Limbaugh yells "Nazi" (and the press yawns)
The Houston Chronicle editorial page wanted to be absolutely clear: References to Adolf Hitler or Nazis in American politics had no place in the "discourse of the nation," and the crude analogies were "beyond the pale." The practice was "absurd and dangerous."
The editorial page was disgusted by the rhetoric and firmly believed that dredging up the Nazi comparisons desensitized people to the pain and violence that actual Nazis unleashed in the 20th century.
The condemnation was fitting, given the fact that the country's most-listened-to talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, last week unfurled shocking rhetoric in which he compared the Obama White House to a Nazi organization and even likened Obama to Hitler. ("Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.") The outlandish attacks seemed to be a case of Limbaugh playing catch-up to Fox News' Glenn Beck (Limbaugh = Beck Lite?), who had been pounding the noxious Nazi angle for weeks.
Of course it's depressing to watch Limbaugh drive politics into the gutter, but at least watchdogs at big-city dailies like the Houston Chronicle are calling out the really reprehensible stuff, right?
I wish.
Because here's the catch: That Chronicle editorial I mentioned above wasn't in response to Limbaugh's latest misguided hate maneuver. The scathing editorial was published on January 7, 2004, and came in response to news that two videos submitted to a MoveOn.org advertisement contest had included Hitler imagery in their 30-second attacks on President Bush. (They were just two of the 1,500 clips submitted.) MoveOn never endorsed the efforts or promoted them; the clips simply appeared on MoveOn's crowded contest website. But when news spread about their mere existence, a controversy erupted, and the liberal netroots group quickly pulled the ads, apologized for their inclusion, and denounced the use of Nazi imagery.
Despite that swift action, the Hitler-MoveOn story, fueled by Fox News (see Glenn Greenwald), became a very big deal and gobbled up days' worth of news coverage, coverage that often stressed how unrestrained and irresponsible the liberal blogosphere was (Hitler?!), to the point where the Chronicle weighed in with a stand-alone editorial on the topic.
But fast-forward to today. As Limbaugh envelops himself in Nazi rhetoric, for some reason, the Houston Chronicle's editorial page, along with so many other corporate news outlets, remains silent about the offensive Hitler comparisons. Despite the fact that Limbaugh has not apologized for his comments -- unlike MoveOn in 2004 -- and is continuing to compare the Obama White House and the Democratic Party with Nazis, many in the media don't consider it newsworthy and haven't condemned it. And more important, journalists don't show any signs of believing that the episode tells us anything about the radically unhinged nature of the right-wing media in this country today. That story's just a non-starter. Period.
It's just Rush being Rush, right?
Over the weekend, some welcome media voices did rise up to denounce Limbaugh's rhetoric in no uncertain terms. (David Brooks: "What he's saying is insane.") But why did it take so long, and why isn't everyone making that blindingly obvious point? And why wasn't it considered big news that the de facto leader of the Republican Party went there (i.e. Nazi-ville)? He went to a place that previously was considered unconscionable and unpardonable by the press. Just ask MoveOn; it still has the scars to prove it.
Why isn't Limbaugh uniformly condemned for his words?
After all, if The New York Times is going to prop up Limbaugh as an all-powerful and deeply important figure in American politics, the way the newspaper did last summer with its worshipful Sunday magazine cover story, shouldn't it dutifully chronicle his radical and outrageous rhetoric, too?
Yet the Times in recent days has managed just a sentence or two about Limbaugh's embrace of Nazi analogies. Of course, the Times is not alone in completely downplaying the story. As of today, The Washington Post has not reported one word about Limbaugh's shocking comments. Then again, The Washington Post also gave Beck a pass when he announced that the president of the United States had a "deep-seated hatred of white people" and was a flat-out "racist." At the Post, which obsesses over the intersection of the media and politics, the jaw-dropping attack by Fox News' superstar host wasn't considered newsworthy.
That's correct: Two of the most popular and powerful conservative voices in America have recently called out Obama as a Nazi and a racist. But, sorry, at The Washington Post, that's just not news. Nothing to see here, people. Just keeping moving along.
If I could play assignment editor for a moment here: The political story of the year continues to be the unhinged radical-right response to Obama's inauguration and the naked attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize him through a nonstop smear campaign sponsored by the GOP Noise Machine. The misguided movement breaks all kinds of taboos in American politics, as well as in the press, and is redefining our political culture -- for the worse. Yet the press continues to play dumb.
So spooked are journalists by decades' worth of "liberal media bias" attacks that they refuse to connect the glaringly obvious dots on display. They refuse to drill down into the rancid undercurrent that's behind the Obama-is-a-Nazi dementia, the town hall mini-mobs that are wreaking havoc across the country, and the bizarre birther conspiracy theory. The three right-wing phenomena are all related, and they all revolve around a runaway hatred of Obama (as well as the federal government), and they're all being fueled by the Noise Machine, especially Fox News and Limbaugh, both of which no longer recognize common decency, let alone journalistic standards.
Yet instead of putting Limbaugh on the receiving end of well-deserved scrutiny and scorn, rather than turning his comments into a political firestorm, the press plays dumb and actually goes out of its way to legitimize the worst offenders of the GOP's hate brigade.
And so that's why we saw ABC invite mini-mob cheerleader Michelle Malkin onto its Sunday morning talk show and sit her across from Pulitzer Prize-winning writers. Because in the eyes of elites at ABC, Malkin, whose job is basically to blog any semi-coherent smear campaign she can cook up, and who told Fox News viewers last week that health care reform "puts a discount on the lives of elderly people," deserves a place at the mainstream table. She's a very serious and important person.
And instead of examining the obviously dangerous implications of somebody like Michael Savage attracting a large and loyal radio audience as he belches out his hatred for women, liberals, gays, Arabs and other minorities, the prestigious New Yorker recently published something of a Savage valentine, portraying him as "weird" and "fun" and just completely misunderstood by liberals who worry too much about Savage's "addictive," jazz-inspired riffs.
Of course, just days after the profile appeared on newsstands, Savage hosted an interview with a delusional leader of the birther movement, and together they hatched a plan to unleash even more mini-mobs to ransack town hall forums and drive the birther message, all in hopes of forcing the president out of office. (Was that the "fun" The New Yorker had in mind when it toasted Savage in its pages?)
Because the corporate press has ignored the simmering hate wave on the right and let pass almost without comment the kind of outbursts that, if ever were to appear on liberal websites, would be denounced around the clock by media elites, it's not surprising that Limbaugh pretty much gets a pass for his Nazi crusade. (Do I even have to mention that the conservative press has been almost comically hypocritical about the Nazi issue? In other words, Bush + Hitler = bad. Obama + Hitler = crickets.)
Want some concrete proof that the press has treated this media Nazi story differently than the Hitler-MoveOn kerfuffle in 2004? Consider the fact that The Indianapolis Star published letters to the editor about the Hitler-MoveOn story on January 7, 9, 10, 11, and 19 back in 2004. To date, however, not a single word has been published on that same Star page about Limbaugh's creeping Nazi obsession.
Here's a list of big-city newspapers that covered the story in January of 2004, according to Nexis (and the number of separate articles, columns, or letters that referenced the story):
- Indianapolis Star (5)
- The New York Sun (5)
- The Washington Times (5)
- The Kansas City Star (3)
- The New York Times (3)
- News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina (3)
- San Antonio Express-News (3)
- Minneapolis Star Tribune (3)
- The Boston Globe (2)
- New York Daily News (2)
- Houston Chronicle (2)
- New York Post (2)
- The Arizona Republic (1)
- Boston Herald (1)
- The Denver Post (1)
- Hartford Courant (1)
- Los Angeles Times (1)
- The Modesto Bee (1)
- San Francisco Chronicle (1)
- The Seattle Times (1)
- St. Petersburg Times (1)
- Rocky Mountain News (1)
- Cleveland Plain Dealer (1)
- Washington Post (1)
- Newsday (1)
- Richmond Times Dispatch (1)
- Atlantic Journal-Constitution (1)
- Orange County Register (1 )
Total big-city newspaper mentions: 54.
To date, here's the complete list of big-city newspapers that have covered the Limbaugh-Nazi story:
- The Boston Globe (1)
- The New York Times (1)
- New York Daily News (1)
- Denver Post (1)
- Las Vegas Review-Journal (1)
- Boston Herald (1)
Total big-city newspaper mentions: 6.
Television? According to a transcript search of Nexis, in January 2005, CNN gave the Hitler-MoveOn story three times more attention than it has to the current Limbaugh-Nazi controversy.
Looking back, maybe MoveOn should have just done what Limbaugh did and refused to apologize, instead embracing the Nazi nonsense. Because I'm sure if the liberal group had done that, I'm sure if MoveOn had pounded the Bush-is-a-Nazi angle for days and days, then journalists would have turned away quickly, just as so many have in response to Limbaugh's hateful Nazi rhetoric. Right?
Right?
They scream 'hypocrisy' because they are hypocrites.
They scream 'un-American' because they no longer love this land.
They scream 'Nazi!' because they are politically uninformed.
They scream 'Unfair' because they are held to the same standards as everyone else.
They scream and scream. Now, if only someone could teach them to think...
1. They think you're stupid.
2. They preach about tolerance, but they are only tolerant of those who agree with them.
3. They support the First Amendment, but if you says things they don't like, they label it hate speech and attempt to shut you down.
4. They believe that the way to solve a problem is by continuing to through money at it, without every really looking to see if the problem is improving (see the American education system).
5. They believe that the best system of governance is to force people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do, because of course, government officials (Democrats) know what is best for you and have your best interests at heart.
5. Did I mention, they think you're stupid.
It goes well with the "Angry Mob" & other Right-Wing Antics.
You would hope Republicans would think about the 45 million un-insured & offer them a Helping Hand.
Instead they seem to want to Dig a 6 foot hole & cover the un-insured with Sand.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Good to know.
Oh, and how can you speak truth to power when your own side is the power?Maybe you should call it truth for power.
I believe I recall reading about a fight, but it would seem to me that the SEIU was no more at fault than the angry mob who turned on their members.
The SEIU represents people who support health care reform - I think this might be why you want to demonize them also, whereas the Town Hall protesters represent people who want to silence discussion on the matter.
its time they realize that Americans are becoming more aware of politics and whats at stake for them....the truth shall come out
However, Rush has turned the Republican Party into a southern, bat-s**t insane party that only very very very angry old white people (and some very ignorant, misinformed young people... holding anti-swastika signs). For someone in their late 20's this is frightening. I went to college with some very smart people, I graduated from college feeling optimistic, I voted for Obama with all the hope in the world... but the only good thing that's happened is the "Fair Pay" act and the thrill of seeing republicans go crazy with racism fear...
Unfortunately, they're scaring the old people. Please stop scaring my republican father. Seriously, Rush, stop scaring my dad.
Tell them to just turn it all off for one or two days and then try to think in rational and common sense mode.
Ask them how they think Obama would be able to do anything close to that with all the safe guards in place to protect the people from some president who would want to do any harm.
And then ask them, do they honestly believe that Obama, a husband and father, raised by his grandparents, is really the way that Fox and Limbaugh are trying to say he is.
I do wonder how so many seniors believe this claptrap. Perhaps this whole nation is taking too much medication.
Go figure, no problem with all the sons getting killed fighting dishonest wars.
1. They are scared of him
2. The LUV him
They all wanna be the next loud-mouth talker with the $400M contract, so you don't wanna make Big Daddy upset.
Yes folks, the WSJ reports his contract is worth $.5B!
1. They are scared of him
2. The LUV him
They all wanna be the next loud-mouth talker with the $400M contract, so you don't wanna make Big Daddy upset.
Yes folks, the WSJ reports his contract is worth $.5B!
Talk about a waste of money....
Not only that, think about all the jobs that have been lost at radio startions over the years that carry syndicated liars like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin, rather than broadcast local-content programming (which is what they are licensed to do).
Yeah, right!
better to let the republican swine clearly identify themselves as such and keep your own species (human) to yourselves. did you see the obama news conference? views exchanged, principals talked about, programs discussed. they did it the same way bush et al did. they edited the list of attendees. Bush et al did it every time he appeared in public. Obama did it to make a point. i believe he got the point heard.
the hate merchants are pushing so much hate and vitriol towards Obama that I am afraid some tragedy will happen and most likely the media will again ignore their role in it.
From the Washington Post, On Faith / Catholic America column.
Is it a sin to listen to Rush.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/08/is_it_a_sin_to_listen_to_rush.html?hpid=talkbox1
This fundamentalist Christian agrees with you!
boothers, democraticunderground.com
----
Its tantamount to saying that, since the Germans of today aren't Nazi's,,, then therefore Israel was responsible for the Holocaust.
I get the point they are 'trying' to make, but revising History isn't fair game for any political purpose. Makes it appear that, "Those dirty bastards are up to the same thing, again"... When the truth is, it was the Democrats who were the perpetrators of that historical tragedy. That specious democraticunderground nonsense you link to, is every bit as false and under-handed as what the far-out nuts on the right are doing.
Too many out there who will ignorantly take imagery like that as "fact", and run with it. As is plain to see.
The Democratic Party WAS the Party of Slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow. Just because the Party has come some good distance in changing, doesn't ipso facto mean that the Republican now IS the Party of Slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow.
The little link to the democraticunderground was false, dishonest, revisionist and,,, just plain ignorant.
Are you guys saying that,,,, Obama is actually a Republican? Just somehow 'in the wrong Party now'?
Most of us consider Obama a centerist. A position that will probably not cause any neocon to have any warm feelings about him. Best case is that this will reduce the neocons to a smaller and smaller population. They'll still be shreiking talking points to their graves, but have fewer and fewer people trying to believe that what they say has any comon or social sense.
They were still reeling from Nixon, and the whole country was still reeling from Vietnam and the 60's, the Cold War was as Cold as ever. Hadn't been that long since the in-flux of RINO Dixiecrats began in earnest, but it was before the NeoCon conspiracy (Wonks, Think-Tankers, former Great Society liberals, Trotsky Socialists, etc.) really started having any impact on the rank-and-file. They were of course already into and dealing from the bottom of the deck in Foreign Policy. Kissinger & Co. were already developing the political feint in South America of propping up brutal ultra-right-wing terrorist dictatorships, which led to the foreseeable pendulum swing to people like Chavez, which they would later use to great effect here. And, they were very much already sewing the seeds of 9-11 and the War on Terror. Throwing stones and playing games with that hornet's nest of the Middle East, knowing that a sting would be coming eventually.
The upper-right-wing in '75, were figuring out how to make the most money by destroying our manufacturing base. As in Detroit beginning the trend towards churning out junk, while the corporate strategists were helping the asain car market poise itself to dominate. They were using our money to help build the infrastructure they needed all over the Third World, in order to take even MORE money and power from us. Nothing "new" in 75, nothing changed since. The true assault on the middle class began long before any but the "crackpots" among us noticed and tried to warn us. Not to suggest that it was only the upper-right wing behind all of that, it wasn't just them.
The average Republican in 75, was a great deal more 'conservative' (There is no such thing as a radical conservative, its an oxymoron) ((hmm,,,Oxycontin+Moron=Limbaugh)) Its really hard to describe them definitively. They weren't all anti-change, status-quo. Many of the Party Faithfull had spent most of their lives on the other side of the Dixiecrats and Copperheads, and came from various levels of Progressive backgrounds.
Looking back at a snapshot of '75, I'd have to say a lot of them didn't quite know what to make of it all, even then. But, they for the most part did as their leaders instructed, and shook their fists at what their pundits drew their attention to. Again, not so much unlike the left.
Thats just from the top of my head, a tiny bit of what I remember and have studied. I'm sure going back through the Year Books from that whole decade would bring back more.
How would you describe the 'left' in 1975, as oppossed to today?
I generally don't condemn the average person, trying to get by, trying to do good, and trying to make sense of it all, just because of their political affiliations. That so many have fallen under the infantile presumption that they must be either a Republican or a Democrat, is regrettable, but its a bad idea and an evil seed thats been re-planted and harvested generation after generation by the powers-that-be. Not unlike a lot of other nonsense thats found its way into the mass imagination.
The regular, everyday people on the left and the right, aren't actually the enemies of one another, I'll never believe that they are, and not even the one's who's lifestyles and world-views are incompatible with one another. All this top-down polarization is a lot less about hearts and minds than it is about getting and maintaining power, for the top. (and that, ALWAYS involves keeping everyone else beneath)
WK covers the left. My feeling is of a group of people trying to find out what they were about after the Dixicrats left.
Given that, what is the point of bringing up what was so long ago. No denial of the fact, but we all are parts of various ancient evils.
Senator Lowell Weicker (R) CT
Rep. Pete McCloskey (R) CA
Sen Clifford P. Case (R) NJ
Sen. Mark Hatfield (R) OR
Sen. John Sherman Cooper (R) KY
Rep. Tim Lee Carter (R) KY
Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R) NY
Sen George Aiken (R) VT
SEn. James B. Pearson (R) KS
And many of the pieces of legislation that were passed cutting funding for the war, etc. were co-sponsored by a Republican and a Democratic senator.
The Case/Church Amendment was passed by a margin of 278-124 in the House, and 64-26 in the Senate.
Two thirds of the congress voted for The War Powers Act of 1973 overriding the presidents veto.
There was a hell of a lot more independence from the parties back then and neither party marched in lock step as the Republicans do today.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party of today have a history. Neither party is similar today to the party of 1975, or 1861.
Thats the $64 question. The evidence-at-hand doesn't make for a positive forecat. Seems we are in a down-ward spiral.
Of course that's just my opinion...
But you probably knew that already, you just forgot to add that in.
I will castigate what I feel is wrong, and I will stand up for what I feel is good, and that keeps me from a lot of doublethink and guilt. I won't knowingly twist history, and I will always always always rethink anything that I find I've been mistaken about.
A lot of times, we look back with todays eyes and think that history just makes no sense,,, but more-often-than-not, its Today,,, Today is what makes no sense.
I don't see how your inference that people are hoping to recruit a John Wikes Booth today,,, is all that much different than people hoping for a waffle to do the dirty work not so long ago. Or was it a pretzel?
If you listened to the show as I do, you would realize that Rush has used this line of rhetoric because of Pelosi's "swastika" comment and the "brown shirts" comment by Brian Baird. He's turning the Nazi language against those who brought it up in the first place.
Also, quick poll: how many of the comments above are made by people employed by MM? I've heard that MM "writers" regularly change avatars and comment on stories to make it seem like they are popular.
Just proves how many American cizens are unwilling to think for themselves
Pelosi's actul quote:
Link to WSJ article
next...
And aside from that, let's see if there is a difference between someone posting on a website as an anonymous commenter, and someone who has millions of people listen to his drivel everyday, and is a member of the mainstream media. Hmm? I wonder if there is a difference?
Of course there is, but you guys don't see it.
Plus, you seem smart enough not to lump us all into "you guys." I applaud you if you do actually chastise them, though.
Reich winger + Right winger
correct me if i am worng
thank you
When the actual quote is: "I think they're AstroTurf. You be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." I guess that says a lot about the independent thinking ability of those who listen to Rush, doesn't it? But just keep that hate going.
When will the madness end?
Here's my guess: the same number as the number of WMDs found in Iraq. But hey, I'm just guessing wild here, unlike the people like Rush and Malkin who just go on facts.
But the democrats started everything!
If you listen to Limbaugh, you realize that he is an "entertainer" who has only a passing familiarity with truth, facts, or logic.
Praying for another Sarah Palin facebook-update and adding nazi to it is what makes for a good blogger that's funny, and represents REAL America.
The American mainstream media is a JOKE.
Real Americans don't think the President of the United States is a Nazi. Only idiots and fools believe that.
Please comment on the mainstream press, and stop legitimizing Rush.
How is he not mainstream again?
This is a comment on the MSM. The point is how the MSM covers Nazi-speech depending on where it comes from. Left-wing anonymous internet denizen? Days of non-stop coverage. Leader of the GOP? Barely a word. Hence, this is not a legitimization or Rush but rather an indictment of the corporate media.
Sepsis Gadfly, my nickname for Rush Limbaugh, is randomly hypertising, (hyper-advertising) hate. I am looking for a copy of Mein Hope, by President Obama, and have had no such luck. Mein Kampf is available, but the line will not form for hope.
The media, "yawns," knowing they are in on it. Cheney & Co., et Bush-baby were far closer to Nazi practices than this administration and the media supported that calamity. Does it mean America is a Nazi sympathizer? Realistically, it is about one versus the other. Names only mark historical location(s). e.g. the communist, totalitarian, socialist, monarchy, dynasty, kingdom, etc.
Mr. Gadfly is closer to a Nazi than glue on a stamp. His rants have had racist undertones. It is just the catch-phrase of the kampf. Where are the neo-Nazi groups? Swastikas for health care must have a website.
As desperate, (insurance), corporations attempt to control the debate, and legislation, the morass will grow in volume. Violence is beginning to show its mortal face. A despicable outcome of anger, that is sure to shift focus from the issue, at hand. When they want control, lies abound. Someone said, "He who has all the gold makes the rules." The media that supports Sepsis Gadfly has the gold that owns him.
If it were true, about Pres. Obama being a Nazi, Sepsis Gadfly will have a mark on his window and will be shipped to Auschwitz.
My apologies, the thought itself is horrendous.
I would not wish it on Mr. Gadfly, nor ilk, in spite of my issue with their position(s). How can they use such words, without guilt?
Best wishes,
Ronin Kannushi.
So sorry, but you missed the boat again.
The addition of nazism in the midst of the debate over health coverage is regrettable but to blame the right for starting this is laughable.
Presently, when did madame pelosi state that protestors were using swastikas? And would she have stopped if asked to apologize? And when democrats say that 'we will hit back twice as hard' were false accusations part of that strategy? Why shouldn't the right fight back? When Rush responded in kind we expected him to be attacked. But the individual voices fighting back are just that, individual ordinary citizens. Yet they are accused of being part of a phony movement or their motives anti-american and carrying swastikas, by the leadership of the left.
As far as the media's response to bowelmovement.org's videos, to state that it just jumped out of the blue is ludicrious. Bowelmovent got the same deserved reaction from the country then as it did when it's hatred of Bush and fear of victory in Iraq, led it to advertise 'General Betrayus' in the NYT. Americans were sickened by their ongoing war against victory in Iraq and finally had enough.
So when the bowelmovers were chastized for considering the videos accusing Bush of being like hitler, it wasn't just something that bowelmovent.org had pop up on the radar. The left had been using the terminology long before Americans spoke up and said enough is enough.
Here are just some of the precedents created by the left.
For starters, then there is this gem, and here. Or how about this one, and especially this one from 2003.
This is a quote from that 2003 article explaining why the media should continue to attack Bush as a Nazi:
I say those sentiments are much more appropriate for today's thugs on the left.
Eric, you need to go back and reconsider you thoughts.
Primarily, my comments refuted the idea that it has been the right that first injected the term 'nazi' into the debate.
They want their country back from the black man.
Make a note of it.
Thanks for clarifying with such sound logic.
But again, the point of my post is to refute the nonsense that Boehert has written.
Impressive bit of logic, wingnut variety.
My point is Pelosi made a comment about the protesters when asked about them, and she pointed out some were carrying nazi signs. I don't believe she injected 'nazi' into the debate. It was already there for all to see from the video clips. I just don't see how by any stretch of the imagination that she is somehow to be blamed for this nazi crap going around.
By the way are you injecting "Che Guevara-ism" into this debate by uttering his name? (che rivera = Che Guevara, or am I wrong?)
Funny to think that the very person they 'idolize' wanted to annihilate everyone like them from the planet with nuclear weapons. Yet, they will march through the Mall with their spiffy Che shirts and iphones (full of angst at daddy because they only got a new Nissan for their 16th birthday, instead of a BMW) and generally over-partake of all the decadent benefits of the very system Che wanted to destroy.
Che would have put a bullet in their heads without blinking, and then taken a nice nap.
God, it kind of makes me feel sorry for them.
Quoting Limbaugh, "A Chavez is a Chavez. We've always had problems with them."
But really, the question would best be answered by all those people that Che the Marxist Freedom-Fighter helped to Free,,, in Cuba.
I just pointed out to proudcan that the Conservatives should have called Nazi on Bush 8 years ago.
The whole Pelosi thing, saying she somehow 'brought the Nazi thing' into it with her comments about the icons she saw, is simply beyond ludacris. Too many examples of the word and the symbolism in the media and on the street BEFORE the Pelosi comment even happened. Rush is and always has been full of crap.
Now Che on the other hand, if I was trying to maintain any image of NOT being a Socialist/Marxist/Communist et al, I really wouldn't want people advertising that murderer whilst standing in my camp.
And I don't believe she said these people were expressing support for Nazis. She was simply responding to the "dems are nazis" rhetoric that had already been common among the right wing for some time.
But MENTIONING the protestors who carried swastikas? THAT was beyond the pale and bad and wrong of Pelosi. Get it?
When you do, please explain it to me.
The "Conservatives" should have been the FIRST one's to denounse Bush and his Policies as nazi-like, and put a stop to it.
They would enjoy a whole lot more credibity when it comes to pointing out 'Nazi-like' agendas now, if they hadn't fallen so completely under the sway of the NeoCons and their rhetoric.
Fact is, the Real Conservatives shouldn't have listened to gelatinous bags of crap like Limbaugh then, and shouldn't be listening to those types now.
BS is BS is BS, no matter what color of ribbon you wrap around it.
Conservatives should take a deep breath, look around, and realize that the remnant that remained after Bush & Co. made the whole Party look like,,,, wannabe Nazi's,,, are about to stampede themselves right off a cliff. (Some have already taken the plunge, the rest are dangerously close behind)
They are their own worst enemy at the moment. You are being played like fools, by the uper-right-wing of your own Party, and playing directly into the dead-end dystopia of Global Governance by getting rid of yourselves.
Stick to the Facts, hold to the Truth.
Conservatives aren't fighting the good fight right now. They are being reactionary, and just flailing.
This sentence makes no sense structurally. It seems to say that the swastikas were not in support of Nazi-ism, but also that the carriers of those offensive images were not racist. But it doesn't imply what the swastikas ARE supposed to represent. Or maybe I misunderstand entirely. As I said the sentence isn't exactly intelligible.
MORE HYPOCRISY!!!!!!
A few points, "Proudconservative":
There is no "victory" possible in Iraq, and there never will be. In fact, there is no "war." There is, however, an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (which hadn't attacked us) by a fanatical, neoconservative administration cynically using a national tragedy as cover to carry out a war-mad agenda, national considerations be damned. This action was sold to the nation with manipulated intelligence and outright lies, disseminated to the public via a cowered and compliant corporate media that endlessly repeated the Big Lie. In the course of this illegal invasion, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in their own country, many we are now learning at the hands of a lawless mercenary force led by a deranged so-called "Christian" who has said he believes he has been "called" to wipe Muslims off the surface of the earth. In other words, Eric Prince and many on the far right like him support murdering innocent people based solely on their religious faith.
Does any of this sound familiar? Because before you carelessly start accusing "the Left" of unfairly calling people Nazis, perhaps you ought to take a good, long look at the last eight years, the movement you support, and crack open a history book while you're at it. Then maybe you'll understand why the idea of Rush Limbaugh -- as much a purveyor of the Big Lie as anyone in the corporate media -- accusing a democratically elected, progressive President as being comparable to the Nazis is so tasteless and beyond the pale.
The bulk of what I wrote had to do with what bowelmovement and their ilk did prior to any uproar about their 2004 videos. They, just as you have done so well above, made the point that the basis for bringing nazis into the discourse lay with the left. Your fanatical rant is typical of the left using baseless accusations to make it ok to call Bush a nazi. (Can't wait for the comebacks saying,....duh yeah so what?!)
Good honorable Americans understanding what leftists' are doing right now to this country is what is motivating them to confront and resist the present leadership.
Eric, just as you quoted, "The Houston Chronicle editorial page wanted to be absolutely clear: References to Adolf Hitler or Nazis in American politics had no place in the "discourse of the nation," and the crude analogies were "beyond the pale." The practice was "absurd and dangerous.", the attacks on these citizens as being part of a mob, acting un-american, racists, tea baggers and far worse is the language that the left has deliberately used in an attempt to minimize the opposition (Alinsky be praised!). And it was started by the left in the early Bush years, not the right.
P.S. Nancy Pelosi didn't say reichwingers were supporters of fascism, she said they were calling democrats nazi's. Which is true, the pics were sooooo telling of that truth...
Um, that is so confused it is hard to follow. Who is attacking whom? And I am not aware that any mainstream news resorted to the language you refer to. On the other hand, we had mainstream outlets (popular shock jocks, and Hannity on Fox), pushing the idea that Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
It will take decades, and many Presidents to undue the damage that Cheney/Bush wrought in only eight.
The stakea were different, as is the issue at hand; and also the number of dead people.
As soon as I saw it, I realized that the photo was too well defined to be from that era. The eagle is too modern a design and it's the only time I've seen a blue swastika. No text either. Most other posters online are photos of prints with wrinkles and some kind of message.
"poster"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908070035
Swastika used:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://naziufomythos.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/nazi_eagle2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://naziufomythos.greyfalcon.us/conclusions.html&usg=__J3xEKKNz-CbI9hRUt7SNZh_zRQM=&h=135&w=200&sz=15&hl=en&start=10&sig2=yqzq-sDmJUa9bPit9kQxTQ&um=1&tbnid=Eu4ZSHdXbDMRwM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnazi%2Beagle%2Bufo%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4TSHB_enUS289US289%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=5Jt_StuEI5LFmQeC49mzAg
Background used
http://photos.thefirstpost.co.uk/assets/library/090326picbooks_2--123799997637459100.jpg
Of course the serpent and staff emblem goes back over a 1000 years.
Obama's logo does remind of another logo though:
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Lot/6682/kaos.jpg
OK maybe not, but it's not better than the image Rush used...
Did you ever listen to the context that Rush used in the NAZI calling. I didn't think so. Not a single article in any of your papers condemned the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES for calling concerned citizens(that were not bussed in and paid to protest as ACORN is) asking questions of the governments motives behind the healthcare industry seizure "NAZI's". Why would the person 3rd in line to the presidency consider opposition to her ideology equivalent to National Socialist from the Third Reich, when Pelosi's ideology is more in line with a National Socialist Party?
ACORN is not paying people to protest, but in some cases, locally, they have brought people to protests.
Pelosi is second in line to the Presidency.
She does not have ideology anywhere near Nazi beliefs. Nobody, repeat, nobody who is currently an elected official in the House, Senate, or white House represent values that could be identified as "Nazi", saying so is just straight up lying and sensationalism.
Hitler was NOT a socialist. Let's get that straight as well.
That is Germany during WWII. Therefore Hitler was a Socialist.
Sadly, I don't find the dumb silence surprising, at all. 'tis a simple matter of connecting the dots.
Both the modern Left and the modern Right have certain elements that were shared by the Nazi's. A great many of the Nazi (National Socialist) social programs were on par with those of the Progressive Movement here in the U.S. and elswhere, in the beginning.
Calling the Nazi's "Christian Fundamentalists" is more than a little misleading. Germany was the home of Martin Luther, and the birthplace Protestantism, and the country and its culture had a long Tradition of Christianity. The Nazi's didn't capture the hearts and minds and power over that Nation without deference to that. But it cannot be overlooked that some of the very WORST things associated with Nazism, were overtly Darwinian. They twisted both to their political purposes.
Thats something that a lot of people loose sight of in the very much wise Seperation of Church and State. It doesnt just protect the State from the influence of a theology, it also protects theologies from the influence of the State. Power is Power, and people who lust for Power will go wherever Power rests. History is littered with as much or more destruction that came from religion being subverted for political purposes, as the other way around.
Looking back on the initial relative 'good' they did, its hard to pin down how much was genuine ideology and how much was political expediency. It all quickly descended into murder and madness.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I was calling him a Nazi, and exposing his Nazi past, marking him & the Neo-Cons out as the dangerous dogs that they were and are, at every opportunity.
And getting called a 'Pinko Looney Lefty' for doing so.
Groan! Oh yes, Bush was apparently born in 1915 and served in the SS. Could we please stop with the dumb generalities? It is easy to criticize Bush for what he did without having to resort to completely inappropriate analogies.
(Juan Cole, at juancole.com, has written a series of articles comparing Napoleans' invasion of Egypt to Bush's war in Iraq. That is worth reading.)
Its well documented, but sadly much of it wasn't declassified until after 2 President Bushs were elected.
Hence "Bush's Nazi past"...
Callng Bush & the NeoCons Nazi's, that came from the Nazi-like BS we all lived through under his Administration.
I'll look into the Juan Cole article, it sounds interesting.
You state "descended" as if the Nazis didn't have their genocide planned all along. It didn't "descend;" it followed logical from their ideology. Oh, and could you at least get the quote right?
"Power *tends* to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The quite obvious point I was making was that the beginning of the Nazi's was different than the end. They didn't publish the Final Solution, or reval all the dirty details when they were trying to come INTO power. The German people were by-and-large duped, as was a lot of the rest of the world, because in the beginning the Nazi's were being very Progressive, and their early social projects were producing benefits. At that time, they enjoyed a great deal of popular support, before they used that support to establish totalitarianism. They lost a lot of support after that, except amongst the True Believers, but by then it was too late.
That some of the movers and shakers were evil, and had evil designs from the beginning, I would never dispute that. The People, the everyday average person, didn't know it at fist, and couldn't be convinced of it, so long as it appeared the Party was making 'his' life better than it was, and keeping 'him' safe.
Try reading the bloody history, and maybe,,, thinking, before you label me a crackpot.
Yes, you are a crackpot. The Nazis were *never* "progressive" in the way the word is used today. You are simply using language in a very Orwellian way. From Wiki:
"he gained support by promoting German nationalism, anti-semitism, and anti-communism ."
I am unaware of any progressive promoting nationalism or anti-semitism.
I'd say that much is plain to see.
I won't touch anti-semitism as thats not at issue... but insofar as promoting nationalism goes, in the context of socialism, methiks you should pay more attention. Have you ever looked at the New Deal? Prohibition? Social Security? Welfare? Federal Income Tax? Are we not in a great debate over nationalized health care right now?
The Progressive movement has been spearhead of nationalising everything it possibly can.
What rock have you been hiding under?
Can you possibly get dumber? You think "nationalism" is the same as "nationalizing?" Wow! I guess that is what I would expect from someone who thinks that Europe making students learn a foreign language is part of social control.
Thats what I said. As I was going by the context of the little debate we were having.
And I neever said anything like the drivel you keep harping on and attributing to me. What I actually said was that many of those countries with socialized healthcare, also among other things, make people who come to legally live there and collect social benefits, learn the language of that country, in oreder to assimilate into the local culture and economy. What I was juxtaposing that against was the outrage here against requiring people who come here learn English, not to mention symphony of tiny violins that play when any mention of denying illegals the social benefits of this country. By and large, they do exactly that in those socialist wonderlands many keep pointing to.
As far as "nationalism" goes, you snuk that spelling in there out of context, and then yet again thought yourself clever. But anyway, you'd be very hard pressed to find any major progressive issue of national interest, in which nothing about it 'being good for America', or being 'the American thing to do', wasn't played to maximum effect.
if you happen to have any such instances on deck, I'd be happy to look at them.
By the way, it was Jonah Goldberg's editor (the name fails me right now) on the NR who stated that Goldberg's thesis that fascism rose out of socialism was an "imaginative exercise." The criticism was the best of that argument that I had seen, namely that it makes to sense to compare American socialism with European socialism because the two systems were so different.
But if we want to play your game, we can compare Fascism to anything. Christianity is fascist because it promotes authoritarianism! Libetarians are fascist because they promote corporate power! Peace activists are fascists because they march en masse! By that logic, everyone and everything is a fascist, which is why the argument is utterly stupid.
Many of the early-adopters of 'socialism' were Progressive Christians, because many of the elements of socialism reflect Christian values. Christian Socialists are an identifiable historical group.
Or, conversely you could say that Socialism itself sprang in no small part from Christianity by adopting so many of its social tenets, being that there is no chicken/egg conundrum in that observation.
Modern Evangelicals and many modern Socialists seem to have forgotten or even try to reject that, but they fortunately can't re-write history just to distance themselves from one another.
Groan! Thank you for proving my point. We are all fascists! What a meaningful, productive statement.
Your words, your statement. Again.
Not true, but I'd more readily agree with that if corporations were in-turn supporting Libertarians,,, instead of Republicans and Democrats. Sorry, I just don't see any compelling evidence of that.
By your vague standards, it is absolutely true. Libertarians don't support any government control for businesses and they promote wealth over anything else. Therefore they support corporations. Hitler was also pro corporate. Ergo, libertarians are fascists! That is why the comparing anything to fascists (except those things that really are fascist, like the Neo-Nazis), is plain dumb.
Hitler didnt hire Halliburton.
Yes, but my point still holds, doesn't it: comparisons to fascism are stupid and don't add anything to an argument.
There are a lot of competing social, economic and political theories out there. Most look much better as a theory on paper, than they ever will with a gun to your head.
As a writing instructor, I can tell you that what you are doing is not paraphrasing, which means putting into your own words an article. What you are doing is what we call bulls**ing.
Yes, you are a crackpot. Neither the left nor the right share little in common with Nazism. Evoking the comparison is lazy and stupid. We can criticize either party without resorting to faulty analogies that don't shed any light on the situation.
>>But it cannot be overlooked that some of the very WORST things associated with Nazism, were overtly Darwinian.
Did I mention you were a crackpot? This phrase is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler, since Darwin was dead at the time, and he established theories about *biology!*
If anyone is following this, this is the same citizen right who claimed that Europe is practicing control of its citizens because they make their students learn foreign languages! When I mocked him and asked him if America practiced control by making its students learn math, he said that was different because math was "universal."
You always have one Pseudo intellectual who traffics in generalities.
First, idiot. Thats not what I said,,, its what YOU said that I said. You are a Liar.
"Darwinian" in the context used covers Social Darwinism. Try looking up History, and reading an actual book or two. Try Herbert Spencer for one of many. Eugenics was Social Darwinism. We were sterilizing mental patients and orphans and most anyone else that was considered unsavory but too powerless to resist IN THIS COUNTRY,,, also after Darwin was dead. Planned Parenthood and no small part of our modern Public Education system came out of that very ideology. It was very "fashionable" at the time all over the Western World, and was considered a hallmark of the Progressive Movement. The Nazi's took it to a whole new extreme with breeding a Master Race, and exterminating the inferior races to purge the undesirable genes from humanity, it was quite "Darwinian" at its core.
No, it is actually what you said. You stated that Europe practices social control because they have a mandatory draft, no 14th ammendment, etc. In that list, you actually mentioned that the citizens are made to learn foreign languages. When I pointed out that America makes its citizens learn math, you said that was different because math was universal. Unfortunately, I can't find the page (I was just looking). But you are certainly lying through your teeth.
>>"Darwinian" in the context used covers Social Darwinism.
Ah, but no it doesn't! Social Darwinism has *nothing* to do with Darwin. Social Darwinism was pushed by the *right* as an excuse to exploit people, arguing that the strong should prevail. The Progressives were against that thinking, not for it. Do you have any links to show that Planned Parenthood supported social Darwinism.
Way to keep lying, though. Yes, you are crackpot.
Liar.
Notice I never said or even implied that Darwin himself wore a swastika. YOU threw that strawman in and knocked it down, then barked & clapped your flippers together as if you'd accomplished something. (Just like you did on the other thread about Europe.) Are you expecting someone to throw a nice dead herring into your mouth for it?
Darwinian,,, and Social Darwinism have their accepted meanings, beyond the flesh and blood man himself. Thats why I referred to them properly and accurately, in context.
I cannot find the page. Can you? If it were there, it would be easy for you to post the whole quote. Please tell me exactly what you said. Are you completely denying that you said what you did?
>>Darwinian,,, and Social Darwinism have their accepted meanings, beyond the flesh and blood man himself.
But you never said social Darwinism. You said Darwinism, which is absolutely different. Words actually have meaning. For example, biologists debate the merits of Darwinism; they don't debate the merits of Social Darwinism.
I believe the exchange about Europe was on the "Geist,Palin,Gingrich" thread.
But Darwinism is in no way Social Darwinism. Once again, your justification for your sloppy, crackpot thinking is impenetrable.
You can't intelligently or honestly talk about that era,,, WITHOUT noting the influence those concepts had on society, government and even economics at that time. Many of the richest and most powerful of the Gilded Age were utterly wrapped up in the justification given them by Social Darwinism. Just like Dawkin's The Selfish Gene was part of the culture at Enron.
Can you please provide a link about the *Progessive* Eugenics movement?
>>You can't intelligently or honestly talk about that era
Boy, you really like to BS. Maybe that statement is true, and maybe it is not, but it is not the statement you made. You said that Fascism rose out of Darwinism. Again, Darwinism is not social Darwinism.
>>Just like Dawkin's The Selfish Gene was part of the culture at Enron.
What the F** are you talking about? It is these type of generalities that make you such a crackpot. I can't even begin to know what you mean. So Dawkin writes a book about the selfish gene and therefore we have Enron?
You say you are a writing instructor, is there not a libray at your disposal?
I can provide you links and vetted, peer-reviewed scholarly materials on the subject to engage you for a long, long time. It won't help if you don't actually read them, or if you stick your head in the sand and dismiss it all, just because you don't 'like it'.
You seem a very closed-minded individual, with a determination to guard the pictures you've drawn your head to match any zealot.
But of course, don't take Wiki's word for it. Use it as a portal to verify the information yourself. Read the very words of the organization's founder.
"Planned Parenthood and no small part of our modern Public Education system came out of that very ideology."
The ideology you referred to was social Darwinism. Your link does not support that assertion.
I guess you'd have to understand what Social Darwinism before you can see that the exampole I gave is in fact a glaring example of it.
You might even like to find out more from the names you can trust.
You wil eventually see that I was not mistaken or being the least bit misleading in what I said, originally.
But these sources don't support your contention, either! Like I said: you are a crackpot. You make wild generalizations, then when someone tries to pin you down, you make more, or, you simply link to something that doesn't prove your point. Do you think we are so dumb that we will just see a link and concede an argument?
Somehow, I missed that gibberish earlier. Got any credible links to support all your contentions? (Its ok, I already know that you don't)
That is another completely meaningless statement. As historians keep having to point out, socialism was the opposite of socialism. But even more to the point, as I already stated, comparisons to Hitler are utterly meaningless. They add nothing to the understanding of the discussion and just evoke irrationality. Hitler also had a modern road system. Should we say that the road system of the Nazis "were on par with" that in the United States?
Well, I do try to avoid those kinds of 'historians'.
If you meant that Nazi-style socialism was the opposite of socialism, you'd be wrong. There are and have been many flavors of Socialism, and they each despise one another, and claim that 'they' are the 'true' ideal. Marxism, Fabian, Fascist, Anarchist, Social Democracy, Communist,,,the list goes on, all variations on a theme, incorporation different mixtures of ingredients into the snake oil.
It all comes from different notions of "Higher Tribalism", which is a much more ancient concept.
Yes, I know. Those historians are the mainstream.
>>If you meant that Nazi-style socialism was the opposite of socialism, you'd be wrong.
Ah but no I wouldn't. You use language in an Orwellian way. (See "Politics and the English Language.") You simply give a list of different ideologies and claim that they are the same, and then end in some vague statement about their being "snake oil." That statement is so vague as to be meaningless. For example, Europe practices Social Democracy, and it has nothing to do with fascism.
Your generalities reveal that your thinking is lazy and stupid. For example, your last sentence "It all comes from different notions of "Higher Tribalism", which is a much more ancient concept" is complete nonsense. In order to back such a generalization, you would need a whole book. You think you can just drop it in a thread and prove a point.
I am sorry that you cannot reason or argue. Information can come in long sentences or short sentences, but it must be concrete. You simply resort to Orwellian generalities (again, see Orwell's "Politics and the English Language.") But generalities are the tools of propagandists and crackpots. Which are you?
For you it does. The rest of us have no problem making specific claims and using specific proof. But as Orwell pointed out, generalities are the tools of the propagandists. They are apparently also the tools of the crackpot.
The problem is whether or not you can accept proof. So far, you've shown that you can't even accept the words written, as they are written. You have at every turn injected something of your own, and then used the absurdity you fabricated to bash it. I don't know if its simply because you "think" you saw what wasn't there, or you simply "want" to see what is not there, or you just can't bear the thought that there may be a lot of things out there that you haven't factored in, that go against your favorite nursery rhymes, and that you have no real answer for. I don't know which it is, nor do I care. It's your malfunction, not mine.
Again, I can back up my claims, in spades. I will not waste any more if my own and everyone else's time attempting to back up what YOU falsely claim are my claims.
Remember that, next time you are listening to your favorite politician(s), or group-hypnotizing in your favorite ideological echo chamber.
And do not let yourself be caught using a generality,,,
Similar is not the same.
What I actually wrote was that they are "...variations on a them..."
There again, you add a word or a sentiment of your own making into it, and then claim that is what was written. You are an idiot. You are as big of an idiot as any limbaugh or Hannity or Beck. You use Exactly the same tactic, as if this is some grand battle being waged. You need to adjust your dosage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic&feature=player_embedded
...and go from there.
As David Brock says in his excellent book "The Republican Noise Machine", the "liberal media" is a SHAM, it's not liberal.
I can daily name stories the liberal media isn't covering. The so-called liberal media speaks for: the few wealthiest, the military, corporations, and government when government speaks for them and not us, the public.
After all, corporations own the media, and corporations aren't liberal. Are corporations liberal? Who OWNS the media? The reporters don't OWN the media.
I've argued this for years. How can a corporation be liberal? They are in it for the money, whether they're a widgets factory or Disney. Moneychangers aren't liberals, period.
Everyone should read the following in conjunction with this article because it is an enlightening essay titled "Is the US on the brink of Fascism?". It is very close to being the truth and that discussion should never be squashed. http://www.alternet.org/rights/141819/is_the_u.s._on_the_brink_of_fascism/?page=entire
If you look back at the Bush-Cheney campaigns and disinformation that was disseminated there was a consistency with their messages and that was to accuse the other party of BEING exactly what it was that they WERE DOING while accusing. As a stategy, BRILLIANT, and it worked then, is STILL working and needs to be stopped.
These neo-con created hate groups along with their media shills are working the country up to a frazzle and too few are standing up to them. I advocate overthrowing the neo-cons and the religious right. At least then the centrists and the left could engage in real debate and the populace could focus.
Screw the USA I'm moving to Amsterdam.
Isn't that the sort of sentiment that got Reverend Wright crucified by right-wingers?
Rev Wright was just an Ex Marine( segregated at the time he served his country) that had no right to criticize the country that had some racist/non Christain actions from the past..well maybe not just the past...
"To understand what is happening today in town hall meetings invaded by angry mobs convinced that their representatives are part of a conspiracy to force the elderly to forgo care, you have to understand what we the founders of the pro-life movement set in motion." ... "As a warning to our audience, we talked about what happened in Germany when -- in the 1930s -- and fascist theories about the mentally ill, physically deficient, etc., led to "mercy killings." ... "We successfully (and as it turned out completely mistakenly) linked legalized abortion to a "slippery slope" that would inexorably lead to the equivalent of an American Holocaust against the elderly and infirm. The antiabortion argument thus became two arguments: not only about abortion itself, but also what abortion would lead to." ... "The "what-this-will-lead-to" myth we helped perpetrate also helps to explain why on the fringe of the pro-life community you have people who from time-to-time take the next "logical" step and kill [abortion providers]. In their minds they aren't just stopping abortion, they're stopping our "slide" to state-mandated euthanasia and infanticide"... " When you understand the link between the hate mongers, the lobbying groups carrying water for the insurance industry and the ideology that came out of the pro-life movement then you can you understand what is happening today in town hall meetings that are being disrupted by screaming people. More importantly you can then also see where this may lead."
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141925/the_threat_is_real:_why_right-wing_rage_at_townhall_meetings_could_quickly_turn_deadly_/?page=entire
Nobody is listening to you