More than 300 'GOOOH' to rally on Marco Island

GOOOH, along with two other organizations, is focused on spreading the word

CHERYL FERRARA/SPECIAL TO THE EAGLE
Signs of the times spring up in Marco Island's Veteran Park Saturday as three groups join to rally against a government they feel lost touch with its citizens.

CHERYL FERRARA/SPECIAL TO THE EAGLE Signs of the times spring up in Marco Island's Veteran Park Saturday as three groups join to rally against a government they feel lost touch with its citizens.

CHERYLE FERRARA/SPECIAL TO THE EAGLE
Marco Islander Penny Hush is hoping to persuade passersby to remove current lawmakers and vote in different legislators this November. She joined the GOOOH rally protest on the corner of Elkcam Circle and Collier Boulevard near Winn Dixie.

CHERYLE FERRARA/SPECIAL TO THE EAGLE Marco Islander Penny Hush is hoping to persuade passersby to remove current lawmakers and vote in different legislators this November. She joined the GOOOH rally protest on the corner of Elkcam Circle and Collier Boulevard near Winn Dixie.

Winds of charge blew through Veteran’s Park Saturday. A movement started on Marco Island Feb. 10 saw its ranks swell to more than 300 as people gathered to protest those who govern.

The group’s name, GOOOH (Get Out of Our House), may look difficult to pronounce but is as easy as saying “go” to members of the House of Representatives. The movement’s followers believe those who seek to serve their Districts are serving themselves instead.

Carrying signs and venting frustrations, protesters first met in the park; and then dispersed to street corners to provide visual proof of their determination to make change happen.

“There’s a lot of frustration and Congress is not listening to the people,” said Keith Flaugh, the protest’s organizer. “People are here to change the process we use to put our representatives in office.”

Those changes include asking candidates in the November election to answer 100 questions clarifying their positions on key issues, demanding that they sign a legal agreement not to run for more than two terms and requiring them to stop accepting contribution from any group other than GOOOH.

GOOOH’s rally was joined by two other organizations: SWFL 9.12 and Naples’ Tea Party.

Carl Haeussler of 9.12 described his group as a non-political movement to get back to the feelings of unity experienced the day after Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorist attacks shook the nation. To do so, he hopes to take back control of the country.

Naples’ Tea Party organizer, Barry Willoughby, took a dim view of the status quo.

“Things are drastically wrong with America,” he said, addressing the crowd. “There is no transparency, no accountability. Make no mistake; the Tea Party is responsible for the election in Massachusetts where Scott Brown won. We held off ObamaCare as long as we could. That one battle we lost, but we will win the war.”

His words rang true for many Islanders.

“We need to take back our country and the principles it was founded on,” said Joanne Peona, who carried a sign reading: “How’s that change working for you now?”

“We’re tired of losing our freedom and fed up,” said Edward Pehola. “We’d like to see both parties get together on major issues. His sign read: “In November the buck stops here.”

Marco Islander Betty Taylor had no good words for President Barack Obama.

“Obama is turning us into another Venezuela,” she said. “just like Chavez.”

After a 30-minute rally in the park, about half the protesters moved to designated demonstration points at the corners of Collier Boulevard and Elkcam Circle, Collier Boulevard and Bald Eagle Drive and in front of the Esplanade.

Passing drivers honked and waved in support of the demonstrators. One cyclist even rang the bell on his handlebars.

Craig Braun, a passerby from Marco Island, praised the effort and the sidewalk demonstration.

“I think it’s fantastic,” he said. “I hope it will take us out of socialism and back to capitalism.”

Jerry and Dee Bare, who joined the sidewalk protestors, felt some kind of action was necessary.

“We believe this is a good thing,” Jerry Bare said, “and we’d like to see some changes made.”

Limousine driver Craig Kennedy walked down the driveway from the Esplanade to see what was going on.

“Unbelievable,” he said. “I knew there was a bunch of idiots around. Where were they when we spent all that money on Iraq and Afghanistan? Where the hell were they then? They weren’t on the street corners.”

Although there was no organized opposition to the demonstration, some passersby appeared overwhelmed by the group.

A visiting family from Dusseldorf, Germany, slid through the crowd quickly trying not to make eye contact with the protesters.

Jerry Bare noted that he had seen several “one-fingered peace signs” from passing motorists.

Cyclists Scott Treiber wended through the crowd on his bicycle.

“It’s kind of strange,” he said. “I’m not paying much attention. I’m just trying to ride my bike.”

Penny Hush, sporting a GOOOH button and a sign that read “Fire Congress,” waved and hooted for motorists to show some spirit.

“I’m here because we need a new Congress,” she explained. “I want some honest politicians representing us. I don’t want leadership that’s bribed.”

As the demonstration wound down, a group of protesters on the corner of Elkcam Circle and Collier Boulevard waved their fists up and down urging a Winn Dixie truck driver to blow his horn. He deftly maneuvered his 18-wheeler around them missing the curb, but choosing not to sound his horn.

Perhaps he was too intent on preventing damage at that moment and less focused on the protestors’ view of the damage caused by government leaders.

Organizers secured a permit for the rally and march from Bob Devlin, planning, zoning technician and flood plain manager for the City of Marco Island. No special provisions were made for the event other than ensuring health and safety, Devlin said.

At the rally, Flaugh announced that Tim Cox, founder of the national GOOOH movement, will be in the Marco Island area on April 22-23.

© 2010 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Comments » 12

duhuhuhha writes:

These people are Idi.... Not my cup of tea. They rant an rave about "getting their freedom back". What they really mean to say is that they lost their hold on the status quo when their party was voted out by a majority of Americans. The same Americans that had been complaining about the lies they were being fed by the republican led congress and senate, the wasted money being spent on a lie of war, oh ,... this would take to long to list all the lies and deciets, I could go on and on. We were put into a deficit of trillions by the republican government. The crisis that their "freedom" put us in (recession)is now being delt with, and they don't like that the free ride is over. They have No more control over making money from NOTHING by shorting the market.

Now, Really... They should also understand that Loud, obnoxious and s----- on the side of the road, is no way to present yourself or go through life. The followers in these "marches" remind me of grade school kids reciting a prayer over and over which they have no understanding of, yet have learned to parrot at their leaders request. "I actually saw a sign, and heard a woman chanting, Love it or leave it" AMERICA. Why is she on that corner, "marching"? She obviously doesn't "love it" so I am beyond myself in figuring out why she just doesn't... LEAVE.

They simply can't stand the thought of someone of a different color being "in charge". They fail to understand it was the VOTING MAJORITY who put the current administration and houses into office. However, because these people in office do not share their narrow minded views on race and helping your fellow man, the band wagon now chants for changes in congress. Gezzzz, these people need a clue, AND a life.

happy6 writes:

BUT DID YOU HEAR THE HORNS HONK TO REPLACE OBAMA??
AND YOU SOUND LIKE THE REST OF THE IDIOTS TRYING TO MAKE IT RACIAL....WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS. and don't say it's the "southerners" cause i'll guarantee you there were more "northerners" on that corner than those of us from the south. this is typical of the democrats...if there was a mock hanging of obama as there was with bush you people would go crazy screaming racist....as rev sharpton said today..there are elements in all groups...his included...that are not fit and disgrace the rest of us....so...go sell your bigotted /hypocritical comments somewhere else.

ajm3s writes:

Tea Party movement:

Fiscal Responsibility
Smaller Government

It is amazing to me how a simple message gets so twisted and now we are casitgated as idi.....

And I just finished reading the health care legislation which just passed. Let us see who is informed, because you know there is so much misinformation. Well now we have the law.

Let's see how the newly created 159 administrative boards and regulatory bodies inform us now.

Fossil writes:

The phrase I love is: "Give me my country back". Makes me wonder where it went? duh: you got it right and you covered many basess that "shadow" either ignores or refuses to address. These folks are entitled but according to Issler, they should be happy the "majority" won the election and live with the consequences. After all, Obasma covered what he wanted to do during his campaign. The only surprise was how badly the country was raped and pilaged during the Republican era he is now obligated to repair. Don't believe for a moment that race is not a concern here. That is what they really mean by "Give me my country back." They are afraid.

ancientmariner writes:

It amazes me to see people who are obviously eligible for Medicare rant and rave about the recent health care legislation. Do they refuse to allow Medicare to pay their bills when they get sick? Heck no! But if the rest of us poor schmucks get a few measly concessions like an end to being refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions or a guarantee that we won't be dropped when we get sick, all of a sudden that's "Socialism."

Funny how it's not socialism for them- only when it gets offered to other people.

I don't think the health care legislation is perfect, in fact it's far from it. My choice would have been extending Medicare to all citizens. What we got is a small first step in the right direction, and Medicare recipients demonstrating against it is hypocritical at best.

If they want to repeal the health care bill, then they should first repeal Medicare and have to deal with the insurance companies like the rest of us.

ajm3s writes:

in response to ancientmariner:

It amazes me to see people who are obviously eligible for Medicare rant and rave about the recent health care legislation. Do they refuse to allow Medicare to pay their bills when they get sick? Heck no! But if the rest of us poor schmucks get a few measly concessions like an end to being refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions or a guarantee that we won't be dropped when we get sick, all of a sudden that's "Socialism."

Funny how it's not socialism for them- only when it gets offered to other people.

I don't think the health care legislation is perfect, in fact it's far from it. My choice would have been extending Medicare to all citizens. What we got is a small first step in the right direction, and Medicare recipients demonstrating against it is hypocritical at best.

If they want to repeal the health care bill, then they should first repeal Medicare and have to deal with the insurance companies like the rest of us.

I believe you hit it on the nail in your last statement, but as you indicate that will not happen since those that have will not give it up, and those that have not will fight for anything to get what those who have.

Problem: Not enough tax revenue to pay for all this care for everyone by the wage earners making over 250K and additional taxes.

In fact, Mayo Clinic in Arizona will be refusing Medicare patients going forward because compensation does not cover costsset by governnment.

Prediction: There will be two healthcare services. Publicly provided according to guidelines set in Obamacare and private (for those who can afford).

Then you will definitely see a vast disparity between quality of care between public and private.

My concern: the net result of overwhelming public and smaller private care is lower quality overall with reduced innovation by investors which lead to America's leadership in medical and drug development.

Fossil writes:

ajm3: Why must it be as you project? You claim that America has "leadership in medical and drug development". That is undoubtably true but unfortunatly the leading edge in medical care is reserved for those who can afford it TODAY. Many of our wonder drugs are too expensive to obtain by millions who have a need TODAY. Yet, these same drugs are sold overseas for 2 thirds less than we must pay in our own country. Our elderly will see the dounut hole close under this new bill making many of these durgs more affordable to them. You also claim that "Not enough tax revenue to pay for all this care for everyone by the wage earners making over 250K and additional taxes". There are other savings and efficiencies in the plan to help pay for it. Those 30 million newly insured will not be receiving this care for free. The insurance provided under the exchanges will not be free. They too will pay a premium and that is 30 million new contributors to health care that currently pay nothing and cost all of us when they go to the emergency room. Obamacare is only a beginning. Those who have pre existing conditions will also pay a premium for their insurance. Nothing is being given away. Those who are too poor to pay will be cared for under same program they have always used, medicaid. The "net result" must be focused on the greater good and NOT the wealthiest of us. Those with excess money will always be able to afford to buy the medical care and drugs they require. Although we all will benefit, the wealthy will not be asked to pay more than they can afford. Obamacare is deficit neutral and by all accounts from reputable sources should not cost 98 percent of us any more then it does now. This bill will improve all of our lives for many years to come and cost our nation less not more. With the increased availabiity of health care to those who work but cannot afford it TODAY, many lives will be saved. Don't forget that now many small business people will receive tax credits to help them meet their obligations to their employees permitting even more employees to be insured. Perhaps that will help our empty stores downtown. Insurance companies will no longer receive subsidies by having seniors turn over their health care under medicare advantage without loosing the care they currently have. This bill is a good thing, not great but a beginning and within six months will be something our society will support as much as medicare is supported today. You betchya.

ajm3s writes:

30 million new does not equal 30 million new payers. Approximately 10-12 million will be added to Medicaid.

Also, the government does not allow for options that could reduce cost. For example, I am willing to take the risk that I do not need drug rehab coverage.

Here is a recent article, that frames the argument from a freedom perspective, but there are situations that affect cost.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnaly...

I could be wrong since it is a generalization, but market forces do compensate for government intervention.

I would have appreciated a health bill that both parties agreed to. Instead we got a one sided plan with all the goodies, with a cost that I believe was understated.

Fossil writes:

I don't know where you picked up the 10 million added to medicare because I can't imagine who they might be as the poor have always had medicaid to fall back on and still do. If you are thinking of children or the infirm who were not insured, they too were likly illigible for medicare under state social protection laws. Your "freedom" perspectives remind me of those who faught against the mandatory use of seat belts, speed limits and helmet laws. None of those mandatory laws improves ones driving ability nor do they hamper it. They do however save millions of lives and endless amounts of money. You are required to purchase automobile insurance even if you feel you will never have an accident, why? Not so much to protect you, but to protect the lives and property of those your carelessness and sometimes just bad luck could cause harm to. As to ones willingness to take personal risk, how many families have been grateful for the death of a relative because they were willing to take the personal risk of not wearing a seat belt or helmet? That is not a freedom, that is a lack of common sense not to mention the obvious lack of concern or respect for those you leave behind. We all still have the "freedom" to shoot ourselves in the head if that's what you want to do. None of us are immunne from illness, no matter how young we are. I think that all of us would have been happier if the Republicans had actively participated as a full partner from the git go, but they chose to exercise their "freedom" to stand on principal. Everyone lost because of that decision. Fortunately, the Democrats moved forward without them but had good sense to use many Republican ideas in the bill. Unless you are makiing money off the insurance industry, you too will be glad this bill was passed. Take a look at the Romny bill, it is pretty near the same one. Nixon also advocated a bill like this one, but he included a large single payer player.

ajm3s writes:

Fossil:

I am not a fan of the insurance industry. I believe the insurance industry to date has actually taken advantage of limited competition and used escalating costs to justify rate increases to those who are not in a group plan. And yes there are common ideas that both parties agree, but the major difference is that Republicans would like the control in the hands of individuals, not government nor insurance. And they would like to allow more market based options ie. choose the level of risk.

The reason I believe in market forces to control costs, is based on evidence that shows elective surgeries (i.e. cosmetic surgery) cost rise at a much lower rate close to the rate of inflation. On this theme, I believe if individuals paid for the cost they would make better financail choices even for non-elective care. Of course, there are emergencies where choices are nonexistence but that is where insurance plays a very important role.

In my lifetime I have never experienced a true market based health system.
We have (had) state run insurance boards controlling what minimal care must be covered (typically comprehensive in nature, the most expensive), set rates and limited which insurance companies who could compete.

When we operated a business in MA, we chose to provide our employees with a high deductible, PPO health insurance plan due to its low cost vs. same plan with low deductible. We then paid all deductibles so the employee had no out of pocket expenses.

The annual cost savings (when we included all out of pocket expenses paid by the company), was dramatically (12-32% lower)less when reviewed over a five year period. In essence, we took the risk, because the variance was great and we knew our employees.

When RomneyCare was instituted we lost all advantages since now there were limited insurance choices. Now costs are exceeding projections made at its inception and the outlying community hospitals are now threatening to close due to fiscal constraints.

To me its more about fiscal responsibility and not limiting choice; with the decision in our hands vs the government.

But I guess we will just continue to disagree. I think we strayed from the message of the article. Please accept my apologies.

liberator100 writes:

November 2010; America's second Independence Day is coming. And I can hardly wait.

Fossil writes:

ajm3: Sounds like you worked for a great company that believed a healthy secure employee was a dependable one. A resonable concept when compared to the majority of private industry. Your employer paid the high deductables for the employee and his family members? Thats remarkable. How long do you think that company will be able to buck the current trend of the insurance companies to raise the rates without any ability to leverage a favorable negotiable result? A BCBS company in California recently increased the rates by 49 percent. That increase, according to the insurance company was justified because of "market trends" and represents the future. Hospitals that close becuase of fiscal constraints are hospitals that are managed by people that do not practice fiscal responsiblity. Most hospitals in underpopulated areas fail not because the fiscal constraints but because they cannot attract care givers to work in them. The new bill has addressed this problem by funding their education and increasing medicare reimbursements to family doctors. Here is an example of a "true market based system" that is very competitive and works: One in which health insurance companies bid to enter a pool with well establhised limits. A pool of companies willing to provide a minimum level of services that is known to all bidders. All participants are playing on the same field and enjoy the same access to the same population of consumers. All are held to the same maximum profit limits and all compete in the same market and negotiate their own reimbursement levels with their participating providers. This model exists today, has been very successful for decades and is curreently enjoyed by our Congressman, Senators, federal employees, federal retirees some state employees, public safety employees and contractors. It serves millions of clients and provides excellent service at reasonable rates and does it with very low deductables and high maximums. The Federal Health Insurance Benefits program has never had any problem finding Health insurance companies to participate and enjoys a client population that does not seek out other service providers. It is not a single payer system, it is managed by the Federal government and it is almost exactly the same system that is being offerred to small business exchanges in the new bill. It is not mandatory but almost all federal employees join it. Why? Because it provides the best coverage for the lowest cost and can be depended upon no matter what state you live in or what country you are assigned to work in or travel to as a tourist. The companies that participate are some of the strongest health insurance companies in the United States. You have ask yourself, why shouldn't all Americans be able to enjoy that kind of managed health care? That is exactly what the folks promoting reform are asking.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features