Right-Wing Media Consistently Downplayed Violent Threats Toward Obama, Dem Lawmakers
While the right-wing's violent rhetoric is not directly responsible for the recent tragic shooting in Arizona, the current political rhetoric has reached an unacceptable level. Yet the right-wing media have consistently downplayed displays of violence toward Democrats, portraying Democrats who received threats following the health care vote as overreacting or lying, while also downplaying the significance of protesters who attended rallies and events while armed.
Right-Wing Media Figures Downplay Threats Against Dem Lawmakers Following Health Care Vote
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." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/24/10]
Hannity: "So Do You Think That This Is Just An Effort To Smear Conservatives?" During the March 24 edition of his 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?" [Fox News, Hannity, 3/24/10]
Limbaugh Doubts Threats Of Violence; Tells Dems: "You've Caused" This Anger "With Your Arrogance, With Your Policies And With Your Legislation." On the March 25, 2010, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed reports that Democratic lawmakers had been threatened with violence by dismissing their allegations and claiming that it was a "diversion" Democrats created to "distract everybody's attention" away from the health care reform legislation. Limbaugh added:
LIMBAUGH: [N]obody has to incite any anger. Nobody has to drumbeat for anger because you've caused it. You've caused it with your arrogance, with your policies and with your legislation.
There is genuine anger. A lot of Americans, Mr. Hoyer, think you're destroying the country, and you're smiling while you go about it. And they don't understand it. They've always thought people in Washington were looking out for them, were taking care of representing their interests and making sure stuff like this didn't happen. But instead, they now think you're causing it. They now think you're to blame for it. I mean, what are people supposed to do, just sit around and pat themselves on the back and be happy 'cause Obama got his health care bill?
[...]
LIMBAUGH: I think they should release all the information, all of the tapes, whatever they have. See, no one supports threats or violence. But it's the left that does that. It's the left that does that in their protests and their marches. But if there are threats, let's see them. Let's see them all. Let's hear them all. I don't want to hear that you just feel threatened. For crying out loud, people feel a gazillion things each and every day. I'll tell you what it is. These people know that what they have done is universally unpopular. They are trying to distract everybody's attention and create sympathy for them by making up stories and lying about threats, death threats, when these people are the architects of how these kinds of threats and protest marches and violence work. I mean, we don't have anybody on our side that tried to blow up the Pentagon. And certainly we don't have anybody on our side who had a friend who tried to blow up the Pentagon who's now president of the United States. We don't have anybody on our side wiping out cops. Eric Cantor's Virginia office was shot at last night. Eric Cantor is a Republican. [Premiere Radio Networks, Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/25/10]
Limbaugh: Democrats Are "Making Up" Threats "For Political Purposes, For Political Gain." Also during his March 25, 2010 broadcast, Limbaugh accused Democrats of "making up most of their stories for the express purpose of creating even more" threats, in order to "keep you distracted as best they can from what they're doing." He later added, "The Democrats are using these incidents for political purposes, for political gain." [Premiere Radio Networks, Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/25/10]
Confederate Yankee: "[H]ave A Swing" At "Your Congressman." In a March 24 blog post, right-wing blogger Confederate Yankee wrote that it is "totally unacceptable to threaten" Congress members' "relatives or friends and put them in danger." Confederate Yankee added: "Go to your Congressman's office and scream at him in the most colorful language possible. Hang him in effigy at protests. If you're willing to do the time for the crime, have a swing at him." [Confederate Yankee, 03/24/10]
NewsBusters: Threats May Just Be "Crybaby Progressive Politicians Over Reacting To Criticism." In a March 24 NewsBusters post, Mithridate Ombud wrote that while "[t]hose who commit violence in the name of politics deserve political change no more than they deserve leniency in sentencing," President Obama's "desire to continue ramming through the most divisive legislation -- against his own creed -- isn't helping bring calm to even the most peaceful conservatives. And while the evidence of a violent right is scarce, there's no limit to liberals attempting to make conservatives look evil." Ombud further wrote, "Whether this is a shortcut to 2nd Amendment action, valid concern, or just a bunch of crybaby progressive politicians over reacting to criticism, it's hard to tell." Ombud concluded: "The media and politicians who are trying to construct a meme of conservative violence as we run up to the 2010 elections should only face the weapon they fear most; the ballot." [NewsBusters, 03/24/10]
Dan Riehl On Threats Against Dems: They "Have Only Themselves To Blame For Threats," Says They "Can Choke On It And Rot In Hell Where You Belong." In a March 24 post on his blog titled, "Dems Have Only Themselves To Blame For Threats," Dan Riehl wrote: "No one should seriously enjoy seeing this type of thing going on. Though, I'd add, the Netroots crowd would have absolutely no problem with this were the shoe on the other foot. But it's not. It's on theirs." Riehl later wrote of Democrats who received threats:
And now, what? These malignant little tyrants want to play the victim? After victimizing America with their pathetic antics, their corrupt practices, all to push a destructive ideology America has long rejected? The Democrats are the real criminals here. They have torn the fabric of America with a repulsive world view they now hope to thrust upon the American people, whether we like it, or not.
And the American people are beginning to say Not! - which is their God given right their Constitution, not some low rent, half-baked excuse for a politician, ensures for them. You broke it, the public trust, among other things. And now you've bought it. So, own it for once you miserable little cretins. Resign your offices and crawl back under your rocks if you can't take the heat that you and no one else generated. And don't expect us to feel sorry for you, or respect you for the wrath you're now faced with confronting. That may be the only thing you actually deserve for the unjust and un-democratic way in which you've comported yourselves throughout this entire charade.
You can choke on it and rot in hell where you belong after wards for all I care. You behaved like tyrants and now some few are treating you like tyrants. Where in the hell is the big surprise in that? Because I can't find it. All I see is a bunch of miserable creatures unworthy of the offices they hold. And I can't wait to see your sorry asses thrown out of them come this fall. Boo freakin' hoo, too frickin' bad! [Riehl World View, 03/24/10]
Limbaugh: "This Is All Part Of A Plan To Criminalize Dissent." On the March 25 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh responded to threats against Democratic lawmakers by claiming:
LIMBAUGH: We're going to get to this totally contrived Republicans causing all kinds of threats to Democrats story. I'll tell you, it's a total diversion. The Democrats are so losing the information war on the health care bill that they're trying to do anything to distract everybody's attention from it, and it's as I said yesterday, this is all part of a plan to criminalize dissent. Let me just ask you a question. When is the last time you can recall a bunch of conservatives having a riot? When is the last time you can recall a bunch of conservatives disrupting a congressional hearing? When is the last time you can recall a bunch of conservatives coming out with books and movies on how to assassinate a president? The simple fact of the matter is that this kind of behavior that these people are running around scared to death of and accusing people of, they are the authors of this kind of behavior. These are the people that wrote the book on how to do this. Our side doesn't do this kind of stuff. This is all made up, 95% of it's made up and it's being done to divert everybody's attention. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 03/25/10]
Baker Equates Reporting On Threats Against Democrats To "Legitimizing Democratic Talking Points." In a March 25 blog post, NewsBusters' Brent Baker complained:
Sounding more like MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann than impartial newscasts, ABC, CBS and NBC all led Wednesday night by legitimizing Democratic talking points meant to discredit critics of the just-passed health care bill. "Opposition to health care turns menacing," ABC's Diane Sawyer warned. CBS teased with audio clips -- "Baby-murdering scumbag,""You are a dirtbag" and "I hope you die" -- as fill-in anchor Maggie Rodriguez cited "threats of violence against Democrats who voted for health care reform, even as public support for the plan is growing. [NewsBusters, 03/25/10, emphasis in original]
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 News, 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 News, 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 stated, "It ruins it for everybody, just like the kid who acts up at the birthday party." [Fox News, 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 News, Fox & Friends, 3/25/10]
Excerpts from the emails:







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. [Fox News, 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 Fox Nation: [Fox Nation, 03/24/10]

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." [Fox News, Special Report, 3/24/10]
Stephen Hayes: "This Happens All The Time," "Counterproductive" For GOP To Condemn Them Again. Discussing GOP leaders' condemnation of 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." [Fox News, Special Report, 3/24/10]
Beck Downplays Threats To Members Of Congress, Calling Concerns An "Overreaction". From the March 25, 2010 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Isn't that a threat against the president's life?
Look, we're in a time in America that I never thought we would get to. This is -- your children and grandchildren are going to say, where were you? What did you do? What were you thinking?
Keep a diary -- it's important -- keep a diary.
If you are on the frontlines of this debate, you're going to get threats, believe me. And you have to take them seriously. If you're in Congress or you're just on television or you're you, you have to take them seriously.
But you're getting them because you're speaking out and making a difference. The more threats you get, the more you have to take them seriously, because there are nutjobs out there.
But at no time have you ever heard me, ever, blame the threats or any of the violence on anyone other than the crazy people who are doing it. That's where it belongs.
But the left is pressuring now John Boehner to issue an apology, for what? What has John Boehner done? Did he hurt somebody? Is he teaching somebody how to build a bomb?
It seems, if it was innocent, as just an overreaction to something where there is very little evidence of -- very, very little.
MSNBC and CNN are acting like this is a near-certainty that the right will act out at any moment. And they're on hot standby. We could go at any time. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/25/10; accessed via Nexis]
Limbaugh Doesn't "Buy" That Rep. Scott's "Office Was Vandalized" By Health Care Opponent. Discussing reports that Rep. David Scott's (D-GA) "office was vandalized less than a week after he got into a heated argument about health care at a community meeting," Limbaugh declared that he didn't "buy this" because it was "too politically convenient." From the August 12, 2009 broadcast of his radio show:
LIMBAUGH; So let's go to CNN Headline News, the dutiful State-Controlled Media, the anchor Robin Meade reporting this about Congressman David Scott, who is a Democrat from Georgia.
[...]
MEADE: Congressman Scott's office was vandalized less than a week after he got into a heated argument about health care at a community meeting.
LIMBAUGH: I'm sorry, folks, I don't buy this. This is too politically convenient. We know that Obama staged an event yesterday. The Democrats are staging events. It's what they do. They don't deal in reality. They don't tell the truth. I'm not buying that this happened with an angry, anti-health care person putting the swastika. I think the Democrats are doing this themselves trying to make it an issue, because they know that dummkopfs like this infobabe are going to blame it on me. I did find similarities, scary similarities between the Obama "Health Care Now" logo and something the Nazis used to use and we morphed it at my website, RushLimbaugh.com, and it is dangerously close. Now, there's no swastika in Obama's logo. I'm just talking about the entire shape of the thing -- and nobody's saying Obama's Hitler. [Premiere Radio Networks, Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/12/09]
Limbaugh Dismisses SPLC Report On Increased Threats Against Obama as "100% Total Manufactured BS." On his radio show, Limbaugh dismissed a Southern Poverty Law Center Report called "Threats Against Obama Growing as Inauguration Nears." He later suggested that the SPLC's "objective" in issuing this report was "fundraising, publicity seeking, [and] libeling opponents." From his radio show:
ABC NEWS' BRIAN ROSS [Audio Clip]: And the Internet is full of references to the president as Hitler or as a socialist or as a racist. To date, the Secret Service has disrupted at least three different assassination plots tied to white supremacist groups. In a new report, the Southern Poverty Law Center says that since Obama took office, there has been a sharp growth in the so-called militia groups.
LIMBAUGH: This is 100% total manufactured BS. It all comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center and a guy named Mark Potok. I don't know how to pronounce his name but Mark Potok is the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center's intelligence project. He's a columnist at the Huffington Post. He is the source of all of these hate crime stories, and he has been for years. There is also an article at ABC posted by Brian Ross on their website. Much of this article has been dutifully spouted almost word-for-word in literally dozens of articles generated by Mr. Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center. They only differ, really, in citing contemporary details to make the story seem fresh, but they're ultimately the same claims that Potok has been making from the start. If you Google "Potok" and "hate" and "racism," it returns 21,600 hits. This guy has been trying to gin this up since before Obama was inaugurated. In fact, even since before Obama was elected. This whole thing is calculated to divide and distract. It indicates just how unhinged and out of whack the White House is on this.[...]
Let me ask you a question, ladies and gentlemen. If someone ran an intelligence project like at the Southern Poverty Law Center that actually went out there and researched and identified an increased threat level to the president of the United States, and if one's objective were to help the president avoid such threats, rather than one's objective being something else, like fundraising, publicity seeking, libeling opponents, whatever, what would you do? If you were out there really researching death threats, and you find an increased threat level to the president, what would you do? You would quietly call the Secret Service. You would quietly pass along whatever information you had developed. You would not go public with it because that would tend to incite and create copycat behavior. You would be quiet about it. Damn right I'm questioning the motives of the Southern Poverty Law Center. [Southern Poverty Law Center, 01/18/10, Premiere Radio Networks, Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/14/09]
Trotta: "The Left Wing Virtually Invented Violent Dissent" And The Press Is "Wildly Exaggerating And Embroidering" Threats To Members Of Congress. On the March 27 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta said: "The left wing virtually invented violent dissent going all the way back to the 1960s. So to hear everybody wildly exaggerating and embroidering what's happened in Washington is really rather laughable. And the media has been suckered into it." [Fox News, America's News HQ, 3/27/10]
Lopez: "Threats Are Wrong. But They Also Are Somewhat Commonplace." In a post on National Review Online's The Corner blog, Kathryn Jean Lopez quoted from Hinderaker's Powerline post and downplayed the threats against Democrats:
Threats are wrong. But they also are somewhat commonplace. Take deep breaths and work harder, is my advice to anyone to receives one.
Let's not pretend that Obamacare critics are all violent or otherwise breed violence. And let's not pretend that John Boehner and Eric Cantor, or Jonah Goldberg and Kathryn Lopez, haven't been subject to ridiculous -- albeit disconcerting -- threats, too. This is bad news, but it didn't materialize this Saturday or Sunday with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. [National Review Online, 03/25/10]
Big Government: "We Doubt These Threats Are Actually Real And, Certainly Wouldn't Condone Them." In a March 25 post, BigGovernment.com blogger "Publius," wrote: "Democrats and the leftist media are all atwitter about alleged threats of violence against Congressmen who voted for ObamaCare. We doubt these threats are actually real and, certainly wouldn't condone them." The post continued: "But, here's a tip: Hey Democrats, if you are worried about an angry public, how about not passing a sweeping government expansion opposed by 70% of the public. Just a thought." [Big Government, 03/25/10]
Big Journalism's Walsh: Media "Never Once Stops To Question Whether The Alinsky Party Is, You Know, Exaggerating Or Even Lying" About Threats. In a March 24 post on Breitbart's BigJournalism.com about a report noting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warned Democrats about potential violence, Michael Walsh wrote: "Naturally, the media accepts this allegation at face value, and never once stops to question whether the Alinsky Party is, you know, exaggerating or even lying -- as the spiritual mentor of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton taught it to do." Walsh later wrote: "So listen up, MSM [mainstream media], and consider this speaking out: God forbid that anything should happen. But if it does happen, try not to leap to pre-planted conclusions that fit the narrative: 'Democrats good/Republicans bad.' " [Big Journalism, 03/24/10]
NewsBusters' Brent Baker Downplays Threats Against Democratic Lawmakers, Calls Threat Against Cantor "Real." In a March 30 blog post, NewsBusters' Brent Baker complained that "networks led last week with less-immediate threats against Democrats" but "weren't so interested in a real case of a death threat against a Republican." [NewsBusters, 3/30/10]
Gateway Pundit: "Suddenly The State-Run Media is Horrified That Politician's [sic] Home Addresses Are Published on the Internet." In a March 24 post responding to reports that the FBI was investigating an incident at the home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-VA) brother, where a gas line was allegedly cut, Jim Hoft wrote, "Suddenly the State-Run Media is Horrified that Politician's [sic] Home Addresses Are Published on the Internet." Hoft further wrote: "This week an angry tea party activist published the address of a Virginia Congressman on his blog and suggested that Tea Party Protesters go visit this socialist at home... The tea party organizer did not direct anyone to harm the Congressman. But, that won't stop the leftist media from going berserk over the incident." [Gateway Pundit, 03/24/10]
John Hinderaker: Threats "Being Played Up In The Press Because The Democrats Want To Dampen The Anger That Has Erupted" Over Health Care Reform. In a March 24 Power Line post, John Hinderaker wrote, "We condemn political violence in virtually all circumstances; certainly in all circumstances that could arise in our democracy." Hinderaker later wrote: "The current threats (assuming they are real, as I assume some of them are) are being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted over their adoption of a government medicine program through a series of legislative maneuvers that are in some respects unprecedented." From Hinderaker's post:
We condemn political violence in virtually all circumstances; certainly in all circumstances that could arise in our democracy. Threats of violence, sadly, are not uncommon in politics; let alone "harassment." Even insignificant conservatives like us have been threatened with violence on several occasions, and the linked article notes that Jim Bunning received threats after he temporarily held up the extension of unemployment benefits a few weeks ago.
The current threats (assuming they are real, as I assume some of them are) are being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted over their adoption of a government medicine program through a series of legislative maneuvers that are in some respects unprecedented. It is important for the Democrats and their press minions to understand that there are many millions of Americans who regard Obamacare not just as misguided public policy, but as an illegitimate usurpation of power. I am one of the many millions who are outraged at the Left's attempt to destroy the private health care system that has served my family so well, and who regard Obamacare as illegitimate.
As for the threats, we will take them more seriously if they result in the cancellation of a public appearance by a liberal due to security concerns. But that never happens to liberals, only to conservatives. It happened again last night. That was in Canada, of course; the home of government medicine and little regard for free speech. No coincidence, that. [Power Line, 03/24/10]
In Fact, Threats Against Increased "Nearly Threefold" Following Health Care Vote
Washington Post Documented A "Nearly Threefold Increase In Recent Months In The Number Of Serious Threats Against Members Of Congress." An April 9 Washington Post article noted:
Anger over the health-care overhaul has led to a nearly threefold increase in recent months in the number of serious threats against members of Congress, federal law enforcement officials said.
The lawmakers reported 42 threats in the first three months of this year, compared with 15 in the last three months of 2009, said Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance W. Gainer, who had information about threats involving both chambers.
"The incidents ranged from very vulgar to serious threats, including death threats," Gainer said. "The ability to carry them out is another question and part of an investigation to determine what, if any, appropriate steps to take."
Nearly all of the recent threats appear to come from opponents of the health-care overhaul, said Gainer, who also served four years as chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. And, he said, there have been "significantly more" threats against House members than against senators.
The threats, which have led to at least three arrests, have not abated since President Obama signed the measure into law March 23. The Capitol Police have contacted the FBI about such threats even more often since the law was signed, said Lindsay Godwin, an FBI spokeswoman. [Washington Post, 04/09/10]
NYT: "After Health Vote, Threats On Democrats." A March 24 New York Times article noted that "Democratic lawmakers have received death threats and been the victims of vandalism because of their votes in favor of the health care bill, lawmakers and law enforcement officials said Wednesday, as the Congressional debate over the issue headed toward a bitter and divisive conclusion." The article pointed to "at least 10 House members" who "had raised concerns about their personal security since Sunday's climactic vote, and Mr. Hoyer characterized the cases as serious." [New York Times, 03/24/10]
Right-Wing Media Also Downplayed News Of Protesters Carrying Weapons To Obama Events
Pat Gray Mocks Concerns Over Guns At Obama Events: "Oh, The Humanity! A Gun!" On the August 19 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, guest host Pat Gray played a clip of Katie Couric asking "are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Gray responded to the clip by stating:
Are we really still debating health care? When a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking. Yes! Yes we are, Katie. That had nothing to do with the situation. Are you really still complaining about the second amendment? I don't know, you know, the one - gives Americans the right to carry a handgun? He didn't do anything wrong with it. He wasn't there to hurt the president or anyone else. The guy just had a legal handgun. And it's happened a couple of times now, and 'Oh, the humanity! A gun! Someone had a gun!' [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 08/19/09]
Limbaugh Dismisses Concern About Man With Gun At Obama Town Hall Because "A Lot Of People In New Hampshire" "Walk Around Outside With A Gun." From the August 12, 2009 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Come on, F. Chuck! Who do you think you're dealing with here? You're telling me if the president of the United States or somebody like Rahm Emanuel wants somebody in there they can't get them in there? We are not saps here. Now, F. Chuck Todd had to end up this morning on MSNBC calling out his own network for hyping the guy with the gun at the Obama town hall. It had nothing to do with Obama. Did you hear about this? They went nuts. There was a guy... In New Hampshire, everybody's got a gun. In fact if you ever wondered why the left is so afraid of Second Amendment it's because we're the ones with all the guns. In fact just last hour, this guy calls and says, "They've declared war on us! The libs have declared war on this country!" I said, "Oh, no, we can't have that type of talk." He compared what the libs are doing with Germany going into France.
"The Germans had tanks," I said. "We can't go that far. I've been inundated with e-mails during the break. "Rush, you're wrong. You think we don't have guns?" (laughing) So the left is all for gun control because we have the guns. At any rate, there was this guy walking around outside with a gun, which a lot of people in New Hampshire do. And Carlos Watson, the Obama look-alike and so-called analyst at MSNBC, just tried to make this into something it wasn't. And F. Chuck Todd had to sort of calm Carlos down, and Carlos didn't want to be calmed down. Carlos Watson, talking with F. Chuck Todd, said, "Chuck, I gotta ask you. The guy with the gun outside of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, town hall today somebody else arrested with a gun elsewhere, somebody else with a knife. What is the White House saying about this? I mean, I know they don't want to inflame it but I gotta believe there's some real concern out there," F. Chuck. [Premier Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/12/09]
Beck: "Is There A Single American ... That Wants To See Harm Come To Any Member Of Congress Or The President Of The United States At Any Time?" From the September 16, 2009 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: You have MSNBC doctoring video clips to fit their story line that racist white people are showing up with guns to protest Obama's health care. Here it is on MSNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Healthcare reform rally just outside where a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and pistol on his hip. There are questions whether this has racial overtones. Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Wow. Can I tell you something? Is there a single American - a single American that wants to see harm come to any member of Congress or the president of the United States at any time? A single American?
This is outrageous to say. Luckily, if you're a FOX camera and you happen to be there and you're not creatively editing that film that was shown on MSNBC - looks like, uh-oh, look out. Oh, he's a racist black man who just hates the black president.
You see the pattern here? They aren't answering the complaints. They're not answering the questions. They haven't answered about Van Jones. They didn't answer it about the National Endowment of the Arts. They're not answering it about ACORN. They're not answering it about the healthcare bill, because they can't. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 9/16/09; accessed via Nexis]
FoxNews.com: "Worrying Over A Law-Abiding Citizen Legally Carrying A Gun Several Blocks And A Couple Of Hours Away From An Indoor Event That The President Will Attend Is Overdoing It." From the August 20, 2009 FoxNews.com article, headlined "The Media Gets It Wrong, Again, On Guns":
In Portsmouth, New Hampshire last week, a man carried a handgun a few blocks away from the site where President Obama was scheduled to hold a town hall a couple of hours later. Was it a danger or not? The man carrying the gun, William Kostric, even had permission to have the gun on private church property while he was protesting Obama's appearance. Everybody from the New York Times to USA Today to CBS News expressed their outrage, interpreting it as a hot head threatening the president and linking it to militias and conservative talk radio. A prominent liberal radio talk show host came out saying that conservatives "want Obama to get shot." New legislation related to this incident is even being proposed in Congress.
Obviously no one wants to see a president even remotely threatened and people need to be sensitive to such things. But worrying over a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a gun several blocks and a couple of hours away from an indoor event that the president will attend is overdoing it.
[...]
What should have been a story about an American with a gun who behaved properly was somehow twisted into a storyline focusing on something else: crazy conservatives who want to threaten the president. [FoxNews.com, 8/20/09]















BTW, what are the goobers going to say when Loughner's lawyers enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? How willing then will they be to argue that Loughner is deranged?
While having the "Unmitigated Gall" to call your Network Balanced & Fair.
Fox is nothing but a "Hate Machine", "The Mecca" if you will, if you want to be mean.
Now the Anchors & Producers at Fox News are awash in Blood & their Hands will never be Clean.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
By their silence, and defense of such people, Fox News' personalities have effectively contributed to the discourse... therefore they are partly responsible for this climate. Despite the death of innocent people don't expect Fox News to assume ANY responsibility. They will look to blame and find fault with Democrats, including President Barack Obama.
It is the only federal office that one cannot succeed to, be appointed to, or be elected to by other than the popular vote.
If someone is removed by any means, especially this close to an election, the people are likely to replace them with someone sharing the same ideals.
And now the president has to appoint a new federal judge, and I'm sure he will take into account how beloved Judge Roll was by the people of Arizona as he makes his decision.
So the whole thing is just stupid, but not insane, and Loughner should not be allowed that defense.
Yet who has been calling "progressives" Communists and/or Nazis? Who has been urging people to educate themselves, because the school systems in this country aren't teaching anything of substance? Who has been attacking the Federal Reserve? Is it just a coincidence that Loughner has on his reading list Mein Kamph and the Communist Manefesto as some of his favorite/important books? Is it just a coincidence that he labeled most people in District 8 illiterate? Is it just a coincidence that he wants to create his own currency - any Liberty Dollar enthusiasts out there???
First we had the Tides incident, now the Arizona massacre. Things tend to come in threes, and I fear what is next.
Who says it's not directly responsible? Of course it is.
The political vitriol in the 1700's and 1800's was beyond the pale compared to today.
Have you forgotten that Aaron Burr (our third Vice President) killed Alexander Hamilton (our first Secretary of the Treasury) in a political duel?
We are much calmer today, and rhetoric had nothing to do with the Arizona shootings.
On a day where we've seen many make false equivalences, you've offer something new--the absolutely ridiculous equivalence. The vitriol of the 1700's and 1800's may have been uglier, but it was not broadcast nationwide 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the newspapers of those times did not reach an audience the size that the many of the Internet news sources have today.
Even if it can be shown that Loughner existed in a news free vacuum (a claim that would be a bit difficult to accept given his, "I'll see you on National T.V.! This is foreshadow," statement) there are still the murder of George Tiller, the murders of three Pittsburgh police officers by a man who feared Obama was going to take his guns, and the shootout with police officers by loyal Beck fan and would be Progressive hunter, Byron Williams.
Calmer today, you say? Give me a break.
You have no idea, and neither do I, that it had anything to do with Glenn Beck, Fox News, et al.
If I'm eventually wrong, I'll apologize, as I expect you to do.
But in the meantime, do some research. The rhetoric way back when makes ours look like love of every political opponent.
It's been shown that Loughner targeted Giffords. His own post shows he craved attention from the media. To suggest that the all too obsessed with violent language and images personalities did not have some influence on his actions is a terribly naive view.
And bringing the Burr/Hamilton duel into the discussion--absolutely ridiculous.
And again I'll say that the bitter words of the past, even if they were uglier, cannot be compared to the bitter words of today given the reach of radio, the Internet, and television.
No you won't.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012270001#1125063
Oh yeah, I forgot all about that. How there were tons of people spewing hate on the radio and tv in the 1700s. How easy it was to access those hate filled lunatics.
Glad to see you back, hee. Terribly sorry I hurt your feelings last time.
But you are right though...I fear what's to come as well. Blankley was just on the "Ed Show" defending violent acts and speech as historically present in our political culture. Most countries can say this, but the entire idea of having a *country* (as opposed to an unorganized warring nomadic tribal existence) is to attempt to approach a state of civilization. It's kind of like potty training: poop (political violence) is gross (uncivilized). To put the poop as far from yourself and your community as possible you don't continue to poop your pants (commit acts of violence to force your will on others) nor encourage others to do the same; rather, you learn to send the poop somewhere far away by going on the potty (learning to respect the democratic process and work within the system) and flushing it (dismissing your notions that in a free and democratic society you have the right to have everything go exactly the way you want it to, forever). Then you wipe, pull your pants up, and go about your day (cut your losses and start planning policy and strategy for next campaign season).
Please, Right Wing: stop telling your fans crap their pants, and please PLEASE stop telling them to throw it at people they don't like.
There is only one person to blame for this: Jared Loughner. That is it. It is not Palin's fault. It is not Obama's fault. It is not Health Care Reform's fault or talk radio. It is not even the guns fault. The fault lie's with the creature that pulled the trigger. period. He has proven he cannot live in a civil society. He should be hung in a public square.
It's already making the divisiveness worse...and we haven't even heard yet from Limbaugh, Beck and Haniity, et als.
You know the Republican joke:
If you want to confuse or confound a Republican, use logic and truth.
Glad to hear someone else sees the CONSTITUTIONAL legality of the situation! Thank you.
And BTW: Thanks to W. we have a little place nicknamed Gitmo, where all those Seditionists can be held - without formal charges, indefinitely!
Anyway, Don't you think if MMfA had proof of sedition they would use it. Surely someone on the staff knows a lawyer. Surely some lawyer somewhere could say Fox News is spewing violent rhetoric toward the current administration and make it stick. I mean millions of people watch Fox, surely one of them can dig up some actual sedition being perpatrated by Fox News.
Or perhaps you are just a thin skinned, angry little liberal who can't stand it when some one hold a viewpoint that is different from your own.
Never seen ANYTHING like that from Fox. Not at all. It may not reach criminal levels, but the undertones are there. I'm sure you know that.
To the point of this article, I absolutly condemn the actions of this terrorist in Arizona. If it turns out he IS motivated by right wing rhetoric I will be first in line calling for his execution (I already am actually).
As a conservative I deplore the attack on this Congresswoman and the needless deaths of innocent bystanders. If Jared Loughner was motivated to kill because he didn't agree with some one elses opinion, then he has proved to me that he cannot live in a civil society.
I personally don't consider you an enemy just because of your beliefs. But I long for the days when both of our beleif systems were not only tolerated, but allowed to exist at the same time in different parts of the country.
If my philosophy were fully instituted, you could live with very little fear of voicing your philosophy because people like Jared Loughman would be punished to the full extent of the law. We would not try to make him a victim. We would not attempt to deflect his responsibility onto others. And we would not punish ANYONE for voiceing their opinion peaceably in a public forum. Beck et al do not condone violence. They never have. They are on the air right now condemning Jared Loughman and defending themselves against ridiculous attempts to make associations with him.
Of Coarse, they are not "responsible" for those deaths. But, as the Sheriff so courageously put it, "Words do have meanings." Maybe its wrong of me to hope there IS evidence pointing to violent political rhetoric being a catalyst for this action. I just know that America only learns after catastrophic events and our political environment IS out of control as MMFA has documented over the last year. I hope those people don't die in vain!The media has skirted this topic all election season and now they have a big news story to make it "OK" for them to talk about. Thats a shame but its the truth!
I went to the JFK museum (in the book depository) a few months back and it shocked me how much the rhetoric of the day matched the rhettoric of today. For example, one famous "wanted" sign for JFK said Wanted for treason for betraying our country and using Civil rights to infiltrate communism into the country! Tell me that doesn't sound familiar! I was shocked and told the people I was with, this will happen again. History repeats itself if you dont learn from it. People obviously haven't!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wanted_for_treason.jpg
Notice the part:
4. He has given support and encouragement to the communist inspired racial riots.
This is not time for the repuglican PC police to get us to smooth this over like he was calling someone names!
UGH!
"Coarse" (unnecessarily capitalized) instead of course; "its" instead of it's; no space between sentences; then "its" again instead of it's.
Give yourself a break and learn how to write before you write. It affects your credibility more than you know.
Right now, you're just another idiot.
Oh, that's right. You brought no argument, no rebuttal, no facts, no thought. You brought nothing at all. Just as you always do.
Give yourself a break and do some research to refute posts that you don't agree with, rather than simply attacking the typing skills and/or literacy of the poster. Do both if you feel that you must.
Actually addressing the concerns laid out in the post would go a long way toward making you credible.
Right now, you are just another troll with no argument.
When are you folks on the right going to admit that you have created and continue to perpetuate the intense hatred towards President Obama that exists today and which filters down to all other liberals.
If we're going to go there, a classmate describes him as "quite liberal" and "politically radical".
Which party is it that supports legalization of marijuana again?
So far as I can tell, every indicator is that he was a left wing nut job. Follower of Marx, dabbled in the occult, yeah, real right leaning stuff there...
He shot up a Democratic congresswoman's public event. No link needed.
Who would they be? Proof please.
Yesterday I made the case that MMFA needs a new menu control that would send those who make arguments like this to this article before they can continue to post on here.
Thank you for reinforcing the opinion I expressed.
I can't believe you're blaming marijuana for these shootings. Oh, sure, like everyone who has ever smoked pot has attempted to murder politicians. Puh-leeze!!! You've been watching Reefer Madness too many times!
Now, let's address the extreme hypocrisy of your statement, starting with the intense and vitriolic attacks that George W. Bush and his administration were subjected to from the liberal front. Remember those? Would those constant attacks be considered "hate talk" as well? Or were they simply expressions of the left wing's right to oppose his policies? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Keith Olbermann (a person that I would normally disagree with 99.9999% of the time) actually made sense when he called for all those with an audience, liberal or conservative, to take a step back and examine what they have said and what they might say in the future.
Mr. Olbermann took the step of repudiating and apologizing for things he said in the past that may have been inflammatory, irresponsible, etc. I credit him for that and hope that others with an audience - again, liberal or conservative - will follow his lead and take similar action. Trust me, these words do not taste good at all coming out of my mouth, but reason demands that I give credit where credit is due.
It's time for compromise. It's time for everyone to finally "meet in the middle" and stack hands to solve this country's problems. which are so tough and so complex they will require a collective effort to resolve. I can agree with the fact that political discourse has devolved into TV-ready soundbites that, at best, oversimplify issues and at worst completely twist them into nuggets of misinformation. And I believe there is evidence of this both on the right and on the left.
That's my view on this whole issue. Take it or leave it.
False equivalency alert!! Bush had a 90% approval rating after 9-11 and squandered it with his revenge war. People hated him FOR WHAT HE DID, not for WHO HE WAS.
It's time for compromise.
The right-wing doesn't compromise on anything.
And I believe there is evidence of this both on the right and on the left.
False equivalency alert!!!
Take it or leave it
I thought it was time for compromise?
People who are conservative dislike many of Obama's policies and his general approach to governing. That is legitimate and people on the right have the right to dissent.
I don't dislike the man...I think anyone who is willing to serve as President deserves respect for doing so, and he has mine. I don't agree with the majority of his policies and with some of his approach to governing. The right to disagree is my right as an American.
That said, there is a level of vitriol I have seen against both George Bush and Obama that borders on irrational. An example is the constant harping on Obama's czars; shoot, I recall there were plenty of czars in Bush's administration also, so the logic behind assailing Obama on this aspect of his government style is flawed.
It is the vitriol and irrationality, on both sides, that we must strive to overcome. That is the challenge facing the nation right now.
Do you agree with anything I've said here?
People on the left hate Bush and conservatives for WHAT THEY DO. People on the right hate Obama and liberals in general for WHO THEY ARE.
Color me skeptical.
I found that when people talked about hating the wars, the donut hole legislation and the "clean water act" (allowing much more poisons in water), the "clean air act" (allowing big companies to get away with much more pollution) and the "healthy forests act" (clear cutting old growth forests) they were using pretty solid arguments about the policies and what a monster bush was for thinking it was OK to kill hundreds of thousands, especially when he did it using his platform to spread lies and hate!
However, whenever I get into discussions about what wing-nuts hate about Obama, it is always "socialism, nazi-ism, not a citizen, muslim" Then they LITERALLY spit the term ObamaCare like it is some evil, unspeakable thing. I have NOT ONCE gotten a really good, factual argument on his actual policies. But I have heard, "He is going to take your guns away, he bailed out the banks, he OWNS GM, and he is a socialist."
The vitriol is NOT BOTH SIDES!
Thanks for posting here sortiz1965, you sound pretty reasonable, don't let me or others discourage you.
:)
Yeah GreenLantern, No vitriol from both sides!
Give me a break!
And, by the way, What kind of knife was Congresswoman Giffords wielding that provoked Loughner to bring a gun?
As for your comment about Obama's knife/gun quote, that was in response to another fool saying that the vitriol does not come from both sides. Other than that your response doesnt make sense. If you are saying that the Obama qoute doesnt apply in this situation, I never said it did. Now tell me which specific quote from a right wing hater drove the shooter to it. That'll be pretty tough for you to do because it didnt freekin' happen!
Yeah, exactly the same.
Funny how all of that hatred from the left never really resulted in anyone innocent losing their lives, huh?
Jan 6th, 2011 - Daily Kos blogger, Boy Blue posts an article titled "Gabby Giffords is dead to me".
Am I dumb enough to blame him for the shooting. Not unless I apply your standards because are you dumb enough to blame Beck, Rush, etc etc etc. YES
Even Olbermann apologized for some of his comments. Sheesh.
Who do you think has the bigger audience and the greater influence? A former governor who ran for Vice President, is a contributor to a cable news network, and the star of a reality TV show, or an anonymous blogger on the Daily Kos?
This is in no way the clarion call to violence you seem to think it is. Dam# I'm sick of seeing this statement used to "prove" some sort of liberal incitement of violence.
Using a very common idiom to descibe extreme disliking, two days before the event (giving it a very small window to be effective) is in no way similar to marking her name in a map with crosshairs (violent imagery) with damning accusations ("20 House Democrats from districts we carried in 2008 voted for the health care bill...IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND.").
Are you suggesting that this Boy Blue blogger has the same kind of audience that Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Palin, Hannity, Medved, Gallagher, Thompson, and all of those right wing hate radio and tv hosts have?
Wow, how is it that I never heard of this guy until a right wing apologist brought him up in a post on this website to defend right wing vitriol?
Come on, own up like a real man and accept that the responsibility lies with the right whinge media that have been spewing hatred, lies and violent rhetoric for so long now.
If there is any justice the wrath of all decent people will be brought down on the lying hatemongers and their facilitators and retribution will come at the ballot box and in the marketplace.
Enjoy all of the hate filled garbage coming from the left, spelled out beautifully with almost endless specific examples here.
www.michellemalkin.com
Sure, there is plenty to find, if you aren't looking for someone with a daily venue and access to hundreds of thousands if not millions of viewers/listeners to attempt to influence.
The problem is, once you plug in those parameters, the pool drops almost exclusively to right wingers.
So, here is a challenge to you, maniac: use Malkin's site, or any site you need to, and find examples of daily hatred spewed by the left. I won't even demand that you find anyone who has daily advocated for violence since before President Obama took office. Just find me someone with a consistent national audience who has, on at least 3 days in one week, advocated for violence.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
If you want to deal with facts, have at it. If you dont just continue with your predictable character asassination.
The subject here is how there have been voices on the right who have downplayed threats of violence. First you gave us your "connect the dots" statement, which suggests this article is unreasonable, and then you give us Malkin's article that suggests that it is the voices on the left that created the harsh, violence filled language.
Can't help but notice that the two most recognizable figures Malkin showcased in her piece were Madonna and Sandra Bernhard. Forgive me, but just which network do they work for? What political offices have they held?
Weak, Double-M.
I would not blame (for example) Joy Behar if something happened to Sharron Angle or Olbermann if something happened to Bush or whichever hate spewing idiot it is. It is merely to point out the disconnect in "lefty logic" and the "one way dot connecting" they LOVE to do!
But, as I asked earlier, who has the bigger audience, and who has the most influence over their audience?
Sure, from your link to Malkin, you could make the case that Madonna certainly has a big following. Nevertheless, she has never held office, as Sarah Palin has, she does not host a weekday political talk program, as Beck, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly do, and her views are not being broadcast 24 hours a day, seven days a week to a cable and satellite TV audience.
Again I'll say, you're contracting your own arguments. You can't say hate language from the right has no influence while suggesting hate language from the left does. And you also can't offer a scenario that speculates that someday something might happen to Sharron Angle because of something Joy Behar has said if you're unwilling to accept that what has happened to Rep. Giffords may be the result of unintended consequences from the violent words and images directed towards her.
You're telling me the guy that shot up the church in Kansas because he wanted to kill Democrats after reading Bernand Goldberg's book wasn't influenced by said book?
Grow up. It's all about a general atmosphere promoted by these professional liars that demonize the opposition to the point where they advocate violence against the opposition.
And you stick with the "nothing to see here" line. Stay ignorant.
Chill out.
Pretty lame ci.
You're asking us to consider the fallout that would result from a fantasy scenario and who would be/could be considered responsible and/or what could/could not be an influence in your imaginary situation.
This is being done to counter an article that comments on a REAL SHOOTING committed by a man who did have a very warped political agenda, during a time when we've heard many influential voices on the right use words and images that celebrate violence.
We have heard Glenn Beck make his "shoot in the head" comments (I dare you to Google that and see how many different times and in how many different ways he's used that). We have seen Sarah Palin's sniper scope map, and read her, "Don't Retreat. Reload!" tweet. We have heard Sharron Angle suggest of using Second Amendment solutions.
You've attempted to make a point with your "the left does it, too" arguments. The only way that can be seen as remotely valid is if you're willing to accept that hate filled voices on the right may have had an influence on Loughner's deeds. Are any of the personalities and websites directly responsible for his act? No. Nevertheless, given how often we've heard variations of "say what you mean," and "words have consequences," from some on that list it is entirely fair to recognize that much of what they have said and written could certainly have had a certainly indirect, certainly unintended motivating and encouraging influence on the horrific deed that has taken place.
The underwear bomber? A terrorist. Who on the left has said he wasn't?
Fort Hood assassin? A guy who snapped. It's been acknowledged that he certainly may have responded to anti-Muslim rhetoric, and it's been suggested he may have embraced some terrible ideas. The push back many of us have offered on this matter has been against those who have attempted to use this tragedy as "proof" that all Muslims are terrorist.
Your weakest point to date, Double-M.
If you're saying there are those who say it's irrational and unreasonable to say the deeds of these people proves that all Muslims everywhere are dangerous, possible future terrorists--well, yeah, no kidding. We'll reject such a simplistic, idiotic argument just as quickly as we would if someone attempted to "prove" that all Christians are dangerous, possible future terrorists when someone who tells us they've embraced the words and message of Christ commits terrible acts of violence.
If there are some other kinds of dots you're trying to connect, ones that aren't based on ignorance and racism, do share.
So, why don't you connect the dots? This should be good.
As for proof, you cant prove that he was influenced by right wing media and even if he was he was a sick puppy. He wasnt made a sick puppy by anyone, right or left. This entire MM4A false story is so transparently juvenile its sad.
Who in the media has said the the influence of Islamic extremism shouldn't be considered in crimes committed by Islamic extremists? Who?
We'll reject the idea that all who follow Islam are violent extremists just as we'll reject that everyone is who Pro-Life is as violent as Scott Roeder.
Now, if you want to make the case that there are those who will embrace Islamic extremism because they follow the words of charismatic leaders leader who tell them to hate, hate, hate. Well, that's an entirely different things, isn't it?
And it also underscores what we've been saying about the power and influence some can have over a loyal audience of followers, and once again contradicts every point you've attempted to that ever so poorly attempts to "prove" that right wing media hate voices can't possibly inspire the members of their audience to do terrible things.
Thank you for posting the <spoiler> at the start of your post, so we know what to expect from you.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
She worked for a "Libertarian " think tank. I think the word Libertarian is not being used properly anymore.
The left, if it even really exists anymore in the US,says alot of stupid things. The right however, is well in the lead. I will sight only a few examples:
-Grover Norquist and Dick Cheney: there are ties between Al-Queda and Iraq. LIE
-John McCain" Bomb..Bomb...Bomb Iran" No comment, just very irresponsible
-Newt Gingrich" Obama is possessed but teh ghost of his fathers anti-colonialism" Ahhh disn't we fight colonial powers?
-Glenn Beck" The President has a deep seated hatred for the white culture" There is no white culture...there is Irish culture and German culture...but no white culture.
-AnnCoulter" Jews need to be perfected" WOW..even after watching her try to reformulate what she said, it was akward. Blatant anti-semitism. Supporting Israel does not mean you can't be an anti-semite Ann.Just ask Reverend Hagee.
-ad infinitum....
The right also likes to use apocalyptic, militaristic and nationalistic language and symbolism when talking. Hannity is always pictured with a US flag, Palin loves to reload and rearm, Beck is always talking about the founding fathers. They all talk about " The good ol' days" when it was all apple pie and golly jeez weren't things better back in those days. Emberto Eco warns about this type of propaganda as the first signs of a fascist movement.
It is a fake narrative and reality they are selling us. It is all illusions. Just like the imminent threats looming: President Obama is socialist, all muslims are terrorists, death panels and the debt( the percentage of gdp vs. debt has been much higher before). The Gop and Fox news want you afraid.
The Lords of Illusion.
Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project - This website is a place for you and other like-minded Americans looking for direction in taking back the control of our country. It is also a place to find information that will assist you in navigating the rough waters we face in the days, weeks and months ahead. Glenn Beck 9-12 Project...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
America's Awakening...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
912 Project Fort Worth, Inc. is a non-profit grassroots effort based on 9 Principles and 12 Values as proposed by Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project on March 13, 2009.[/b]
[b]912 Project Fort Worth, Inc. today announced that the Tea Parties are not over, by revealing their plans to host America's Awakening, an event to be held on June 11, 2009 at the NYTEX Sports Complex in North Richland Hills and home of the Champion Fort Worth Brahmas. Texas Representative Leo Berman to Be Keynote Speaker at America's Awakening Event on June 11, 2009 Hosted by 912 Project Fort Worth Inc...
Texas Representative Leo Berman to Be Keynote Speaker at America's Awakening Event on June 11, 2009 Hosted by 912 Project Fort Worth Inc -
"I believe that Barack Obama is God's punishment on us today, but in 2012, we are going to make Obama a one-term president," declared Texas state Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler)
Anderson Cooper's interview with Rep. Leo Berman...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- attempted to connect dots (I am assuming you mean to previous threats of violence and the current tragedy in Arizona)
- assigned blame (I see no blame anywhere in an article written to point out "right wing media" downplaying previous threats)
- played politics with this article
Quote from Gabrielle Giffords: "...for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they've gotta realize there are consequencÂes to that action."
I'm usually don't call names, but I'll make an exception. You're a moron.
OReilly -"Tiller the Baby Killer"...Tiller is assassinated
"Obama will take your guns"..Gun Fanatic in Pittsburgh shoots 3 cops
"No Ground Zero Mosque" - Mosques and Muslims around the country attacked
"All terroristd are Muslims"... Muslim NYC cab driver stabbed
"No Gays"etc....Progressive LBGT friendly church attacked in Knoxville
" Income Tax is unconstitutional"...Businessman flies plane into IRS bldg in Texas
"Obama pals around with terrorists"..Threats against new President are 300% higher than those against previous POTUS.
"Put em in the crosshairs" >
"2nd Ammendment remedies" >
"Water the tree of liberty w/Blood" >.....Tuscon,AZ mass shooting
"We didn't come armed..this time" >
"Bullets if ballots don't work" >
"Make my opponent afraid to come outside>
What connections next with the following also having been said??
"Pelosi is evil"
"Obama wants to destroy America"
"Obama - is evil,a Nazi,the Devil ,a terrorist,a Marxist,a socialist,a Muslim,a tyrant,hates America,wants to kill grandma,kills babies etc......"
"Michele Obama hates her country"
"Liberals/Progressives are all communist/marxists"
"We have to 'Take' our country back?
"Obama care is Armageddon"
Not all the dots connected yet but do we want them to be!???
No, they're not connected YET, but the right-wig wants then to be...
The only thing worse than the hubris, humbug and pure bile emanating from the right wing commentariat is the craven failure of the rest of the media to call them out by name for it.
The "crocodile concern" and ineffectual handwringing from the media as a whole merely facilitates the continued hate-mongering and violence. Let's have a little less of the "precious" media and a bit of the "without fear or favour" stuff that they keep prattling on about!
This, of course, is exactly what the RWN's hate even more than skin color.
"Isn't it odd that after 9-11 the right wingnuts could not give up freedom fast enough"
I don't admit to being prescient or anything, but when I woke up on 9/12, the first thing I thought was "I'll bet Bush will use this as an excuse to limit civil liberties"
Sometimes I hate being right...
Some have directly blamed "the right-wing's violent rhetoric" for the AZ tragedy. Yes, no?
MMFA correctly points out that "the right-wing's violent rhetoric" is not directly responsible for the AZ tragedy. Yes, no?
If yes to both questions, when will MMFA call out those that are misinforming the public? "Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation."
You are absolutely right by the way. You are a squirrel.
If you can't (won't?) answer the posed questions, then how about this one: How is this stretching? It's a simple application of logic and associating relevant statements.
I suggest reading this website's mission statement. In fact, I suggest reading it a couple times just to be sure you understand it.
Media Matters for America put in place the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation
They won't address liberal misinformation. It is my mistake for presuming any sort of unbias nature within the work of MMFA based on their 501(c)(3) exemption status.
Here's what I'll do; I'll make a spelling error just for you, appologize for it, and then you can point it out to me so that you feel good about yourself.
BTW: The more thumbs down I get in this type of environment shows I must be doing something right.
Just why there are those who think a thumbs down responses to flawed arguments, foolish statements, and, from time to time, out and out insulting and offensive comments are something to celebrate remains a mystery to many of us.
Bit dog barks first.
Cokie Roberts was on the TV today scolding anyone who called out the right's violent rhetoric. In the NYT this weekend, "both ends of the ideological spectrum" were blamed for creating a climate promoting violence.
The corporate media wants to give the GOP a pass via this false equivalence.
I sent a letter to the NYT's public editor, Arthur S. Brisbane, objecting to the practice.
~
By that reasoning, all of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were in the planes, and there should have been no further action needed.
Just a note, I've been reading a lot of comments on multiple sites (sure are a lot of people conviced this guy is a LUNATIC LEFTIST!!) and someone had noted that Hernandez was openly gay. I have no idea if this is true or not, and in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter but; it sure upset some people on newsvine.
(the original poster was using him as an example of why gays in the military shouldn't be an issue)
I'll take it further - think what would be happening if this boy shot a REPUBLICAN congressmen.
(That must REALLY be ripping some people!)
By their silence, and defense of such people, Fox News' personalities have effectively contributed to the discourse... therefore they are partly responsible for this hateful climate.
Despite the death of innocent people don't expect Fox News to assume ANY responsibility. They will look to find fault and blame Democrats, including, believe it or not, President Barack Obama.
Mark my words.
Right wing vile:
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people - we the people - are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
~Michele Bachmann
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
~Sharon Angle
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."
~Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out."
~Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
~Ann Coulter
"Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook ... Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."
~Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
~Pat Robertson
"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."
~Ann Coulter
"I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."
~Rep. Virginia Foxx
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."
~Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), on President Obama
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people - we the people - are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
~Michele Bachmann
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
~Sharon Angle
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."
~Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out."
~Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
~Ann Coulter
"Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook ... Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."
~Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
~Pat Robertson
"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."
~Ann Coulter
"I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."
~Rep. Virginia Foxx
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."
~Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), on President Obama
My prayers are with all the victims and the shooter's family. I'm sure they are going through agony right now.
In a way, I don't even think this is all dishonesty on the part of the right, I think it's a deeper psychological denial.
They laugh off all of the heated rhetoric to allow themselves to dismiss the results as " a lone wacko", completely unrelated.
Look at the overall message of the right, on Fox and hate radio;
"We (the right) hate government, especially Democrats. They are the enemy, and they need to go, by any means necessary. They are trying to enslave us, and send us to death panels.
They (the left) love and worship government above all else, especially Democrats."
Sure, it's BS, it's a mythology that they've invented to rile up their bumpkins, but to promote this theme day in and day out, then pretend to see no connection to an assassination attempt on a Dem politician, fueled by anti-government ranting, is either dishonest, or a profound act of the subconscious.
Sorry, wingnuts, you can't have it both ways. Live by your BS, but pay the piper.
1) Alinsky and Ayers! Alinsky and Ayers! OMG OMG OMG!!!!...
I can't remember the last time I heard a single democrat or liberal quote or mention them. I hear right wingers constantly bring them up. They've become dog whistle villains that right wing media love to throw out there as some bizarre boogeymen.
I guess because they were from Chicago, and President Obama is from Chicago so therefore...?
2) That series of graphics taken from a viewer's letter to Fox and Friends is the pinnacle of sad, tragic, irony.
3) It's clear that right wing media are interested only in spinning damage control against the constant flood of violent and alarmist rhetoric they spew. Why? Because this kind of irresponsible fear mongering is working to keep their base energized.
What does this say about the republican party and conservative movement?
I too had never heard of Alinsky until some Con mentioned him somewhere. And there are others who I've never heard of that they claim we liberals all follow (but frankly I can't remember any of those other names right now).
Of course their answer will be that our teachers (whoever they are) have been pushing Alinsky's ideas, so while we may not know his name, he's influenced us nontheless.
<<< There, trolls, I provided you with your response, Cut and paste away!!!
And you should also share your thoughts about Gifford's attacker as being a disturbed whack job with Tea Party Nation founder, Judson Phillips. He's come to the conclusion that Loughner is a "leftist lunatic," and has shared those thoughts with the rest of his group in an e-mail.
Care to take your argument a step further?
What are you basing that on?
Neither do I think Fox or Rush have much to do with Politics, at least any real politics. They're all about paranoia and fear, which fits in perfectly with Loughner's ramblings.
Yes, Loughner is mentally deranged. But he is mentally deranged man who believed he was carrying out a political assassination.
He clearly wasn't living in a free from media vacuum.
"Directly," and "not directly" are two entirely different things.
The thrust of this article is how Fox news and other right wing media figures are trying to dismiss and ignore the effect of such violent rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, Fox is responsible for putting a lot of alarmist and anti-American speech out there, but they aren't the only source for it.
And it's a fair topic to be discussed. Ever since loyal Beck fan Byron Williams made his attempt at mass murder many of us here and elsewhere have traded thoughts on when and if another similar, horrible act could happen.
We can agree that Loughner is a nutcase. But we also have to acknowledge that he has political beliefs, however insane they might be, and that those beliefs led him to commit a terrible act of violence that he, himself, has apparently acknowledged as a preplanned assignation attempt.
How can this matter be discussed without mentioned the violent rhetoric we're all very much aware exists?
Once again, a note to myself; less typing before more coffee.
Idea! I meant idea!
My beef is that MMFA is implying that FOX had a part to do with the shooting of a crazy person, and making it a political issue.
This is not an attack on Fox. It is an article that justifiably raises questions about right wing voices that have used violent rhetoric.
That ties them to him. The violence associated with the circulation of that obsessional nonsense also ties them to his actions. The link is not direct, but it is nevertheless there.
Even if they were, how is blaming a media outlet making something political? Are you suggesting that Fox is a political entity? That would certainly put a hole in journalistic integrity.
Here you have a representative that was targeted by violent tea party rhetoric and they even held "target practice" events where they would shoot at targets with Gifford's image on them. Sarah Palin had targeted Gifford in her "crosshairs" campaign.
Glenn Beck would use much less to connect these events on his magic chalkboard.
Nice try, though, dave.
Conservatives immediately said the report was unfair, a libel, unbalanced, extreme - and all the rest.
Sadly, not 24 months later we all know much of that report has proven to be true. And what is even more unfortunate: The radical right wing hasn't learned anything from the violence, blood and death.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
http://chattahbox.com/images/2010/10/teaparty_sign_unarmed_dailykos-277x300.jpg
You really cant read, can you? Quote me where MMFA blamed Faux for this guy pulling the trigger........still waiting.......and still more waiting.......
Faux influences people every day Dave, EVERY DAY. So do all media, they can't help it. But Faux does it with violence Dave, VIOLENT RHETORIC. Quote me some violence spewed by, what I'm certain you think exists, the demonized Liberal Media. Quote it Dave.......still waiting......and still more waiting........
MMFA is implying that they do share some blame for it. And I never mentioned left wing media. I mentioned MMFA for making this political.
The shooting of an elected representative with no family or employment connection to the shooter is clearly not a political act then?
Wow, I'm glad you're here to make sense of things for us "silly libruls".
Your logic is so flawed. By the way. Fox News HAS definetly used these tensions in an unrealistic way to get rating or push their agenda!
How can you argue that Glenn Beck saying "The republic is Over" does not encite violence! How can you be so blind? He has repeatably envoke end-of-times rehotoric. The media has the "right" to say what they want but we have the right to criticize them for it. Saying Obama is hitler has consequences!
Even a totally disconnected sociopath has some reasoning, even if only in his own feeble mind, for what he does. Again, prove to me that he was never influenced by Fox or hate radio.
Also, what is your take on the fact that Fox and company immediately got offended when the sheriff called out vitriol without pointing fingers at anyone or any entity?
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i11295
"You don't have money to fund the war or children. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
--Pete Stark (D-CA), October. Stark, under intense pressure from Nancy Pelosi, later tearfully apologized.
“Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.â€
-- MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy magazine, October issue.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform....We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?...[T]he recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.â€
-- WashingtonPost.com military columnist William Arkin in a column reacting to a report by NBC reporter Richard Engel, January 30. (Arkin later apologized for using the word “mercenary.â€)
BTW go Hawks!!!! Get to Cultler and root for GB we may see a home championship game. Unbelievable!!!!
These are weasel words. At this point it is premature assess how "directly" responsible the peddlers of violent rhetoric are.
It is too early to say what you opened with. You have no good basis to say what you did.
This must be a contribution to "toning things down".
Good intentions....but it is Mistake.
For example:
On MSNBC the other day, the network played an interview of Gabrielle Giffords by Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie in which she was asked about the attacks and the rhetoric during the health care debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8oQi1ty1hs
When Giffords answered and mentioned Sarah Palin and her gun sight targets aimed at Giffords Chuck Todd immediately jumped to Sarah Palin's defense.
Guthrie followed up by suggesting that Democrats were playing politics by bringing up such things.
MSNBC host (forgot his name) apologized for it by stating that MSNBC doesn't condone what happened to Giffords. Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann played it unedited later on. Good for them.
Right now, MSNBC has edited out the pro-Republican - anti-Democrat insensitive comments by Todd and Guthrie when they play the clips.
If you watch Todd and Guthrie on C-Span at the daily press briefs, you will see that those types of Pro-Republican - anti-Democrat comments are pretty much daily fair. The same is true of the others from the mainstream media in the Washington Press core. Jake Tapper, Chip Reid, etc - all the same.
MMFA used to report such things in the past, but now they are of the opinion that the Far Right are the only problem.
Pity (as I have been pointing out on a regular basis here for some time now).
John
ps - can you send me a pizza or two?
Tidying up the U.S. news media tends to make the Augean Stables look like the inside of an operating theatre and, to extend the image, it's the piles of excrement that make the biggest stink that get the most attention.
My question is, WHO ARE THE VIOLENT LIBERALS?
THE COST OF FOOD,FUEL,PROPERTY TAXES,RENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS UP OR GOING UP.... DOES IT AFFECT THE TOP 2% (HELL NO)
THE PEOPLE ON SOCIAL SECURITY HAVEN'T GOT A COLA LAST YEAR THIS YEAR, AND PROBABLY NEXT, BUT THEIR COST HAVE GONE UP TOO..........THE FIRST THING THE RIGHT WINGERS' WANT TO CUT BACK ON IS SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE & MEDICADE...
BUT DON'T TOUCH MY TAX BREAKS,BYE THE WAY MAKE THEM PERENEMENT, AND GIVE ME MORE, OF IT>>>$$$$$$$$$
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
this is what I'm all about.
the constitution
men and women marry
abortion is your business, but abortion IS MURDER
NO distribution of wealth. If I want to help someone or something out, I'll do it on my own. Obummer isn't going to do it for me.
You're gay, that's your business.
Illegal aliens, deport. Tougher borders. CLOSE em.
Get this country RESTORED.
Screw SOCIALISM,AND YES OBUMMERCARE IS SOCIALSISM, AS IS THE BILLIONAIRE WHO FINANACIALLY SUPPORTS MEDIA MATTERS.
God is GOOD and is my and your Creator.
God Bless America and YOU.
-The constitution was written by progressives and liberals. They allowed for taxation which is essentially the "redistribution of wealth".
-It also provides for duties and tarifs.
-It also speaks of the" Welfare of the People" and that governemnt has a role in that.
-Anyone can marry. You simply define mariage by your belief system which only applies to YOU.
-Abortion is only murder because you consider the fetus or embryo a person. If you don't then it is not muder. Again you are projecting your VALUES on other. Which is not what the constitution says or implies.
-Illegals are here because corporations want cheap labour. Fine the corporatiosn that hire them...problem solved.
-When you say "restored" what you really mean is " I want things my way"
-Tea Party paid for by Koch Industries is that socialism?
-Republican party paid for by Military industrial welfare system, is that socilaism?
-Fox news owned and directed by a billiaonaire, is that socialism?
-G_D is what your parents spoon fed you. You were indoctrinated into a cult. I am guessing you don't read Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek or Latin, you are not even sure what the Bible really says.
-I am guessing G_D could care less about America, much like any other country.
Men and women marry is in the Constitution? I don't remember that.
Again, I don't remember that being in the Constitution. For there to be murder, there has to be a person. Since no government agency does now or has ever counted a fetus as a member of the family for purposes of determining family size to determine aid, there can be no murder.
Sure would have been nice if Bush thought that when he redistributed almost a trillion dollars to Wall Street, huh?
How did that slip in there? Don't you "marriage=man+woman" folks hate gays?
One of the areas I actually agree with the right on, but seriously, where is Limbaugh going to get his housekeeper/drugrunner from?
To what, exactly?
So say Beck and his cronies, nice parrot you are. How so?
Thank you for clarifying which other fairy tales you believe in. Are you suggesting that I have to as well?
i love mmfa's opening premise of "while the right-wing's violent rhetoric is not directly responsible..."... nice cover for their illogical reach to pin all this on palin, beck and limbaugh... good luck with that... but when your ass is handed to you in the midterms i guess you'll stoop to any level to convince the lowest common denominator that the right is evil inherent...
violent rhetoric is a time honored method of getting a message across and there's no shortage of it on the left... it's used in sports every day... now some misguided democrat is floating speech legislation... just what we need, more laws... i'm not about to check my speech because someone may get their feelings hurt or some nutcase might go postal... every time a columbine happens the gun control nuts want more laws, as if we don't have enough already... these isolated incidents are worth putting up with in order to have our second amendment rights... it's not as if they are at epidemic proportions... how many people die every year as the result of a shooting spree?... whatever it is pales in comparison to the 40,000+ deaths on our highways every year, yet who is calling for banning automobiles?... we put up with these deaths in order to enjoy the freedom to drive, yet there are those who are all too quick to call for still more gun control every time a wacko goes beserk...
and that's what they are, wackos... but mmfa is all too anxious to associate this shooter with right-wing rhetoric... even though we know little about him, mmfa trots out the above drivel in such abundance it was obvious they wrote it well in advance of this incident... they just couldn't wait for something like this to happen so they could break it out, motives or mental conditions be damned...
maybe he will turn out to be a right-wing nutcase, but he can't be afforded the same luxury as the fort hood shooter, a luxury not without merit, in waiting until all the facts were in before we tagged him as a jihadist... at least that's what the apologists on the left cried at the time... but in this age of irresponsibility, anything but the punk himself will be blamed: the video games he played, the films and shows he watched, the books he read, the drugs he took, his diet, his religion, his parents... blame society, or sarah palin, whichever is more convenient at the time... mmfa would do well to heed the words of christina green's father and not over react... this website has gone from a mere embarrassment to a repugnant disposal of disgusting sickness and i'm done...
reporting, for the last time here, from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
Randall Terry believe Dr. George Tiller was a mass murderer. He executed Dr. Tiller in a church.
Bryon Williams believed what Glenn Beck had told him about the Tides Foundation being a part of an evil, George Soros plot. He got liquored up, grabbed his guns, and got into a shootout with police officers while on his way to do a little Progressive hunting.
Three recent and clear examples of acts of violence inspired by hate filled, right-wing rhetoric.
As we deal with another horrific act of violence, one that has claimed the life of too many completely innocent people, and as legitimate questions are being raised about whether wild, right-wing, hate filled rhetoric may have indirectly inspired a disturbed individual who has been shown to have wild, hate filled views to commit that act of horrific violence, you have the gall to offer highway death statistics as some kind of defense?
If there is embarrassment and a disgusting sickness on this website, I'd say its source is your post.
I truly hope you have offered you lost post here. Good riddance.
i'll just ask you to reread my post and realize my death on the highways analogy is not a defense of violence but a call to preserve what freedoms we have left... it's clearly a reasoned observation of how disproportionately out of whack our reactions to death are in this country... it's obvious to me that while you view 6 people killed as a tragedy requiring immediate legislation, you can easily dismiss 40,000+ deaths as a mere statistic we can't be bothered with... so have a drink, hit the road and have fun while the dems try to trample the constitution with gun control and the fairness doctrine... who needs the first and second amendments, anyway, they were written by old, rich white guys, a much maligned demographic around these parts...
There is only one person to blame for this: Jared Loughner. That is it. It is not Palin's fault. It is not Obama's fault. It is not Health Care Reform's fault or talk radio. It is not even the guns fault. The fault lie's with the creature that pulled the trigger. period. He has proven he cannot live in a civil society. He should be hung in a public square.
The debate centers on whether he was influenced by the harsh, over the top, shoot 'em in the head, a revolution is coming, death panels are coming, don't retreat reload, rhetoric that we hear all too frequently from those who peddle hate for ratings.
I provided examples that show it has happened before. There are reasons to believe it has happened here. Many of us believe it could happen again so long as there are fear and hate mongers with large audiences.
The "say what you mean," and "words have consequences," crowd have, justifiably, been called out on many of their pasts statements. The best that those who offer a defense of those personalities have been able to offer, here and elsewhere, has been, "Well, the left does it, too," accompanied by weak and false "proof."
If they feel they have to defend themselves in these ways that offers the suggestion that even they recognize that there was an indirect, unintentional role they played in this terrible tragedy.
The debate, you say, centers on whether or not he was influences by "hate peddlers." Fine let's look at both side.
He was not influnced by right-wing rhetoric. He formed his opinions of Congresswoman Giffords on his own. He reads Mein Kampf. He reads the Communist Manifesto. He decides to assasinate the congreswoman and in the process injurs her and 12 others, and kills 6 people, including a little girl born on one of the worst days in our history.
He goes to court. He is proven guilty. He is executed.
He was influenced by right-wing rhetoric. He thinks the heated political atmosphere in this country is the fault of Congresswoman Gifford. He thinks democrats are to blame for everything gone wrong in this country. He decides to assasinate the congreswoman and in the process injurs her and 12 others, and kills 6 people, including a little girl born on one of the worst days in our history.
He goes to court. He is proven guilty. He is executed.
Reality: He is a nut-job. Weather he is a left- or right-wing nut is yet to be determined. Frankly that distinction, to me, is immaterial.
He decided to assasinate the congreswoman and in the process injurs her and 12 others, and kills 6 people, including a little girl born on one of the worst days in our history.
He goes to court. He is proven guilty. He is executed. End of story.
There's no question Richard Poplawski is a nut job.
There's no question Bryon Williams is a nut job.
There's few questions that Scott Roeder is a nut job (there are those who have tried to make him a hero).
There are all kinds of question about the power and influence of the media, and that is the topic being discussed.
Here's what plays against those who are trying to say the hate speech couldn't have played a significant role in this tragedy; these people receive their paychecks because they sell ads. Sponsor purchase that air time because they believe these hosts have some influence over their audience and they believe their companies will enjoy some added success because of the association they have with those programs.
There's an obvious contradiction. While they are running from the idea that their influence may have played an unintended role in these terrible things they're not about to say, "Well, nobody listens to us. Nobody acts on our commercial recommendations. If you purchase time on our program no one in our audience will care."
They reap financial success because they are able to make the case to their advertisers that they have a significant amount of influence on their listeners.
Given that, any defense being offered that their negative messages couldn't have possibly played any role in any of those terrible events is a ridiculous argument.
Neither to both.
For those who commit murder, or any crime for that matter, I say try them, convict them, punish them appropriately under the terms of the law, and under the guidance of the Constitution. Our systems says even the most vile criminal is entitled to a trial by jury, and is to be protected against cruel and unusual punishment. I would never call for anything else.
For those who have voiced their opinions and offered their thoughts, whether I agree with them or not, and whether I find their ideas something to be embraced or rejected, I say they are entitled to their Constitutional rights as well.
Nevertheless, so are those who disagree with them. I happen to believe there are many who take their First Amendment guarantees too far when they speak of death panels, coming revolutions, "perfect storms," and warn of other threats based on rumors, lies, and distortions. Too many of them aren't saying, "I disagree with your ideas and beliefs," and instead are running with, "You're wrong, wrong, wrong and a danger to our lives and liberty!"
They can still say those things, of course, but we can push back, protest, and request that their sponsors take their advertising dollars elsewhere. We can also keep testing and challenging their hate filled words and ideas with the hopes that more of their audience will turn away from these people.
Y'know, what we've been doing here.
Jared Loughman commited these murders. Jared Loughman injured 13 other people. This crime is his responsibility. You keep saying you realize this and then go on to further blame other people.
The choice is clear and relevant: Punish people who talk, or punish people who act.
You seem to have difficulty understanding that this is not an either/or world. You again offer a one or the other choice in your last sentence. We've seen similar, black or white, good or evil, I'm always right and you're always wrong arguments coming from our hate mongers and nothing illustrates that better than the flat rejections and denials we've heard from Beck, Limbaugh and others that their words and influence could have possibly played a role in this tragedy even though unintentional.
You also seem to have some comprehension problems as well. I have never argued that Loughman, Roeder, Williams, Poplawski, Oswald, McVeigh, Brutus, Squeaky Fromme, or John Wilkes Booth aren't responsible for the terrible acts they did or attempted to do. But I would argue, in each of their cases, that they embraced an idea that motivated them to commit their crimes. That they seized on to some kind of cause, some type of inspiration that came from an outside source. None of these people woke up one morning and said, "Well, I can kill today, or not kill today." They gave it thought. They planned. They prepared.
You mentioned that individual responsibility is a cornerstone of Conservative philosophy. I would challenge some of these hate mongers who claim to embrace Conservative philosophy to display some of that in this matter and address something else we've heard from many of them; words have consequences.
If given the chance to meet and talk to Barack Obama I would be honored to meet and talk to The President of the United States. I would disagree with nearly everything he has done and nearly everything he beleives in, then I would go brag to all my friends that I met him. Something that would never enter my darkest thoughts would be to assasinate him. Again, I am a civilized person.
The point of this article is to link conservative voices to this heinous act. I contend this is being done for purely political reasons. I contend that this site and others are attempting to punish conservative figures through this action. I think that to lay responsibility at the feet of these conservative figures in order to discredit them releives Loughman of his responsibility. I beleive that because you don't like these conservative figures, you and MMfA and many others wish to accuse these "hate mongers" of the massacre that took place last weekend. Well, I like Rush and Boortz in particular. Beck, Hannity and the rest of them I also agree with most of the time. I listen and I am influenced by them.
I agree that what we call liberals or progressives today are ruining this country. But I would never kill any one execpt to save my own life or the life of someone I love. I would never kill Barney Frank just because I believe, based on info first introduced to me by Rush, that he is the one man most responsible for the recession we are in. I would be sorely tempted to slap Nancy Pelosi, but I would not. Because I am a civilized person.
Jared Loughman is different from me. (and, I assume, you.) He, along with your list of killers, have decided that their way of making a statement in this world is to deny people the right to life. You still claim that you hold Loughman completely responsible for his actions. Yet you still want to put some responsibility on [i]ideas[i] that may or may not have influenced him. I don't care what ideas influenced him. All I care about is that he is punished for his actions. I choose not to punish people who push ideas.
Yes words have consequences. I would suggest you remember that when you describe someone as a hate monger. You never know who may be listening. I am not a hate monger. The people who have helped shape my philosophy are not hate mongers. We are civilized people who deplore the actions of anyone who would deny anyone their natural rights. I would challenge you to ponder individual responsibility. It does not mean one person is responsible for another. It does not mean someone else is responsible for your actions. It means you are responsible for yourself.
I'll take this moment to trot out another line about words that was an influence from my mother. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."
I can respect that you are not a hate monger. I'll make the assumption that you do not rely on any single source for information. I'll even make the guess that you are objective enough to consider points of view you do not embrace.
Nevertheless, I'll point to something that is somewhat disturbing in what you said--that you would be tempted to slap Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps that was just some over the top, colorful language on your part, but given the topic being discussed why was it necessary to mention it? Okay, you don't like Pelosi. Fine. What has she ever done that would merit even a fantasy act of violence? You disagree with her politics, but what has she done other than serve her country, and make efforts to pass legislation for the issues and causes she believes in?
You say you would not actually do that because you are a civilized person. Be that as it may I'm sure you can quickly think of more than a few people you know that do not have the same level of self control.
I'll point your attention again to the list of infamous assassins and would be assassins posted early. Most of those people were and are flakes and nutcases. Low level losers to be sure. But they all believed they were fighting for a cause. They all found ways to rationalize the terrible acts they would take because they would be fighting for a greater good. They all turned to the writings, words, and advice of others to discover justification for doing things that were unjust.
And I'm willing to bet more than a few of them felt they were doing so in an honorable, necessary, responsible manner.
It's not a guy like you listening to Limbaugh, or Beck, or O'Reilly, or Palin, or Hannity that worries me. Words will never hurt you, but I'd bet you encounter your share of those who will use sticks, stones, and worse to break every bone in your body if you would dare to offer a glance he didn't care for.
My point has been and continues to be this; those who make a living offering ideas and viewpoints that influence others cannot say, "I'm completely free from fault," when their ideas and viewpoints cause unintended harm.
If those people truly embrace ideas of personal responsibility they will take the time to consider how their fiery words may have inadvertently contributed to recent terrible events. If all they can offer is denial, and weak examples of, "well, the other side does it, too," they are being shamelessly irresponsible.
Punish Jared Loughner. If you punish him severly enough, perhaps it will make others think twice about a similar course of action. If he got this idea to assainate people from conservative rhetoric, then I for one condemn him. Personnaly I don't think it matters what was in his brain. All I care about is his actions and the consequences of his actions. Words will never bother me.
P.S.- I have never claimed for any reason that because one side does it it is alright for the other.
I have listened to Rush since he has been a national figure and Boortz as long as I can remember. The others I listen to alittle here and there and I prefer to watch Fox News... I have never attempted to assainate anyone. Maybe that's becaused I'm not a deranged attention whore like loughman and I can take responsibility for my own actions. If there is a commentator out there that could drive me to murder it would have to be Olbermann. Man that guy is an idiot.
But do media figures have an influence that can motivate rational people? Of course they do. Nike sells a lot of shoes that carry Michael Jordon's name and image. Does he design those shoes? No. Hell, he retired years ago, but they remain one of their best sellers because he endorses them.
I am suggesting there are a very small number of those deranged, attention whores who are all too eager to find encouragement and inspiration from the words of media personalities seeing them as voices of authority because they're featured on television, radio, the Internet, magazines, or in sports. And, just as there are those who will purchase Michael Jordon's shoes, there are those who will buy into the idea that the nation is in grave danger from those who seek to betray our nation because somebody "important" told them it was so.
And yes, the entire point of this article and your original post is to suggest that conservative talk radio is to blame for this and many other atrocities perpetrated over the years. If you are driven to commit murder by Rush or MJ or olbermann, that is your problem, not theirs.
I've offered an example of the power of influence. No rational person could say I'm equated shoe sales with murder.
And yes. You equated buying shoes because MJ said so with commiting mass murder because Beck said so. That is exactly what you said. And since you decided to insult me for pointing out that is exactly what you said I won't ignore it any more.
It is absolutly tasteless to illustrate your stupid point that this reject in Arizona killed because of Palin and Beck and other conservative voices with an example of advertising from a shoe company and a jock. You are the one who has progressively backed down from your point that "hate mongers" are responsible for this arizona massacre. That is the point of this article and you agree with it.
You are trying futily to place blame on these "hate-filled, right wing," "hate mongers" and you are failing spectacularly. With each passing round in our conversation you back a little father away from this assertion and try to convince me you believe the cretin loughman is fully responsible for his acts while in the next statement ever more delicately trying to pin it on conservative ideas. Just stop it.
Just admit that there is no logical connection between Jared Loughman's killing spree and Conservative ideas and be done with it. All you are doing is playing slimey defense lawyer for this dirtbag and trying to blame someone else for his actions.
Nor have I backed down from the premise I started with when I first posted on this thread, which is the same premise I have offered in similar discussions of the past; those who have a radio, TV, Internet, newspaper, or magazine platform have an undeniable influence over their audience--they would be unable to sell ads if they did not--and there are clear cases where their rhetoric has served as the inspiration for terrible things. Those who offer the ideas that "words have consequences" while speaking of personal responsibility have the obligation to address their personal responsibility when their word have had terrible consequences even when it was inadvertent and unintended.
For the record, I've made no claims of a connection between Loughner's actions and Conservatives. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and a choice few others are not Conservatives. I consider them to be fear and hate mongers using politics for profit. And as far as drawing logical connections to an illogical act, I can point to the Palin sniper scope map that had Giffords' name on it, I can point to the many, many times Glenn Beck has used "shoot in the head," Sharon Angle's hinting at the uses of "Second Amendment remedies," and I can point to countless numbers of vile words being directed at those who voted for the health care reforms, which Giffords did, and the fierce words directed towards those who did not agree with Arizona's anti-immigration law, which Giffords criticized.
There's one more very important point to be made on the subject of how words, acts, images, and deeds can influence people. Sales of Glock pistols, the weapon used in the shooting, have soared in recent days.
Cause and effect are a basic principle in nearly all things in this world. I believe you, and many others, are willfully turning your eyes away from obvious.
Then you write one sentence I don't care to debate. Then here is the rest of your paragraph:
These statements contradict each other. You ARE trying to connect this horrendous act to talk and ideas that YOU don't like.
All the conservative commentators sell advertisments because people listen to them. I agree with a lot of their view points. I am not influenced to murder or any other crime by ANYTHING they have EVER said. The same can be said for millions of other listeners of dozens of conservative voices. To blame this on talk radio and Palin or whoever you don't like is intellectually dishonest.
My suggestion to you and all who think like you:
Send your condolences to the families victimized in this terrible event. Send money or just kind words. Send your support for the prosecution in this case. Send your desire for Jared Loughner to be punished severly. I understand any one who doesn't like the death penalty. I usually don't like it either, but I beleive it is applicable here. Get your political feelings out of it.
Jared Loughman acted alone. Talk did not cause this creature to kill. Rational people do not kill. The cause of this act is a deranged monster with a twisted world view. The cause of this article and all like is political opportunism.
I don't like the immigration reforms the state of Arizona passed. I can respect the opinions of Conservatives who expressed concern for border control. But lines were crossed in this debate when Gov. Brewer made the false, inflammatory claim that headless bodies were being found in the desert.
I favor the health care reforms. I can respect the opinions of Conservatives who are expressed concerns for the costs. But lines were crossed when many made the false, inflammatory claims of "death panels."
Pick any subject that's divided along Liberal and Conservative lines. Whether I agree with the issue or not I can tell you what I recognize as fair questions and valid concerns coming from those I disagree with.
I've offered examples of what I consider to be over the top, inflammatory, irresponsible language coming from those who I do not consider to be Conservatives (The elder Bush, yes, he's a Conservative. Bob Dole, yes, he's a Conservative. Colin Powell, George Will, Joe Scarborough, Eric Cantor, George Voinovich--these are people I consider to be Conservatives), and I've made it very clear as we've traded our thoughts that it's the fiery language, the vilify the other side in the worst possible way tones that I object to.
You're correct; rational people do not kill. I haven't said anything that suggests feeling otherwise. But I'll stand by my observation that irrational people always look for justification, however twisted it may be, before doing terrible things, and I have offered clear examples of those who have done that very thing.
For me it comes down to the influence the hate mongers undeniable have.
Remember, you, yourself, told us you would be tempted to slap Nancy Pelosi. You're a rational person, with self control, and you've admitted such an impulse exists within you. I think that says a great deal about the influence the words and opinions of a select few have had on the way you view things.
Nevertheless, I'm not worried about a person like you who can control their urges. I'm worried about those who can't.
I stopped taking your blog post seriously when you made the terribly foolish claim that David Brock had blackmailed Fox News.
Blackmail is an act where you threaten to reveal some kind of damaging information against someone unless they agree to make a payment of some kind.
Brock's publicly posted letter to Murdoch addressing concerns over the ridiculous, over the top hate language that spews from some of his employees doesn't meet that definition in any way, shape, or form.
You're a follower and a fool who needs to take the very same advice you offer in the very last sentence of your blog.
Regards
MW