On her blog, Bruce attacked "the Soros Media Gestapo, Media Matters"
SUMMARY: On her blog, radio host Tammy Bruce asserted that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has been under "increasing attacks ... by the [George] Soros Media Gestapo, Media Matters. Once again, the left, via MM, has resorted to their default position in attempting to demonizing [sic] someone, specifically by calling O'Reilly a racist." Bruce further asserted, "The left, Soros, and his political and media thugs, cannot withstand independent voices and they will work overtime to silence them. Let's make sure these new gestapos fail." In fact, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.
In a September 26 entry on her blog, radio host Tammy Bruce previewed her appearance that evening on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor by asserting, "Tonight on O'Reilly we'll be talking about the increasing attacks he's been under by the [George] Soros Media Gestapo, Media Matters. Once again, the left, via MM, has resorted to their default position in attempting to demonizing [sic] someone, specifically by calling [host Bill] O'Reilly a racist." Bruce, who has described herself as an "openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist," also called Media Matters for America "the new SS," a reference to the Shutzstaffel paramilitary organization that existed under the National Socialist party in Germany. Bruce further asserted, "The left, Soros, and his political and media thugs, cannot withstand independent voices and they will work overtime to silence them. Let's make sure these new gestapos fail." In fact, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively demonstrated.
Bruce's blog post was noted on the blog Scoobie Davis Online.
During her subsequent appearance on the September 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bruce made similar comments, as Media Matters documented. She said, "I think most of us who are in the public eye have got to call attention to the real story, which is the fact that a Gestapo has emerged in America. If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General [David] Petraeus. And you have a media Gestapo in Media Matters, and then you have the political Gestapo in MoveOn.org."
Bruce continued: "And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to." She added: "It is a very serious dynamic. Now, the issues involved are almost irrelevant because the truth of the matter is, no matter what is said, no matter what is done, the Gestapo will find a way to move in some kind of element of demonization."
Bruce appeared on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss Media Matters, which documented O'Reilly's controversial September 19 comment about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem.
On the September 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said that O'Reilly's comment was "at best a casually racist remark," as Media Matters noted. Robinson added, "But you know what really ticks me off is that when you say that, when you point that out, you know, immediately you get charged by O'Reilly and cohorts with, you know, you're the thought police, you're the thought Gestapo, you're the word Nazis, you're interfering with free speech and somehow cutting off an honest debate about race. Well, tell me what in the year 2007 is debatable about whether or not black people can use a knife and fork." Robinson appeared on Countdown at 8:40 p.m. ET, and Bruce appeared on The O'Reilly Factor at 8:13 p.m. ET. It is unclear whether Robinson was speaking in response to Bruce's comments.
Good Job, MMFA...you must be rattling their cage. Even Pigboy Limbaugh was hyperventilating about Soros yesterday.
They were able to spout their lies for so long with impunity...they don't quite know how to handle it when somebody calls them to account.
As much as I enjoy watching O'Reilly squirm, I think we need to be raising hell about the Senate vote yesterday, which essentially gave President Numbnuts all the political cover he needs to bomb Iran. I'm getting a sick sense of Deja Vu.
At least we have one small victory to rejoice over, and it happened in my backyard. I love living in Oregon.
That is encouraging. Of course, the question is, will Bush just ignore the ruling? Or, will he appeal it so that his new Troglodyte-heavy Supreme Court can overturn it?
I love this line....
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success,"
Illegal Immigration anyone?
Non Sequitur, anyone?
Employers who do not adhere to the law do not represent the whole of a nation.
Why is it a law in Oregon that a gas station needs to have an attendant there to pump gas? I find that odd. I like to fill my car up my self, it's cheaper that full service.
It's true - Bill O is showing up here with increasing frequency, but unfortunately for Bill, it's because his rate of saying unbelieveably stupid things is apparently increasing.
Anyone else notice how craggy Bruce is starting to look lately? These people are all getting worried. Their lies and viciousness is in direct proportion to their pain.
"See? I told you soros funded media matters. This proves it!"
3...
2...
1...
Ah, when the news was about stuff that happened, and not about analysis and analysts talking about what each other said and did.
I propose that we make an addition to the first amendment, whereby anything being compared to "Hitler", "Gestapo", "SS" "Nazi", etc are hereby banned and will cause you to immediately be tasered. I'm so tired of the stupid, stupid and really overexagerrating Nazi comparisons..and I'd have to think that if I had been on the receiving end of some Nazi evil, I would find comparisons of talk-show hosts, politicians and political web sites to what happened to me to be pretty insulting.
Exactly. When you starting calling someone a Nazi, or Hitler, or the Gestapo, then almost immediately any point that you made before that (whether right, wrong, or indifferent) I think you've just invalidated yourself. Pulling out the Nazi card has got to stop. It does, as you said I think, belittle in a way, what people who actually suffered under the Nazis actually went through, and decreases their pains when you compare someone like MMFA to the Gestapo. Last I knew, MMFA weren't bashing in doors, carrying away people in the middle of the night, and having people gassed and killed just because they were a certain "type" of person (Jewish, homosexual, mentally retarded, and so on). To even compare MMFA with anything Nazi is really having no comprehension of history, and what the Nazis stood for. But hey, par for the course for some folks (not saying folks on the left don't use Nazi comparisons either, and my criticisms remain valid for those folks that use them that are on "my" side).
Mag, I have to disagree with you on a certain level here. Not that the comparison she made wasn't stupid and completely otherworldly. But I've never been comfortable with the whole just take the Nazi comparison off the table thing.
We always say that we need to learn from history in order not to repeat it and yet some of the most painful lessons we learn are the ones we choose to sweep under the rug.
Bush is now using Vietnam as a comparison to Iraq in order to argue staying in Iraq. He's full of crap in his comparison. But it's not because we can't compare a situation to Vietnam, it's because he's pretending something different happened in that war. Going back to Reagan they have tried to change what were the real lessons of that war. That's why we need to know our history and call them on their bull.
The same is true with the Nazi thing. For very real reasons the Nazis became supervillians and our ultimate boogeymen. But they were also a real political party that came to power in a culture not so completely different from ours that comparisons are irrelevant. I don't really understand having an argument with our extreme rightwing and unilaterally disarming on one of our most painful history lessons.
The MMFA comparison to the Nazis it repulsive but not just because of the extremes of the Nazis. When they do this, they provide the opportunity to point out that the first target of the Nazis politically (other than the Jews specifically) was the liberal intelligencia. What she is saying isn't just offensive for its hyperbole, it's ironic as hell. And they do this all the time.
Rush has pretty much lodged Feminazi into the rightwing lexicon. It's more Orewellian than anything Orwell could have thought up and should be pointed out as such. I say, lets have this conversation if you want.
The main problem I have with just taking Nazis off the table as historic comparison is what do we do when a political group starts using the tactics of the Nazi party? How exactly do we warn each other about that? I mean a real threat won't dress themselves in swastikas and start goose-stepping around. They'll dress like uber-Americans in flags and screaming eagles. And they'll use xenophobia, fear, primitve pride and bloodlust to consolidate their power and keep the nation in a state of perpetual war.
I know the chances of anything like that ever happening are really slim. But I think even though we'll never get to the unthinkable nightmares of human ovens, it doesn't mean we may never see people die because we let our own extreme rightwingers use similar tactics to those ultimate extreme rightwingers in 1930's Germany.
Interesting how the president of Iran denies it. You have to wonder if he is planning on being the next Hitler.
Norotoro,
You can't just plan on being the next Hitler. There are plenty of leaders in every generation who would gladly accept that level of power. One of the most important aspects of Hitler after all wasn't just that he was evil. It's that he was also the leader of a very powerful nation, in fact, the most militarily powerful nation on the planet. It's that he was evil and powerful and his power was uncheckable, at least until after years of the rest of the world mobilizing against him. Comparing the leader of Iran to Hitler is just a weak comparison in a lot of ways and distracts from the nature of any real threat he may pose.
If so he has the wrong job. The President in Iran is not like the President here. He has virtually zero executive power. He is pretty much a figurehead giving speeches is basically his job. If he wants real power he has to go after Rafsanjanis job. It translates to something like leader of the Revolution and is the head of the counsel of experts THAT is where the executive power is in Iran.
Well stated, Sundog. I'm an eager student of early 20th Century history, and especially of the rise and fall of the Nazi movement. Cheap comparisons of anyone someone doesn't like to the Nazis are an all too common currency and bleed across political lines. Many people just know the Nazis were bad without actually understanding their warped ideology (which was nontheless very attractive to many apparently reasonable, educated people of the time).
Valid, limited comparisons can be drawn between then and now (and shouldn't be off the table), but unfortunately the label has been thrown around so freely, it has lost much of its ability to convey a rational message. Bruce's use is either intentionally over-the-top hyperbole on she's terribly ignorant of history (maybe both).
It seems that while we recognize the Nazis as being about as bad as humans get we like to pretend that they weren't human. Every one of them was born an innocent baby to a mother. It seems to me a lesson screaming us in the face to look at how millions can be led down such a dark path. It wasn't just something in the water after all.
If someone makes this comparison I think it should ring alarm bells. But then we shouldn't just shrug it off and say no one can make the comparison. We should challenge each other on what it means. In that way, the history lesson can actually protect us in the way that it's supposed to.
I agree it is intellectually limiting to just say THIS is off limits. My opinion is if used in specific comparisons like saying THIS is like what the Nazis did with the Riechstag fire, or THIS is the tactic Goering was talking about when using propaganda. It is a valid tactic. When saying this guy or that guy is a Nazi or like the Nazis, its just worthelss.
Indeed, in those cases it probably diminishes our ability to use it as a valid historical lesson and warning.
The main problem I have with just taking Nazis off the table as historic comparison is what do we do when a political group starts using the tactics of the Nazi party? How exactly do we warn each other about that?
We do it sparingly.
SUNDOG,
The Nazis came to power under a SOCIALIST government! For Christ's sake, get a little learnin' in your head. Check out
"The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek
Get THIS through your brainwashed head. The Nazis were socialists in NAME ONLY. They put lefities in concentration camps like Jews and homosexuals. You repeat the propaganda but you NEVER know what you are talking about
http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/non-jewish.shtml
There were several groups persecuted because the racist philosophy behind National Socialism taught that they were sub-human. The most notable of these groups was the Jews, but the Slavs were also included. A more difficult problem is the Roma and Sinta (better known as Gypsies). At first the Nazis thought that they could be "re-educated." In about 1940, the Nazis changed their minds and decided to exterminate them as they did the Jews.
The second major group were religious people. Part of this was that the leadership of the Third Reich was committed to an eventual wiping out of traditional religions. The group that felt the brunt of this attack were the Jehovah's Witnesses. In Poland almost 3,000 Catholic priests were murdered; this was about 1/3 of the parish priests in that country.
The third major group were those that the Nazis thought would resist the over-all plan of National Socialism. In Germany, the first victims were the socialists. In Poland and the Soviet Union, the intellectual elites were targeted for murder. In all areas conquered by the Third Reich dissenters were targeted for persecution.
I have read the word Nazi used on this forum plenty of times.
yes you did, and usually it was responding back to the right who just called us nazi's.
Been around here long enough....
It would be interesting to see the count. I am of the opinion that many of us here who are conservative had to ignore that label from our friends on the left.
However, I have seen it used by both sides and am weary of it.
BTW, speaking of Nazis, has anyone else been watching Ken Burns "The War"? If you haven't, I strongly recommend it!
I've been watching it and it is excellent.
sorry-- don't like it. Unfocused, rather bathetic, too many fake sound effects that we don't need, and awfully anglo-philic. Dull.
I mean, how could they have made the original mistake of only showcasing white people? Not too much thought going on there.
He didn't just showcase white people. You must have missed some of it. There are some good interviews of black families. k There are an inordinate number of white soldiers in a lot of key situations but that's also because the army was still racist as hell in terms of where they assigned black sodiers. I think they saw it as necessary segregation because of all the racist as hell white soldiers. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but weren't a lot of the black soldiers ordered to do lots of the heavy lifting behind the lines and driving the supply trucks and such?
And just to weigh in, I'm not very crazy about the series either. Burns has been given access to lots of amazing footage that hasn't been seen in a couple of generations. But then he presents most of it in annoying two second flashes often editing them together to create a false narrative. What I mean is showing a street with people walking on it and then in a frame cutting to the same street or a similar street as it gets hit by a bomb. He's clearly trying to show the peril people were in but to me it feels very overproduced. The music is annoying at points too. Pleasant Irish ditty playing while tracer bullets fly or while grim faced young men stumble into their landing craft? Feels real disconnected.
The Civil War series was a masterwork but it doesn't seem like he adjusted his style enough for this subject matter.
You raise an interesting point. The Media spend a lot of time contemplating their own navels these days.
I'd rather see them do some real investigative reporting again...like why we're really in Iraq, and how the Senate just handed President Numbnuts a war with Iran, just in case he needs it to distract us from his money bonfire in Iraq.
Nerzog, I really hope someone does a column about that, because it seems to me not too many people realize what happened and the pass the Senate just gave Bush.
I'm not hearing much about it yet. Maybe I'm over reacting, but it looks to me like we're going down the same road we did five years ago.
I'm definitely not an expert here, but I thought a "sense of the senate" was not the same thing as what happened 5 years ago? If Bush were to use this as permission to bomb Iran it would be even more unprecedented than last time around.
Good point. However, given Bush's history, would he be restrained by such petty legalities? I doubt that he thinks he even needs any authorization, but he could use it as political cover down the road, after he starts his war with Iran, and it turns to sh*t, as it's bound to.
I hate this administration.
So Media Matters and MoveOn are going around arbitrarily arresting, imprisoning, torturing and murdering people and/or sending them off to death camps, en masse, based on their politics or religion? Gee, I hadn't heard about that. I mean, that's what Gestapos and SS people do isn't it. I don't think that even fox "news" is doing THAT, are they? Yet?
BTW: I DO know people who are actually survivors of the Nazi concentration camps, and they ARE enraged by the Nazi comparisons.
>>Bruce ... called Media Matters for America "the new SS," a reference to the Shutzstaffel paramilitary organization that existed under the National Socialist party in Germany.
Ah, yes the Shutzstaffel! I found that explanation funny because of its pedantic note. But I guess not everyone knows what SS refers to.
More on topic, I just can't believe how the the O'Reilly apologists are just going crazy trying to defend that idiot.
What's funny, and a little sad, is that the administration she apparently supports is actually beginning to resemble the classic definition of fascism.
"Beginning to"?
Ding!
This is why as much as I agree that we need to enforce Godwin on any mention of Nazis, Hitler, Third Reich, Gestapo, SS, etc., it makes me sad, too.
The right's misuse of the analogy is a deliberate action to render the terms meaningless, thereby making accurate comparisons between this administration and any actions taken back then impossible to take seriously.
Right. It's not a matter of "moral equivalency", although they would like to frame it that way. Fascism is a legitimate description of a style of governing, just like Socialism. It doesn't mean that they are as bad as Mussolini, or that they are setting up death camps, etc. By the same token, Socialists aren't necessarily Stalinists, even though the Right Wing parrots have turned Socialism and Liberalism into dirty words.
Therefore, if it's fair for Conservatives to call us Socialists, it is equally fair to call them Fascists.
But they are calling us both fascists and socialists? How can one be both?
And if O'Reilly really isn't racist, and the republicans really are looking out for the black man, why the voter purging? Why did the GOP again strike down a provision allowing the district of columbia to be represented? Is it because in both cases the target is black?
People living under extreme socialism and extreme facism would have very similar lives...so it's easy to confuse the two.
Snoop,
Do you not know that that Nazi's were the National Socialist German Workers Party?
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state.
So socialism lends itself to fascism as opposed to capitalism which leans toward less government control. However that is not to say that capitalists cannot also be fascists.
Much like the use of the word Nazi - the word fascism is many times misused. However, not to belabor the point, fascism and socialism can and have a strong link.
Just a note.. "...National Socialist German Workers Party?"
Calling one's self a Socialist and actually following socialist principals can be very different things, much like a President who likes to pontificate on the glories of Democracy can have a hand in very anti-Democratic actions.
Human nature, in the end. It's very easy for us to play the "do as I say, not as I do" game.
I am aware of that, but like BLR said, it's two different things. The nazi's didn't take control of all business and subject the people to the same wage mentality of the socialist party. Had they done so, they might have been more successful in WWII because one of the main reasons for their downfall was the overabundance of different kinds of weapons, aircraft and tanks. Trying to arm and maintain divisions with that type of diversity and spares proved an excessive burden for the nazi war machine.
No they dont. They never did. Nazis put socialists in concentration camps. Regurgitation of propaganda does not a cogent argument make
The guy is a moron, nothing to defend.
Tammy is also a caucasian black woman man, and a god-fearing atheist muslim.
Does Bruce remind anyone else a little of Katherine Harris (sans boob job)?
I thought she was the living rendition of The Scream? (credits to open mind for posting that yesterday!)
Thanks for the props, snoop.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR DEMOCRAT!!
In fact, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization. // MMFA
If George Soros is financing this website, what would that have to do with the obvious content that seems to be substantive enough that the subjects of this same site whom have incredible access to the airways have not yet rendered them incredible, and irrelevant?? Political Leaders in the media, pundits on all three networks, the networks themselves have been subjects of postings, and yet they seem compelled to respond?? Why?? There just a website??
Power to the People, The Truth will Light the Way!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to.
Doesn't anyone find this ironic? The very thing that Bruce is crying about, is the exact same thing she is doing to Media Matters.
Personally, Bill does his own demonization without much help from those that call him to task.
Has Moveon donated money to Mediamatters yes or no? If so, how many times and how much money has Moveon given to MMFA?
She was on O'Reilly last night - she and Bill were so disgustingly nice to each other, she can probably expect a phone call later tonight.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Has Moveon donated money to Mediamatters yes or no? If so, how many times and how much money has Moveon given to MMFA? - truthseeker77 / Thursday September 27, 2007 01:24:09 PM
Answer: NO! Moveon promotes their own message, and does not donate to other organizations like MMFA!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'm really disgusted by the way Democrats have failed to go on the attack against the Soros-haters.
There's nothing wrong with Soros. He's a self-made billionaire, a refugee from the Communists and the Nazis, and a smart guy with diverse interests. But he's an old, baggy-faced Jewy Jew with a thick accent who works in finance and doesn't support Israel fanatically enough. He's been smeared by dozens of people, some of them Ukrainian Naz1s and some of them Martin Peretz. But who cares?
Compare him to the Republican moneybags. Scaife is borderline psychotic. Moon thinks he's Jesus (really!). Murdoch is a borderline criminal. The Koch brothers are just politically nasty, without personal blemishes, but they're certainly inferior to Soros in most ways.
As Bartcop has said a million times, how can the Democrats defend America when they can't defend themselves? The Soros-haters should be called out.Interesting, a Google search of ""Tammy Bruce " wound will never heal" yields about 346 results. I'm just saying, you know, not sure it means much, you decide.
Ah, the good old days, when Tammy the Bruce was the head of the local chapter of NOW, and then she started insisting that the organization DO something about those dangerous black men like OJ. NOW fired her, and bam! She had a talk show, talking about the troubling lack of racism among the "politically correct." Now she's come the whole way.
It would be too obvious a thought experiment to just change the subject of these verbs, huh? "The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to." Now, pardon me, but saying that a general may be lying about the facts on the ground for political purposes is not a slander: there is a basis in reality. Saying that John Kerry faked his minor wounds and was awarded the Silver Star fraudulently is completely without basis in fact, we all know that, and Tammy Bruce must know that, somewhere within her Darkness at Noon brain.
How is it that this mechanism works? Do they unconsciously describe themselves when they demonize, or is it a conscious a disguise to distract you, like cuttlefish ink? Inquiring minds out to know.
I think the Senate should basically bring up this slander of Media Matters, and the nightly, fraudulent charges from O'Reilly, and vote to condemn it. That'll teach 'em.
Another thought: in the pre-Nazi days, there were roving bands of Nazi thugs in the streets. In self-defense, the communists and the social democrats went to the streets too. The storm troopers committed assault and battery and murder by the thousands. The socialists killed a few hundred, among them the famed Horst Wessel, a pimp and thug and the subject of an heroic song.
There was a big difference in the conviction rate, of course. The storm troopers, with their connections in the police and the judiciary, almost always got light sentences or a not guilty verdict. The lefties got jail and quickly. They were sort of inaugural prisoners in the Prison Camp system. Man, those Nazi judges were Activist!
Dam Gunter, they're onto us. I'll see you at the new old same place. For a change the password is swordfish. Your turn to bring the pizza.
Don't whine, it doesn't work with a secret police image.
This is just an honest question -
Is the real purpose of MM to engage in political dialog and counter conservative "spin"? Or is it to try to eliminate and close down the opposition?
Why dont you ask yourself THIS honest question. Have you SEEN MMFA call for eliminating ANYONE? No? Because I havent, so where did you get that idea? Did a righwing screechmonkey TELL you that? IF they were trying to eliminate opposition do you think they MIGHT occasionally SAY SO?