Breitbart claims White House literally "directed" town hall violence
Joining other conservatives who have claimed that President Obama bears "responsibility" for violence at town hall meetings, Andrew Breitbart distorted a reported quote from a White House official in claiming that "union thugs were directed by the White House to go to" the meetings "and 'punch back twice as hard.' " In fact, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina reportedly used that phrase while speaking to Senate Democrats -- not to any union groups -- and there is no indication it was anything other than a metaphorical explanation of how the White House plans to respond to attacks against Senate Democrats.
Breitbart claims White House "directed" "union thugs ... to go to the protests and 'punch back twice as hard' "
Breitbart wrote in his August 10 Washington Times column:
Last week, a black gentleman named Kenneth Gladney went to a town-hall meeting hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Missouri Democrat. While passing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags, he was viciously attacked by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members. One called him a "nigger."
These union thugs were directed by the White House to go to the protests and "punch back twice as hard." And they did.
WH official was reportedly speaking to Senate Democrats when he said, "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard"
The Politico reported on August 6:
Top White House aides gave Senate Democrats a recess battle plan on Thursday, arming the lawmakers with tips for avoiding disastrous town hall meetings while showing them polling on popular aspects of the reform effort.
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina told senators to focus on the insured and how they would benefit from "consumer protections" in the overhaul, such as ending the practice of denying insurance based on preexisting conditions and ensuring the continuity of coverage between jobs.
They showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.
And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.
"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard," Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.
Nowhere in the article is the SEIU -- or other any union -- even mentioned.
Other media figures claim White House bears "responsibility" for violence at town halls
Breitbart was just the latest media figure to allege that the Obama administration is in some way "responsible" for violence that has, or will, erupt at health care town hall meetings.
- On the August 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity, radio host Mark Levin said: "As a matter of fact, let me suggest that if there's anything that happens at these town hall meetings, if anybody's hurt or anything really stupid happens, this White House has some responsibility for it. ... If something terrible happens at one of these town hall meetings, I think the president, in part, can be held accountable."
- On the August 7 broadcast of his radio show, CNN host Lou Dobbs said: "But I gotta tell you, what this White House is leading us to is direct confrontation -- physical confrontation -- and they're gonna take -- President Obama will take full responsibility for what happens here."
- On the August 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh said, "This is what's happening -- Obama has mobilized union thugs to go out and also attend these town meetings to intimidate the genuine citizens out there who are upset about this."
Apparently, once again, as we all know, IOKIYAR.
Did the White House also tell Town Hall attendees to bring their guns?
Yet another example of a wingnut who's incapable of abstract thought. Either that or he's lying through his teeth. Or both.
It's amazing that anyone is stupid or dishonest enough to make Breitbart's argument.
If some of you on this board knew the ridiculous double standard and hypocritical parsing nonsense you spout around here on a daily basis, instead of actually trying to talk yourselves into thinking you make sense, well, maybe you should. Too damn funny!
Notice the conditional...IF. At no time is this a call for inciting violence, such as poisoning someone's wine. It's a call to react IF there is violence, be it metaphorical or manifestly corporeal.
Randy
Randy
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2315
Wow thugs with weapons intimidating voters. The voice of the democratic party.
Nobody here agrees with the tactics being talked about, so it's not "acceptable". As for the tactics of a certain ideology, who sent people into the Florida recount to physically disrupt it? That's not intimidation?
By the way, it really looks silly to talk about how they won't let you post on a site that has many opposing voices, and especially when they let you post. Everyone new is moderated.
(OK, that's bad, even for me.)
I love how you've helpfully highlighted the words and concepts that you don't understand. Classic. The funniest part is that you argue as though those words hold no meaning for anyone else ("blah blah blah") simply because you can't wrap your mind around them.
Maybe you'd like to respond to Brab's direct question, and explain how Messina's comment is the equivalent of Beck's?
You're right. Neither the white house nor Beck were literally calling people to engage in violence. Beck's comment was so obviously a dumb joke, yet many posters here expressed outrage and shock by what they, incredibly, claimed to be his invocation to violence. The thick-headedness was amazing. Some ridiculously said he should be investigated for sedition.
Now comes the white house, whose comments, if taken literally, could be construed as a call to violence. Of course it wasn't and every rational individual knows it wasn't. But therein lies the irony, and hypocisy. Common sense suddenly returns to the liberal brains today, with respect to this article, but it flew the coop the other day when it came to Beck's little comedic routine
Whether you think Beck's comments are incitement or not, they're in incredibly poor taste. That can't be compared to this.
I also entirely disagree that the above message was calling for reciprocal violence. I guarantee you that if the white house actually stooped to clarify this remark, it would state clearly that it was not a call to literally hit back with fists if you were struck. My guess is that the White house would say call the cops if you were hit, or remove yourself. In most jurisdictions, self-defense is a viable defense only when it's in defense. It can't be retaliatory.
This is what makes it a false equivalence. The "punch back" comment is metaphorical anyway, but even in the least charitable interpretation it's not remotely as deplorable. Saying "neither meant it literally" doesn't make Beck's comments much better.
Well said. But liberal introspection into their own obvious double standard will never make the pages here, because they think when they use 5 and 6 syllable words then they can rid themselves of the glaring hypocrisy. Too bad it only makes it worse.
Do you really deny that the "punch back" comment was metaphorical? Do you think Debbie Stabenow is taking kickboxing classes right now, or what?
We already know that he doesn't understand what that word means, so there's no hope for a coherent answer in that department.
Again, I'll ask the question: How are Messina's statement and Beck's assassination fantasy at all equivalent?
Anyway, it's what I call multi-syllabic syndrome. It's what your elitist of elitist liberals suffer from - when cornered with an obvious double standard such as this one, they seek out big, impressive theoretical words to justify why a liberal is being "misrepresented" or unjustly taken literally. Wrap them up in flowery phrasings and meaningless gibberish and the dodge is less noticed, and it's supposed to make us "less educated" conservatives go "Ahh, they must be right then". And throw in a condescending slap or two about our stupidity for good measure.
The two above are masterclass, their affliction is displayed here often, but usually fails the smell test. But keep metaphorically abstracting critical concepts, I enjoy it.
And again, your own stupidity is not a defense. Words have meaning. If you don't understand those words, you can't accuse the other side of spouting "meaningless gibberish." Meaningless polysyllabic gibberish looks something like this:
I'm sure we can dumb things down for you if you'd just let us know what exactly is confusing you.
And again, your own stupidity is not a defense. Words have meaning. If you don't understand those words, you can't accuse the other side of spouting "meaningless gibberish." Meaningless polysyllabic gibberish looks something like this:
I'm sure we can dumb things down for you if you'd just let us know what exactly is confusing you.
That is why you will so often see Fox News, Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh all pushing the same shovelfuls of cr@p.
You're really beginning to display your envy too much, Jethro.
There was no metaphor. He joked about serving her poisoned wine. There's no metaphor there. His assassination fantasy was very literal.
IOKIYAD
You talk about responsibility? Fine. Start with the press. How about holding them responsible for the lies they tell? That is what MMfA is attempting to do here. What Mr. Beck did is actually the subject of another thread, not this one. You will note on that thread that MMfA is very careful to accurately quote Mr. Beck, and refute him on his own words.
Now, a simple question: Do you think Breitbart lied or not with his claim?
Well, I do not think that Beck was actually going to poison Pelosi. I believe I called it a sad attempt at satire. I also understand that this is clearly not meant to be taken literally. However, RightOn, you have to hold yourself to that same standard. If you believe that Beck was not being literal, then you have to defend this as well.
They hang democrats in effigy (in a demonstration of free speech) but then whine if someone says we want punch back metaphorically.
Oh, Gammy, come on - you have to come up with something new. This has already been debunked by any honest person. I believe it was you that posted the link - I can only assume you thought no one would actually watch it. Nothing on the video shows union thugs beating anyone up. You must know this. Your partisanship may affect your brain, but surely it cannot affect your sight. Can it?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php
Oh wait... he's fact-proof. Never mind.