Fox News: Threats against Democrats are wrong, but ...
Amid reports that several Democrats in Congress have been the targets of death threats, racial and anti-gay epithets, and have had their offices vandalized for their votes on health care reform, several Fox News personalities have been quick to first condemn the threats but then immediately make excuses for the threats. Others have appeared to dismiss the seriousness of the threats.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox News condemns, then dismisses threats
Doocy: "So why are people angry? Maybe because they didn't want this bill?" Teasing a segment about the threats against Democrats, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy said: "Meanwhile, some House Democrats getting extra security after a series of death threats and even a little vandalism over their health care votes. So why are people angry? Well, maybe because they didn't want this bill?" [Fox & Friends, 3/25/10]
Kilmeade: "Are Democrats using" threats of violence "to their advantage to marginalize Republican opposition?" On the same episode of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "Here's the question, though: Is this a Democratic tactic to take some of the people on the fringe who are clearly out of line, doing things that show violence and threats because they feel as though the vote did not go their way. And are Democrats using that to their advantage to marginalize Republican opposition?" Kilmeade continued: "For example, Tim Kaine just put out an email -- he's a great guest of ours and is always insightful for us -- put out an email saying, look at what's happening out here in America amongst the other party. We're going to need your help, send $5. So, wait a second. How outraged are you if you're looking to raise money off the outrage?" [Fox & Friends, 3/25/10]
Carlson agrees it's "disappointing" that Democrats are making threats so public and says "they should just stop discussing it all together." After Doocy said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) "thinks the Democrat lawmakers are feeding the public's frenzy over the threats by discussing them so openly in the media," Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson said: "It's such a political thing, though, guys. I think it would be happening on the other side of the fence, too, that maybe the other political party would try to take advantage of a situation, and that's disappointing. I think it's disappointing -- they should just stop discussing it all together. Just agree on the fact that it's disappointing behavior, no matter who's doing it." Later, after Kilmeade said, "You hurt your own cause when you have racial epithets or have homophobic phrases," Carlson said, "It ruins it for everybody, just like the kid who acts up at the birthday party." [Fox & Friends, 3/25/10]
Fox & Friends airs viewer emails comparing threats against Democrats to American Revolution, William Ayers. After Carlson said, "The most important thing is what you think about all of this, because you are the ones that are going to go to the polls eventually," Fox & Friends aired several emails from viewers that condemned the threats but immediately appeared to defend the actions. One email claimed that Democrats are using the threats "to gain sympathy. Like Rahm Emanuel said, 'you never waste a crisis.'" Another read: "[W]hat did they expect when they basically stole from the...American people. What do they think 1776 was about & wasn't there some violence back then?" A third email said: "I don't like violence & it is wrong. Having said that, why should Democrats be surprised? Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon & now he is a 'respected' speaker of the left. Why should Democrats expect anything different?" [Fox & Friends, 3/25/10] Excerpts from the emails:
Beck: Obama is "poking and prodding" people to commit violence. ... "They need you to be violent. They are begging for it." On his March 24 Fox News show, Glenn Beck referenced the "crazy tea baggers in the streets" and said, "Why would a government continue to poke you and poke you and poke you and poke you? Why would they say these things? Why have these people said these things about good Americans?" Beck later said: "This might be the most dangerous monologue I've ever done, because I am telling you now -- they need you to be violent. They are begging for it. You're being set-up. Do not give them what they want." [Glenn Beck, 3/24/10]
Hannity: "So do you think that this is just an effort to smear conservatives?" During his March 24 Fox News show, Sean Hannity said that Democrats "are trying to make a big deal over the weekend and this is denied by a lot of people. I have not seen the videotape that confirms this yet. If anyone has it, send it to me. I want to see it, of racial slurs, anti-gay slurs being made at the Tea Party movement. Do we have any evidence that corroborates this at all?" Later, he asked: "So do you think that this is just an effort to smear conservatives? Is this a concerted effort to say, you know what? They are all a bunch of racists; they're all a bunch of homophobes?" [Hannity, 3/24/10]
Cupp: Democrats "want us to feel sorry for them that they've gotten a couple of ... angry voicemails." On Hannity, commentator S.E. Cupp said, "You know, Democrats who did this -- who sort of rammed this down our throats regardless of the fact that it actually won't save us any money, it's going to bankrupt us and the American people didn't want it -- want us to feel sorry for them that they've gotten a couple of angry, you know, voicemails. They should read my e-mail. You know, what did they expect? No one condones threats. No one condones the violence, but I'm glad people are angry. I hope they stay angry." Earlier in the show, Cupp had promoted Andrew Breitbart's decision to "combat the Congressional Black Caucus' allegations" by promising to donate $10,000 to the "Black [sic] Negro College Fund" if someone can prove the "n word" was yelled at the congressmen. [Hannity, 3/24/10]
Fox Nation: "Are Threats Really Elevated, or Are Dems Playing Politics?" The Fox Nation displayed a picture of several Democratic congressmen with the headline, "Are Threats Really Elevated, or Are Dems Playing Politics?" The headline linked to a NewsBusters post that claimed there are "no specific examples of alleged threats of violence cited" and that the media and politicians are "trying to construct a meme of conservative violence as we run up to the 2010 elections." From the Fox Nation:
Fox Nation: "Was Tea Party Story a Racial Rant or a Set Up?" The Fox Nation posted an image of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) purportedly holding up a cell phone camera, along with the headline, "Was Tea Party Story a Racial Rant or a Set Up?" The Fox Nation linked to Gateway Pundit, which alleged that the accusation of racial epithets toward Democrats was "a lie" because "[t]here were several cameras filming the democratic representatives as they walked to the Rayburn Office Building. And, the representatives had at least two cameras filming the entire event. (It was almost as if they were expecting something to happen?)" From The Fox Nation:
Charles Krauthammer: "I'm sure a lot of this is trumped up. ... You are always going to have a kook and a nut here and there." On the March 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said of the threats, "I'm sure a lot of this is trumped up the way of the unruliness of some of the crowd on the day of the voting in the House was trumped up. You are always going to have a kook and a nut here and there. It's being used by supporters of ObamaCare to tar opponents with, you know, threats, violence, being un-American in general. I think it ought to be denounced, as the Republicans have. It should be. But it's not reflective of those who oppose the bill."
Stephen Hayes: "This happens all the time," "counterproductive" for GOP to condemn them again. Discussing GOP leaders' condemning the threats on Special Report, Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes said: "They shouldn't continue to do it. They did it. They did it once, and they should never do it again. That's the end. He said we don't approve of this. That's it. If you continue to beat it up, it continues to be a story and it's counterproductive." Later, Hayes said, "This happens all the time, and I could refer to you my own voicemail sometimes after appearances on other programs and other networks where the vitriol level was every bit as harsh as what I heard in Bart Stupak's voicemail." [Special Report, 3/24/10]
Any fathomable excuse to rationalize this behavior is being used right now. While there at it they are cautious to ensure that they openly mention that violence is bad. But, we all know that is to simply cover themselves when some wacko finally kills someone. They conveniently forget that these people are so riled because they have heard nothing for the last 14 months other than that America as a nation is at stake, their freedoms are going to be taken away, the American economy will be destroyed, death panels will decide if their parents live. Well, in a sense it isn't unreasonable to understand that someone who is scared $h!tless that their country is going to become a dictatorship ruled by communists will react with violent threats. So, people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and others are simply responsible for this behavior we are seeing now. I cannot be convinced that the reactions would not be different if the debate was framed in a more civil fashion from idiots like Beck.
They are proudly confirming every preconceived notion that Republicans are, at their core, not very nice people. They live in such an insulated world that they cannot grasp that they are regarded as not good people.
To give Excuses for Violence is the Opitome of Lame.
Their Mission is to Divide our Country by Race.
Was it "Fox" or that Stupid Tea Bagger that Really Spit in the Congressman's Face?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
What kind of baloney is that from Krauthammer? You have a Republican Congressman on the floor of the House screaming "baby killer", and you say they "denounce" it?
What is it going to take before all people in the media, most notably stupid talk show hosts, to amp down their rhetoric and act like adults? What is it going to take for Congresspeople to act like adults in the chamber and stop yelling inflammatory insults at other members? What is it going to take for the leaders in our political parties, specifically Republican, to step up to the plate and with the strongest possible language condemn this kind of stuff without worrying about alienating some voter in their base?
What is it going to take? Someone to go just a little toooooo far and put a bullet hole in one of our elected leader's heads?
Scary.
Unfortunately, yes. But if that happens, the Republican party may have doomed itself to the trash bin of political history.
Absolutely sickening.
Brian Kilmeade said: "Here's the question, though: Is this a negro-lover's tactic to take some of the people on the fringe who are clearly out of line, burning crosses and lynching because they feel as though civil rights did not go their way. And are Democrats using that to their advantage to marginalize the KKK?"
Gretchen Carlson said: "It's such a dominance thing, though, guys. I think it would be happening on the other side of the fence, too, that maybe altar boys would try to take advantage of priests, and that's disappointing. I think molestation's disappointing -- they should just stop discussing it all together. Just agree on the fact that it's disappointing behavior, no matter who's doing it."
Glenn Beck referenced the "crazy men in the streets" and said, "Why would a woman continue to smile at you and talk to you and smile at you and talke to you? Why would they do these things? Why have these women done these things to good American males?" Beck later said: "This might be the most dangerous monologue I've ever done, because I am telling you now -- they need you to be rapists. They are begging for it. You're being set-up. Do not give them what they want."
America is nothing more than drug dealers, that is why california is now legalizing marajuanna. They always make their money off of criminals. Social security started out that way, so did insurance, did you know that? Just saying
How is this even a statement that you can believe? Believe what you want about Foxnews but the Tea Parties? This country was built upon free speech! Remember the 60's-70's and hippies??? Remember the free speech back then? So free speech is only ok if the speech is what YOU believe. You guys are hypocrites.
hyp·o·crite
–noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
The KKK SHOULD be marginalized, in every way possible.
It's sad how much influence this sorry "news" network really has on the American people. Since when did we become so close minded? This is 2010 and yet we still have our media pundits denying racism and justifying it of all things? Sometimes it feels like 1965 with these Repubs.
Cindy Sheehan does come to mind. How DARE she speak her mind? She only lost her son in Iraq. No big deal ... right?
Ermmmmmmmmm, I think the hatred and violence shown since the vote is a bit more alarming and dangerous than the kid acting up at a birthday party. And what's this crap about it being disappointing that 'the other' political party has not taken advantage of a situation? I always advise that it's the 'bigger' or more mature individual who calmly walks away.
No, they are angry because Faux Noise and its talking heads have spent over a year ranting and raving about how the guv'mnt is gonna take over your lives, kill granny, ration healthcare, take away your guns, your freedom, and slip a mickey in your drink. These people (Faux) are looney as they come....and a disgrace to "journalism", if, indeed, there is such a thing any more, which I doubt. They would be well advised to just report the news, not make it up out of whole cloth.
Threats? Anyone?
Secondly, the Democrats have NOT been stoking unreasonable and unjustifiable outrage. The Republicans have.
The respective amounts of violence aren't merit badges, they're the overspray from the methods used to paint the issue. If ignoring the side-effects of actions aren't "your thing", then you might as well ignore the whole issue.
Well get over it, you offer nothing except more reasons to stay perched in your partisan corners and worry about keeping score. Have at it.
The important difference is not in the numbers. There are wingnuts in all four corners of the political chart (Left, Right, Libertarian, Authoritarian.) But you don't see the Democrats in congress inciting and encouraging violence. You don't hear Rachel Maddow telling people they should arm themselves for the coming whatever. You don't hear Ron Paul calling for violence against the government.
Things will only get worse if we don't.
Except that in teh case of the GOP, it's true. Much worse, more nutcases.
Things will only get worse if we don't."
But it boils down to House decorum which the Republicans BLATANTLY ignored Sunday. Their lack of decorum and childish behavior was quite obvious if one were watching CSPAN as there were no commentators blathering over the noise coming from the House chamber as the bill was discussed ad nauseum ALL DAY LONG. I know ... I watched/listened hoping to see the final vote only to end up missing it due to our weekly staff meeting. Drat!
Truly sad.
You are the sad one.
Why so obtuse? Why so intellectually dishonest?
When, of course, the issue was the USE of the 10 year cost versus the 1 year cost savings. There was no good reason to do that. And there's no good reason to try to describe the bad guys as rightwing nutcases (separating them from Republicans in general) and then describe the potential bad guys on the other side as Democrats (NOT separating them from Democrats in general, as he did with the 'rightwing nutcases').
You picked up on that dishonest language. Thanks.
And MY point was that the Dems have not condoned the behavior, but the right is trying to excuse it AND has encouraged it through their actions! There's no "rationalizations" in my post - that's your personal animus grasping at straws, trying to find ANYTHING objectionable in my post, even if it's not there!
There were many in the House of Representatives chamber the other day who cheered and applauded people in the gallery who were so disruptive and rude that they were removed from the gallery by security personnel. AS THEY WERE BEING REMOVED, while violently resisting that removal, House Republicans were cheering them on!
What kind of legit political party CHEERS when disruptive people who had repeatedly and substantially violated rules of decorum for visitors to the balcony above the House chamber are being forcibly removed and are resisting that justifiable removal?
The truth is, they do.
I do not condone excessive and abusive rhetoric, but I do support the right of people to protest. You should, as well. This is a heated issue, as you know, and Sunday was a heated day.
I have to wonder Dolly, and this may be fueling the flames, if you personally really and truly believe that two wrongs do not make a right? Your venom to posters like myself suggest taht you really do not, or that you have a twisted sense of what a wrong is.
And I too support the right to protest. That's vastly different than the offensive behavior we've been talking about here, so once again, you're being disingenuous, and everyone can see it.
And I'm too mean to you, when I describe your behavior as disingenuous after it's clearly disingenuous, or when you behave in other offensive and/or troll=like ways and I point that out, it hurts your feelings? Too bad, so sad.
You don't get it, do you? You're NOT a victim here, so stop with the baseless complaints that you're suffering from my venom! You are 'suffering' because of the behavior you exhibit here. Just like a criminal doesn't suffer as a victim from the judge who convicts him, neither do you.
Rightwingers making threats against Dems who don't deserve any 'punishment' for what they've done is NOT akin to what I dish out here. Stop your whining.
No, its not about being too mean to me. I can take it. I just find it terribly hypocritical. You blame us for being "trolls" or whatever and you really are nasty in doing so. Do it all you want, but when you address it to me, I will point it out. It serves no purpose in advancing ideas. It serves to shut debate down. I don't know why you are opposed to actually discussing, but your "behavior" (in quotes because that is why you say you tell us what you do- to stop our "behavior") indicates you don't really want to discuss. You even used the term "behavior" in this post I am responding to.
I do not support, and never have (and you cannot show otherwise, because my "behavior" here has never said anything otherwise) such abusive rhetoric from anyone.
Protesting is one thing, but not following House decorum and then supporting such behavior is what is reprehensible in many folks' eyes. To me, witnessing such behavior indicates a very broad diet of ANY talk radio/MSM TV program where guests are continuously shouted down is consumed. Houses of government, like any other place where business is conducted, should not be open to such a diet.
Here's something you, as a full rightard, might be used to saying: "lone nut".
Makes as much sense as what you're selling. Maybe we should wait & let the FBI solve it, eh?
So excuse me if I'm betting on the nutjobs being behind these threats.
Another words it makes no sense that rightwingers would shoot out a Consevative lawmakers window or that that Libs would make threats against Dems.
So there was nothing convenietly forgotten...you read it wrong.
Shall I wait for an apology?
Rational logical consistent discussions on this subject are not welcome much less given any weight around here. The partisan hacks only want to laser in on Republicans and the rightwing, compare, keep score, fan the flame and cripple the opposition by painting them all to be extremists.
It's what makes them feel good.
The thing is, it's not only "extremists" that opposed this bill. More than 1/2 of America did. The Dems knew that, as did Obama, but they ignored that majority...
And what do you think the chances are that Foghorn will admit he read my post wrong? I ain't holding my breath;-)
You can exhale now. See below.
It bear repeating that no majority was ignored. We gon't govern by polls. The only poll that mattered was taken in November 2008. Obama ran on health care reform. He won the election. He's just doing what he was elected to do.
I don't think it's that folks didn't want healthcare reform...I think that when they learned more about what was in [and not in] the bill, they balked.
But the Dems & President Obama pressed ahead. Shut their ears to the voices of the majority of Americams that opposed the bill, as written.
If folks love this healthcare reform bill, why is Obama still out there trying to sell it instead of working on the economy & unemployment?
And Dems couldn't even get the votes until a number of the holdouts were paid off, had their arms twisted, or were guilted into voting yes to save Obama's presidency.
http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200912220006
Since the Mellman Group, there have been reports of approval, up to 49 percent (vis a vis their 46%) when people were aware of specifics of the bill, and when actual analysis was done, rather than just relying on raw polling data being for/against.
As far as the uninsured children, use the link below from n'est-ce pas' post.
And say what you will about Obama and the Dems, sounds like sore losing talking points to me....ha!
And, actually, polls were incredibly deceptive, leading up to the bill's passage. For instance, in the latest McClatchy poll, negative responders were asked why they didn't support healthcare reform; roughly 30% of negative responders said the bill didn't go far enough. Didn't go far enough. The breakdown of liberal v. conservative in that poll came out to 65% for healthcare reform, 35% against. A lot of respondents had not only wanted healthcare reform, but they'd wanted "socialist" solution enough to poll against what Congress was debating. That's a far cry from "the voices of the majority" that you imply were with you and against the forces of liberalism.
Those of us who didn't think the bill went far enough are patient. We've been waiting for 127 years. As the effects of this new bill are felt, as organizations like AHIP continue to do what they do best, America will move into an inevitable next phase, and someday, we will have universal healthcare. Bank it.
Sorry - misread you post.
I think we've all misread a post or two. I know I have.
I agree completely. What are we - high school girls?
But I agree with RightOn, I think the thumbs are stupid.
Cantor's shooting was unfortunate, but a shooting goes far beyond any sort of spoken rehotoric, in my opinion. I, however, do not excuse any verbal threats either.
Evidently, also, he's not the only to have serious threats against him, as there appear to be other GOP congressmen who have been threatened.
Here's the deal though: no violence or excessive rhetoric is acceptable. But somehow this is not what is in discussion-- its about whose worse. First, I think it is hard to say a shooting is not worse than verbal spars (Does anyone really want to question that?). Second, does anyone really want to take seriously how out of control people have become in reacting to politicians or people they do not like?
I think this second question is the more important one. When tempers rise, things happen, but why do we need to lose control over these things? Say it is human nature (it has happened before and will happen again, no matter what I say), fine. But to those that I can reach I have to ask what is the point of such abusive politics?
I have said that a revolution/split of the nation is inevitable. These instance only gives me confidence that I am right. The unfortunate part is that it doesn't have to be this way.
Now, I beg anyone to seriously address the issue I try to bring out: that violence or intolerant rhetoric gets us no where. We have to be willing to set aside our pride and work with those with whom we disagree. This does not mean not standing up for what you believe, but rather it means knowing limits on how far to stand up before we ourselves become part of the problem. This goes both ways, and does anyone want to challenge this premise?
s
What it does is build walls that are hard to get over. People become ever more entrenched in their positions.
It does not help, and no side has clean hands.
Remember, several (GOP) house members ar reporting threatening messages left on their phones.
It is not just a one way street, and I think people would do well to realize and tone it all down.
Who was more arrogant than Dick Ceney and Geroge Bush?Opposition to the Iraq war came from a much larger segment of the population than what is reprsented by Teaparty/HCR opponents and the media never covered them,supported or defended them the way Teapartiers are handlesd.Taking guns to the rallies,racist signs,,its inexcusable behavior.
It has been proven by the local police that the window was not 'shot out'. The bullet was fired into the air from some random location, came down, and struck the window. The projectile didn't even go past the blinds.
Besides, the bullet came down in the middle of the night. No one was in the office.
And the reason why Cantor didn't report this publicly until 4 days later? He wanted to deflect attention away from what the GOP and Teatard supporters are doing to the Dems.
Threats? Anyone? -- Rational Conservative"
Police seem to think that it was a stray bullet that was fired up into the air. Could be. Gravity does tend to win out every time. Has he received death threats? Threatening emails/voice mails?
Didn't think so.
Congratulations to the Beck's and Hannity's of the world for making a living by doing nothing more than letting their corporate masters dress them in business suits and point them at the camera...corporate America's hand firmly jammed all the way up their backsides the whole time.
"Hi! I'm Glenn Beck, and I'll say whatever you tell me to Mr. Business Criminal!! I'll help you lie to America...you just keep paying my mortgage...well...that...and make sure that hand of yours stays where it is sir...I kinda like it." :)
Arguments of "well the other side does it too!" are inappropriate to justify this kind of behavior.
I remember many prominent conservatives asking why muslim clerics weren't out on the streets everyday condemning the actions of the despicable few who cause or preach violence.
Why aren't these same prominent conservatives out there every day condemning the actions of a few loony right wing activists out there perpetrating the threats and violence?
As for his whine about the Dems politicizing the threats they have recieved, I wonder if he feels the same about Messers Bush and Giuliani politicizing the events of 9/11?
And then he gets in front of the press and says it's wrong to use an event like this as a political weapon.
After he is using it as a political weapon!
What hypocrites!
It's Virginia. People randomly fire guns into the air to celebrate a new set of tires for the yard or a fresh coating of paint on their shack. That window has probably been shot out once a month, but we've never heard about till it was advantageous for Cantor to appear to be a "victim."
Randy
Perhaps his initial reaction was wrong, but that doesn't mean he was acting in a dishonest manner.
This is true from any perspective, unless you are biased to begin with.
Further, if the original response about Virginians was facetious, my apologies. It can be hard to read such things in this type of forum, and, unfortunately, all too often people are indeed serious.
I'll be honest, I don't believe it for a second that he is making the hole thing up. If he is, that is professional suicide, and I doubt he'd do that.
The list of the lies, the outright, outrageous, out-of-bounds untruths, half-truths and honest-to-gawd-whoppers that have come out of the Republican Party in the past...oh, sixty years, or so, stagger the imagination. From Nixon's Southern Strategy (make white people scared that black people are taking over) to Reagan's resurrection of the very economic theory that caused the Great Depression (give rich people money and they'll create jobs) to Glenn Beck's anything-that-comes-out-of-his-mouth (literally). Conservatives live for fear. They gravitate toward leaders who will feed them fear.
Want proof? Cantor came out with his statement that he had been targeted by gun violence; the Richmond Police Department immediately released a statement -- immediately being 12:22 P.M. yesterday -- contradicting Cantor's claim. Every major news
Now Cantor is not only claiming that he was targeted, he's saying that it's because he's Jewish. Still don't believe? I think at this point you can strike the word "Rational" from your nom de plume.
But understand something-- point of view matters, does it not?
You assert quite a lot in your post in that the GOP has been the party of liars for 60 years. I do not deny they have had their moments, but pause for a second, will you? Do you really think the Dems have clean hands? Unless you show otherwise, I will assume you do because of how you portrayed the GOP. You at best think the GOP is much worse than the Dems.
How many dead people have voted Democratic in the last 60 years? How about a vast right wing conspiracy? "I did not have sex with that woman". "Bush lied, people died". There are more...
But pay attention to what I am go to write next; Some of these are issues of perception and interpretation. For example, there is some evidence to suggest that Bush may have known something before going to war in Iraq. But there is nothing conclusive, and considering that every one thought Hussein had or was close to having WMD's suggests that he was sincere in his belief, even if mistaken. The right wing conspiracy is easy to believe when you are on the left and the opposition is, well, opposing you. We can debate these, but the simple truth is that it matters what side of the story you are on as what the conclusion will be.
That brings me to Mr. Cantor. If he is in a heated political battle, has evidence of others receiving threatening messages, hears a gun shot, his window breaks (or at least one near his), he is a prominent figure in the debate-- is it natural to have an instinct that you were shot at? I think that is a natural response, and I am thus able to give him the benefit of the doubt. From your perspective, he is a central figure, part of a party that is accustomed to lying, and saw a political opportunity and took it, so therefore, he must be lying.
It is a matter of perception as to what his initial reaction was. If he was mistaken, so be it. If he lied, he should face the coming music. I for one give him the benefit of the doubt on the initial reaction.
Telling me it fails does nothing to help clarify the situation. I have offered a reasonable and rational answer.
If you wish to say I am wrong, which you are free to do, tell me why.
Since I am in a bit of a snarky mood at the moment, if I am to change my mind, I need to know why I would change my mind. Simply telling me I am wrong, rather, that I "failed", does nothing to convince me I have in fact failed.
The rest remains.
I wonder what would happen if Pelosi's office found a bullet on the floor and a broken window?
We will never know, so it is completely hypothetical, but I suspect the reaction would be same. Seriously, who reacts kindly to finding a bullet on the floor and broken window?
He didn't come home to find a brick thrown through the front window of his District office. He didn't receive a letter full of white powder. He didn't get multiple faxes that depicted nooses. His family wasn't threatened.
And he effing knew that this wasn't a targeted act of violence before he claimed, to the national press, to the American public, that it was.
He said he was targeted.
He lied about that.
You lie for him.
Shame on you.
Fail.
I am posting the entire TPM article here:
"Richmond Police Investigate Cantor Building Vandalism, March 25, 2010
The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time.
A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.
The Richmond Police Department is sharing information about the incident with appropriate law enforcement agencies.
At this time there are no suspects."
Notice that it is used by the congressman-- if only occasionally.
What I have presented is a rational conclusion about his intitial reaction.
You don't like my opinion, and as I've said to others, so be it.
Subsequent articles from news outlets all over the globe have looked into exactly how much Mr. Cantor stretched the truth, and it's become clear in a way such things rarely can be that he lied with every syllable he uttered.
YOU didn't know that the office wasn't his, but he did. YOU didn't know that the window the bullet struck was on the first floor, while the one-time office of Cantor's campaign from two years ago was on the second floor, but he did. YOU didn't know that the bullet's energy was so spent that it couldn't penetrate the mini-blinds behind the glass, but he did. And YOU didn't know that police had quickly concluded the shot was random, and not targeted, but he did.
You've defended the man under the aegis of reason, throwing up the simpleton's hurdle, there must be two sides to every story. Well, yeah, there are two sides, but only one of them's right. YOU did know that the facts supported my argument. Further, YOU knew that you'd thrown up smoke to obscure this man's craven political calculus, but you chose this hill and this fight. So, let's have it, bucko. Let's have your rationalization for the dissembling, the false outrage, the obvious backpedaling. Let's you and me talk about the inconceivably low bar your man set by falsifying a violent act to offset and neutralize the P.R. effect of the very real violence being done to his political opposition. You tell me when we toss out the political theatre and start standing up and men and women of conscience against the callow acts of low persons like Mr. Cantor.
Do instruct me, as is the perpetual conservative wont, in the morals and family values that inform these ideals and this act. Step up and teach us about Rational Conservatism, won't you? I await an answer that is worthy of my time and attention. Do not trouble me with the weak tea rhetoric you've served up thus far.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/richmond-police-statement-on-cantor-office-vandalism.php
When I look at this story, though, I can't help but think of his and his staff's reaction to come in and see a broken window and a bullet.
Thanks.
You just lose with every post you make, RC. Or should I say RightON?
I'll say this-- if Cantor's lying-- he should be completely discredited. I don't think he is.
If you have evidence (conclusive evidence, not just suggestive evidence) provide it.
MSNBC is certainly left leaning. Sorry.
Nice snark, but what does that have to do with the truth? Do you have instances where they haven't reported something accurately? Is this really the best argument you have? Pathetic.
You will disagree, and that's fine. I know where I am-- suffice to say, its not Red State.
Well, that would not be an opinion. That would be stating a fact. And it is difficult to dispute with the mountain of evidence you provide. Zero.
Let's talk truth, fellah. Neither Maddow nor Olbermann have ever been successfully truth-squaded by the right wing. Now, my opinion of this is manifold: 1) Neither of them lie on air. 2) The right wing media doesn't do journalism very well, so they aren't up to the research necessary to catch someone in a lie; they're more adept at promulgating untruths than uncovering them. Those were statements of opinion, obviously subjective, obviously intended as a priori snark for the consumption of persons familiar with the subject matter. Your statements, however, attempt to establish a false equivalency between liberal and conservative media that does not exist. There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity or Beck. There isn't a vast liberal media machine, despite your claims. I challenge you to bring fact to this debate, rather than baseless claims. My evidence exists on every page of this site. The right wing media is full of liars who construct hoaxes designed to appeal to racists, homophobes and mouth-breathers who want to hate. Find the liberal equivalent to that, or shut up.
Krauthammer did not condone this recent round of violent behavior, but condemned it. Yes, he did speculate on “trumped up” charges by the left. But in the past, there have been incidents when people on the left have staged violence against themselves and blamed it on the right. And, there have probably been instances where the reverse has been true. Speculation on this is being made by both sides.
You believe FOX is exclusively a propaganda tool for the right. Well, I wouldn’t classify Geraldo Rivera or Alan Combs as conservative. Bill O’Reilly, though hated by a majority on the left isn’t exactly loved by those on the right. And in fact, Rivera was the host on Fox News (not "Faux Noise") throughout the entire healthcare vote coverage, that Sunday evening. Tell me how many conservatives host shows on MSNBC. For that matter, how many times has a conservative hosted the coverage of a major political event on MSNBC?
If you think, the right has the market cornered on “nasty”, sit down and take another listen to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow or some of the posts on this article. All are very derogatory to the right. Olbermann is flat out nasty and insulting. BTW: The term “Tea Bagger” is considered by an overwhelming number, as a derogatory and vial obscenity, for those who didn’t realize. It’s just not on the FCC list of band terms. But it is used as a common adjective to describe those who participate in “Tea Party” demonstrations. Yet, others call for FCC restrictions on those with opinions that contain no obscenities, at all. How are they champions to freedom of speech and our liberies? Nancy Pelosi made the statement that descent was the highest form of patriotism, referring to those who demonstrated against Bush. But, opposition to the policies of Obama and Pelosi is some how anti-American? So which is it? Let’s depart from this sanctimonious trip that a lot of you are taking.
There are those who love the drama and the emotional jolt brought on by conflict. They will always play to discontent and outrage. For those of you, who really would like “bipartisanship” and an improvement on the current political upheaval, look at things from a more critical or neutral eye. Don’t allow yourselves to be played by those who are truely reprehensible.
Krauthammer did not condone this recent round of violent behavior, but condemned it. Yes, he did speculate on “trumped up” charges by the left. But in the past, there have been incidents when people on the left have staged violence against themselves and blamed it on the right. There have probably been instances where the reverse has been true. Speculation on this is being made by both sides. You believe FOX is exclusively a propaganda tool for the right. Well, I wouldn’t classify Geraldo Rivera or Alan Combs as conservative. Bill O’Reilly, though hated by a majority on the left isn’t exactly loved by those on the right. And in fact, Rivera was the host on Fox News throughout the entire healthcare vote coverage, that Sunday evening.
If you think, the right has the market cornered on “nasty”, sit down and take another listen to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow or some of the posts on this article. All are very derogatory to the right. Olbermann is flat out nasty and insulting. BTW: The term “Tea Bagger” is considered as a derogatory and vial obscenity, for those who didn’t realize. It’s just not on the FCC list of band terms. But it is used as a common adjective to describe those who participate in “Tea Party” demonstrations. Yet, others call for FCC restrictions on those with opinions that contain no obscenities, at all. How are they champions to freedom of speech and our liberties? Nancy Pelosi made the statement that descent was the highest form of patriotism, referring to those who demonstrated against Bush. But, opposition to the policies of Obama and Pelosi is anti-American? So which is it?
Let’s depart from this sanctimonious trip that a lot of you are taking. There are those who love the drama and the emotional jolt brought on by conflict. They will always play to discontent and outrage. For those of you, who really would like “bipartisanship” and an improvement on the current political upheaval, look at things from a more critical or neutral eye. Don’t allow yourselves to be played by those who are truly reprehensible.
This is whats happening now beacause of Fox and Beck. They have provoked the Right into violence. With all of their mentioning of revolution, and hinting at taking matters into their own hands... Theres your evidence.. how much longer before someone actually gets hurt...
The final ruling would be that they were found guilty by reason of Glenn Beck and Fox.
But seriously, this is getting out of hand and if Beck and the Fox crew (also drudge) don't stop promoting and taking up for these violent threats and acts then this could get out of hand really fast. Everyone knows the Tea party and the whole right just jump on the bandwagon when they see or read it from their "news" sources, and that bandwagon is heading straight for trouble...
I can't tell if these right wing media personalities:
A) Use the violent over-the-top rhetoric to keep their audience in a constant state of paranoia, fear, and anger, but then don't want the violent repercussions because they feel it will reflect badly on their movement.
B) Use this rhetoric knowing full well it will incite violent acts as a means to change the political landscape through intimidation and essentially terroristic action, though realize they must carefully distance themselves from it.
It's still too early to tell, or maybe it's a combination of the two depending on individual media personalities.
Once again, I stand up and declare Fox to be making up news.
Hannity LITERALLY believes Sen. Clyburn, Jackson, Frank...all of them are simply LYING for political gain...
I have attempted, for a while actually, to try and understand the Fox frame of mind, but I just can't.
It actually takes MORE work and causes MORE stress to be as angry and pitiful as these people are, and I just can't ignore logic and reason long enough to understand their patchwork explanations and reasonless positions on issues.
I AM starting to understand why these people are so angry and upset though, because I would be too if I actually had any sort of ability to believe anything these wingnuts say.
If the only media (right wing news) I was to watch and listen to were these neo-republicants, I would LITERALLY believe the Federal Gov't had actually broken from the Union and was in an immediate attempt to steal my money, my house, and tax me to bankruptcy.
I would LITERALLY believe that blacks have declared war on whites, that Democrats are early 20th century secret Communists, and that ANYTHING that Obama likes is bad for this country...regardless of substance.
People can only be pushed so far before they SNAP. And I can DEFINITELY seeing an extreme left person SNAPPING at the thought of the extreme right using these fear tactics and lies to mislead the people.
In the right's attempt to be the "hero," they've become greedy and conceited and have fallen to the dark side.
It's just insane that somehow Democrats are the reason behind all this right-wing violence...the VERY violence the right-wing incited....and it just so happens that VERY logic is condemned by Jesus, Republicans...
I love how Republicans pick certain issues in which to inject religion into and certain ones not to. The world revolves around them, and THEY set the boundaries, not the Dems. Nobody has EVER worked harder than Republicans, and NOBODY is going to be more of a victim than the right. They are the REAL MAINLAND Americans.
God Bless America...
From the second we put it on and took that first step out onto the sidewalk, we were just asking to be pummeled...
THIS is the right wing logic they attempting to use for purposes of scapegoating this right-wing inspired extremist violence onto the Dems.
This violence has been occurring FREQUENTLY these past few months alone, and before that, it was happening, it just didn't get so much attention as it seems to be getting now.
To somehow say the "Dems were fanning the flames" by REPORTING this violence is just illogical, especially, as I said, it's been happening frequently for MONTHS!
On Fox, these "Republican Strategists," (AKA fundamentalist bloggers) appear to say they "don't condone it but, Dems are fanning the flames."
THEN, immediately after saying this, they start talking about the apparent "left-wing voilence." Who do these guys think they are?!
Republicans are telling Dems NOT to do it, because they're going to do it themselves. Why wouldn't somebody use these attacks for political gain?! They were attacks urged by a political decision! I would use them to the fullest extent for political gain if I were in office...
Fox will take ANY accusations or allegations, probably even rumors (it doesn't have to be fact with these guys...) of "left-wing violence," which will likely consists of an idiot calling a Republican a racist, and THEN they're going to multiply the impact and "violence" of these claims of violence EXPONENTIALLY, and they'll do it solely for political gain.
I wish Democrats would just start ATTACKING their Republican friends with the truth, because as much video footage of these Republicans going back on their words, their hypocrisy of the stimulus, how many of them supported an individual mandate in the 90's, etc., they could make a serious impact about what the Republicans truly stand for and who their target Demographics are.
If you came home, and found a bullet and a broken window, what do you do?
OK, then take that in the heated context of the current climate, and you are a prominent player in the debate, how do you then react?
Look, if he's lying, he should be called out for it. If he's not, then I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was simply mistaken.
Further, you want to focus on the shooting and not address his point that any violence against anyone is wrong.
Why should this point get lost in the politics? It shouldn't, but it is because people are so entrenched they can't see the bigger picture. I believe the right does the same thing, by the way, and I think it is very problematic.
By the way, this wasn't his home. It wasn't even "his" office. It was an office that he used, once upon a time, when he was running. It's not even in his Congressional District, and it is just a few blocks from the roughest part of Richmond.
I'm sorry, but you've shown none of the traits associated with rationality or conservativism in this thread. Mostly you've just rationalized your attempts to conserve Cantor's credibility. Shame on you.
I think you misunderstood my post. I do not believe his situation was hypothetical. I proposed a hypothetical to you.
If that is not what you meant, clarify.
Thanks.
Superchick-- do you have anything of substance to add? Really, your post was just an attack. You can certainly do so, but it'd be great if you could offer more.
Thanks to you.
It's really easy, Eric Cantor was NOT a victim of anything. Telling the truth doesn't take that much damn time. It took one sentence. Sheesh.