designed for folks who are applying for a concealed carry permit there is a good bit of discussion about judgement. At least if the class has a competent instructor.
.
You can change your own life and the lives of others tragically if you make bad judgements with that weapon. Just drawing it in the wrong circumstances can result in a charge of brandishing a firearm.
.
As I say, it isn’t always about rights. It is about not being dumb as a stump. And pretty much anyone who is breathing can get a concealed carry permit. It isn’t like we are talking about trained law enforcement officers.
.
Sometimes leaving the weapon behind is the best judgement for your personal safety.
Stone, he had Sheriff’s deputies. He had no need to hire anyone.
.
Now, you could argue that his use of Sheriff’s Department resources was a waste of taxpayer money…
Boy, this thread got derailed.
Agreed! Let’s try to stay on topic, folks. As the post title says “This has to stop”!
The thread did get derailed, but I think the disagreements are finer points on judging on whether others should be carrying (despite their right to do so) vs judgement when/if to carry.
*
It’s not my place to judge when/if someone carries if they are obeying the law. It’s a matter of protection for most people and no one is advocating being a loud-mouth about carrying a firearm, concealed or not. I’m sure we could argue the when/if scenario till we are blue in the face, and what would be right and proper for me would not be for you.
*
Plaxico is in jail for violating the law and his judgement was woefully lacking, on this I agree. Comparing Miller and Plaxico is like comparing NFL football players to the LC BOS – wait – that’s the problem!
Sorry LI!
Eric, that’s why I reiterated it was my OPINION.
And I don’t know if it is a total derail, LI, in that we are talking about partisan perceptions of safety and violence.
Oh and Eric? You may reframe as is your wont that this is about rights for people we agree with, but that is not my issue.
I agree with the rights, and don’t dispute his.
His individual judgement in potentially exercising those rights gives me great pause, and always will.
Okay, maybe not a total derail. But certainly off onto a side track.
Okay -I’m not in the mood nor do I have time to be The Thread Police today! Do what you will!
That’s how we roll..
Dan, two examples of people who have made sacrifices to be elected officials does not mean they all have. The majority of congresscritters are quite well off, thank you. They get to go on junkets — sorry, “fact-finding trips” — to exotic locales, with their families. They get government contracts funnelled to their family members (a la Nancy).\
.
When they ignore the will of the people so blantantly, and hold meetings in secret to do so, they do not deserve the appelation “public servants.”
Wow. Permission to derail.
.
I like ham.
Turkey > Ham
On that note, I’m in the mood for turkey meatloaf.
My cat loves ham.
Your cat is a ham!
A tactic right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: Hire some thugs to attack yourself, then blame the other side for violence.
Kind of like starting a fire at the Reichstag as a pretext for burning books and launching Krystalnacht.
The Dems with their SEIU and ACORN thugs are experts at these tactics. Its what they do to suppress opposition. Call their opponents racists and anarchists. Hold a mirror to the Dems and you will see what is wrong with this country.
Oh, just one more point. The Government should fear the people more than the people fear their government. As November approaches and it becomes more apparent that the people are going to rout Congress and send them home, watch for the Dems to really get crazy and violent.
Who is having Ham on Easter?
Us!
Can we assume that the recent resurgence of Saul Alinsky references is entirely attributable to Glen Beck and those whose lives are so constricted that they watch him? I reached political adulthood in the early-mid 1960s. I don’t think I’ve heard Alinsky’s name mentioned (prior to this recent spate) since the mid-1970s.
nova, that’s an easy out.
1. not everyone you assume to paint as sheep watches or listens to certain programs.
2. was there any reason to discuss Alinsky in the mainstream before one of his disciples became president?
Limbaugh brings up Alinsky all the time.
Gee, never caught his show either.
And with my constricted life, too!
lolol
“easy out”? what are you talking about, Barbara? I thought I was asking a question. In my world, Saul Alinsky became a dodo 30 years ago. Suddenly, I’m seeing him everywhere. and the only people talking about him are on the right, not the left, where he belongs.
“entirely attributable to Glen Beck”?
That question is a perennial easy out, along with “Rush said:”
Are you seriously asking if the only reason you’re hearing Alinsky’s name frequently is because Beck or Limbaugh mentioned it, so now all the dittohead drones are parroting it? I would suggest that many more people in the US do NOT watch or listen to either on any given day than do, in spite of their large audiences. Perspective please.
As I asked in return, was there any reason to discuss him regularly in the mainstream before Mr. Obama became president?
In case that sounded harsh (rather than incredulous), please reread your “question”, and your response:
Assume its because Beck said it?
Constricted lives? !
In your world?
There’s a bigger one, and maybe the people who aren’t as enlightened as you consider yourself to have been 40 years ago (because of their “constricted lives”? Poor stunted things!) have only just learned who Alinsky is, and are therefore discussing him?
Since Obama became President, and it is now significant in the mainstream, instead of just in the far reaches of the left?
Well, that may have gotten harsh again.
I apologize if so.
I’m still a bit incredulous.
“Incredulous” can’t hang in mid-air. What are you incredulous about? That I’m an old geezer? That I thought Alinsky went out with bell-bottoms and love-ins? that I think Alinsky should stay where I reasonably thought he was, rather than getting a lot of air time from the right? That I think people who spend any time watching Beck (other than for laughs) are getting a very insubstantial diet of anti-rational gruel? Of course, those are just my opinions.
Focus your thoughts. It promotes a better exchange of ideas.
You are entitled to your opinion about those who watch or listen to certain programs, certainly.
I am incredulous that you seem to be of the opinion that the only reason anyone would discuss someone you dismissed years ago is that they are a “constricted” being who relies solely on that input for their thoughts.
I can understand the tendency to dismiss Alinsky and his ilk years ago when he was getting started, because he is far far out in left field and should have stayed there.
I am incredulous that it appears to be your opinion that the fact that you dismissed him means he went away.
Anyone who assumed that he was gone because they didn’t think it worthwhile to pay attention to his existence missed the boat by missing his entrenchment and rise.
The babyboomers are running the country now, and some of their loonier sectors are firmly in power in some areas.
The reason that may be is because people dismissed them, and thereby missed their inexorable rise, when perhaps either something could have been done about it, or people could have been more broadly educated to keep an eye on their policies and philosophies.
The dismissive attitude that he was gone because you thought so goes hand in hand with the dismissive attitude that only constricted beings who watch programs you also dismiss would discuss something you consider to be so passe.
Perhaps a bit of focus on whether he was getting any traction years ago (and since) would have prevented a bit of the rise?
Hard to say.
I hope that was a bit more focused.
I hope people who missed the boat on him can focus on what to do about him now that he somehow climbed up in spite of his dismissal, rather than simply concluding that the only people noticing him were told to do so by a television program.