By Hanlon, on August 10th, 2009 at 09:04 AM
Robert Gibbs says what we’ve all been thinking.
I know the president feels strongly that we can discuss these issues without personally maligning… that we are doing so in a way that respects the dignity of each individual. I think anytime you make references to what happened in Germany in the 30′s and 40′s, I think you are talking about an event that has no equivalent. And I think anytime anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they are on thin ice, and it is best not employed.
But I think what the most important thing is, is that we can have a discussion in our democracy about where we want to go. The president strongly believes we can do so without yelling at each other, pushing at each other or degrading each other. We have seen some stuff, I mentioned it a week ago, we have all seen imagery that just shocks and surprises us and I think the best thing to do is just take that temperature down a bit.
By the way, in case anyone around you bitches that Gibbs is trying to censor free speech or something like that (as opposed to obviously calling for decency), just remind them of Ari Fleischer.
By Hanlon, on June 11th, 2009 at 11:03 PM
 Let’s make this pretty clear: there is probably nothing more awkward than having to deal with someone from your “team” going batshit crazy. If you’re organizing a protest of, say, unfair business practices at the local Wal-Mart, it’s incredibly difficult to find an easy way to explain why one of the protesters decided he could totally one-up everyone by burning the whole damn building down.
Over the past few months, we’ve seen cops killed by a guy who was terrified Obama was going to take his guns, an abortion doctor gunned down, and a Holocaust museum shot up by a guy who posted on FreeRepublic. Sorta takes one back to the fury over the DHS report warning of right-wing extremists, doesn’t it?
Now, no one is suggesting that any of these guys represent mainstream conservatism or the majority of the Republican Party. For that matter, no one is even saying these guys represent a sizable chunk of the right. What has been said, however, is that right-wing rhetoric has reached fever pitch to the point that the fringe elements of the party are going to start taking calls for “revolution” seriously, resulting in what we’re seeing now.
The response to these events has been almost frighteningly childish. To see what I mean, let me show you what Keith Olbermann said when a man went after Bill O’Reilly at his home. This was after Olbermann had railed Bill-O himself for having harassed Stark.
But, no. Not acceptable. Whatever you think of him, whatever threats he’s made, whatever threat he represents, whether or not he would happily go to your home or his sheep would happily come to mine, no matter how he has had his employees stalk politicians or newspaper reporters there is a line and the good guys are not supposed to cross it. Same if it’s Ann Coulture, same if it’s Melanie Morgan, same if it’s Rush Limbaugh. Leave them alone in private. In public …
This is what’s called “being an adult”. You recognize that this man was, at least nominally, on your side of the fence, you acknowledge it, and make sure that you in no way condone such acts.
The right, oddly, appears incapable of this. In the wake of the various shootings, there has been the general response and the specific one. In the most general response, the almost overwhelming line has been that “well he wasn’t really influenced by anything, he’s just a crazy guy!” Indeed, that caused a Muslim writer to notice that while a Muslim terrorist’s motivations are laid bare, Dr Tiller’s murderer is considered just a loon with a gun. They begin to distance themselves from the situation by just saying that he wasn’t influenced by anything.
Step two is more specific: go on the defensive to absolutely absurd levels. Be it conservatives blaming Obama, or Limbaugh saying van Brunn was a “leftist”, or Bill O’Reilly squealing about how the media is “smearing” him by pointing out his rhetoric, the right refuses to even acknowledge that their words might have had something to do with any of these people going off their nut. Not only that, but pointing it out redoubles their rage, making the problem worse still.
Any one of these people, in fact any conservative talker with any weight (or for that matter, any of the big-time pro-life advocates) could have instantly, instantly, defused the situation by sitting down, looking straight into a camera, and saying something like the following:
While our views concerning (Dr Tiller, Barack Obama, liberals) have been very clear, what I want to emphasize is that we in no way condone violence. My words are not advocacy of murder, of assault, of terrorism. What this man did was abhorrent, and neither I nor any of my colleagues in any way condone such actions. It is wrong. No matter how much we disagree with (Jews, the ACLU, bloggers), we must remember that they are Americans just as we are.
To be honest, it doesn’t even need to be that eloquent. The point would be to acknowledge that this was an example of the far, far fringe of the ideology but emphasize that they do not represent the group as a whole nor is their presence desired.
It wouldn’t be that hard, and it would prove that there’s at least one grown-up amongst their ranks. So far all we’ve got is temper tantrums and name-calling.
By Hanlon, on April 18th, 2009 at 05:29 PM
By Hanlon, on April 7th, 2009 at 08:33 PM
 So a lot happened today that made me dang happy that I’m sitting on the left side of the aisle.
First up, Obama made his way to Iraq in his first visit as president and did us proud. Strong language, warm welcome, the works.
Things really got interesting though when the right-wing slowly began to collapse in front of us. Take your pick, internal or external forced. Internal you say? Sure. Everyone’s favorite lunatic on the radio, Michael Savage (a guy who at least is intended to be as much shock-jock as politician) tore his cheap imitator, Glenn Beck, a new asshole on his show. As in, called him a “hemorrhoid with eyes”.
On another radio show, a more popular and thus more problematic one, a caller phoned in to embarrass Rush Limbaugh, prompting the windbag to launch into the strangest tirade I’ve heard in a while.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama is president of the United States today because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do. You pose — you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has. You think you know everything. You don’t know diddly-squat.
You call me a Nazi? You call me somebody who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You know, you’re just plain embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn’t surprise me that you’re the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you’re no Republican at all based on what the hell you’ve said here.
Charles, a Marine Corps and Army veteran, criticized Limbaugh over “Operation Chaos” and his apologist attitude toward torture (for Rush’s claiming to not support torture, let’s not forget his glib comments about Abu Ghraib). So, according to Rush, you’re not a Republican unless you’re totally behind political hackery and torture. That’s what the party’s about, folks. Oh and apparently everyone that voted for Obama (aka “the majority of Americans”) is stupid and ignorant. Cool.
Then, to round things out, Joe Biden decided it was high time to go after Cheney for his “made America less safe” comments.
Q: Was Dick Cheney out of line?
VP BIDEN: I don’t think he was out of line, but he was dead wrong. This administration left us in a weaker posture than at any time since World War II — less regarded in the world, stretched more thinly than we ever had been in the past, two wars under way, virtually no respect in entire parts of the world.
So yeah. Good day for the liberals!
By Will, on April 6th, 2009 at 02:45 PM
Reports from the Pittsburgh shooting claim that the gunman was an anti-Obama gun nut, and that the shooting was at least partially driven by that. Predictably, nuts like Michelle Malkin are already in full defensive mode, just like they were after the immigration center shooting in Binghamton last week. Curiously, the first time I heard any hint that the immigration center shooting was part of any particular political blame game was from Malkin, just now; it didn’t occur to me that this specific incident was anything more than violent insanity until she got defensive over it. And, of course, there was the Unitarian church shooting last year, which produced similar defensive responses from groups like Newsbusters. Once again, there were reports of the gunman being a right-wing nutjob who hated liberals. In fact, according to one of the investigators on the case, the gunman “stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of the major media outlets.”
Let me make one thing clear: I am in no way advocating censorship, or implying that any of the right-wing talking heads currently out there should be silenced. These are mad actions taken by mad men and I will not say that any of the pundits are actively promoting those actions or condoning them in any form. However, this is starting to become a trend. I will gladly risk a bullet if it means everyone has a chance to speak. To say that the events are entirely unrelated, though, is to ignore some very clear connections.
On one hand, I don’t want to attribute acts of violence to the bullshiat rhetoric people like Malkin, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh put out. They say horrible shit, but they should have the right to say it. The people who actually commit these acts of violence are unhinged, and I doubt it was just some ranting that pushed them over the edge.
Read More ->
Reports from the Pittsburgh shooting claim that the gunman was an anti-Obama gun nut, and that the shooting was at least partially driven by that. Predictably, nuts like Michelle Malkin are already in full defensive mode, just like they were after the immigration center shooting in Binghamton last week. Curiously, the first time I heard any hint that the immigration center shooting was part of any particular political blame game was from Malkin, just now; it didn’t occur to me that this specific incident was anything more than violent insanity until she got defensive over it. And, of course, there was the Unitarian church shooting last year, which produced similar defensive responses from groups like Newsbusters. Once again, there were reports of the gunman being a right-wing nutjob who hated liberals. In fact, according to one of the investigators on the case, the gunman “stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of the major media outlets.”
Let me make one thing clear: I am in no way advocating censorship, or implying that any of the right-wing talking heads currently out there should be silenced. These are mad actions taken by mad men and I will not say that any of the pundits are actively promoting those actions or condoning them in any form. However, this is starting to become a trend. I will gladly risk a bullet if it means everyone has a chance to speak. To say that the events are entirely unrelated, though, is to ignore some very clear connections.
On one hand, I don’t want to attribute acts of violence to the bullshiat rhetoric people like Malkin, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh put out. They say horrible shit, but they should have the right to say it. The people who actually commit these acts of violence are unhinged, and I doubt it was just some ranting that pushed them over the edge.
Read More ->
By Hanlon, on March 12th, 2009 at 10:08 AM
They picked “Americans didn’t vote for a Rush to failure”. Seriously, that’s just bad. It’s like the DNC had a hard-on for puns, because something like “We support our president” would have been a lot more biting.
By Hanlon, on March 4th, 2009 at 05:58 PM
 This is the last thing I will write on this man and the current situation surrounding him, because frankly it’s all I have left to say. I make it a point not to give a new article for everything that comes out of the guy’s mouth, but this rash of media and political attention on the guy warrants a little more of such from me.
The Democrats have the right idea in tying Republicans to El Rush-bo, and it’s important to realize who the actual target of the campaign is. It’s not on Limbaugh, it’s the Republicans themselves. Rush is going to do what Rush does, as his latest rampage exhibits, and say that the reason Democrats are using him is because without Bush, they need a new “demon” and have selected him.
Swing and a miss.
Rush is playing straight into the Dems’ hands, this much is obvious. From the moment Tim Kaine sent out his release announcing the new “Party of Rush” campaign, one thing was a given: Rush himself was in no way going to back down, button his lip, or do anything to make life easier for the Republicans. He’s even promoting the “apologize to Rush” webpage. This is good for the Democrats because the louder and angrier he gets, the tougher the next move for Republicans becomes. They have to either affiliate themselves with the voice of hate and opposition, or incur the ire of the most powerful voice in political punditry.
The little secret, though, is that as much as Rush is playing into the Democrats’ hands, the Democrats are playing right into Rush’s. This is for one simple reason: Rush Limbaugh’s career is not contingent upon the success of the Republican Party. If the past few months have shown anything, the opposite in fact may be true.
Read More ->
This is the last thing I will write on this man and the current situation surrounding him, because frankly it’s all I have left to say. I make it a point not to give a new article for everything that comes out of the guy’s mouth, but this rash of media and political attention on the guy warrants a little more of such from me.
The Democrats have the right idea in tying Republicans to El Rush-bo, and it’s important to realize who the actual target of the campaign is. It’s not on Limbaugh, it’s the Republicans themselves. Rush is going to do what Rush does, as his latest rampage exhibits, and say that the reason Democrats are using him is because without Bush, they need a new “demon” and have selected him.
Swing and a miss.
Rush is playing straight into the Dems’ hands, this much is obvious. From the moment Tim Kaine sent out his release announcing the new “Party of Rush” campaign, one thing was a given: Rush himself was in no way going to back down, button his lip, or do anything to make life easier for the Republicans. He’s even promoting the “apologize to Rush” webpage. This is good for the Democrats because the louder and angrier he gets, the tougher the next move for Republicans becomes. They have to either affiliate themselves with the voice of hate and opposition, or incur the ire of the most powerful voice in political punditry.
The little secret, though, is that as much as Rush is playing into the Democrats’ hands, the Democrats are playing right into Rush’s. This is for one simple reason: Rush Limbaugh’s career is not contingent upon the success of the Republican Party. If the past few months have shown anything, the opposite in fact may be true.
Read More ->
By Will, on March 2nd, 2009 at 09:49 PM
 Hanlon already summarized this pathetic display, but I’d just like to chime in. We keep hearing that Rush is an entertainer, that he doesn’t represent the GOP, that he portrays an extreme side of the Republican party and the conservative movement, and that what he says shouldn’t be considered as representative of the GOP or its policy positions.
We keep hearing that he’s no different than Michael Moore, or Keith Olbermann, or Markos Moulitsas.
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
Next time you hear something like that, remember that two days after condemning him, the chairman of the GOP was cowed into saying that about Rush Limbaugh. Now ask if Howard Dean or Tim Kaine would ever be pressured into saying the same thing about Moore, Olbermann, or Moulitsas after saying that their beliefs didn’t reflect the DNC’s policies.
“Entertainer?” Bullshit. He’s the face and voice of the Republican party, and that’s just fucking disgusting.
By Hanlon, on March 2nd, 2009 at 08:34 PM
 I really, really wish I could say that this is unexpected, but it’s totally not. After a whopping few days of back-and-forth, RNC Chairman Michael Steele completely crumpled under the pressure and not only retracted his statements, but called Rush up to apologize personally.
Enjoy.
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in an interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
…
“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele told Politico. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”
I want to look, specifically, at one part of what he said, in bigger, bolder letters.
“There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
That’s right. “Leadership”. In 2009, Rush Limbaugh is not simply a popular radio personality, he is a leader amongst conservatives and if you cross him, you must bow down and beg forgiveness before he sends his minions after you. The party of the people is the party of one man, Rush Limbaugh.
Honestly, it’s like they hand-crafted some ammunition for the Democrats to use in the effort to make Rush Limbaugh seem like he represents the entire party. Now we’re at a point where you can’t even say Rush said something mean or that he’s not actually in politics (he’s not, he never graduated college either). A Republican dares to cross the mighty Rush and it’s a mere days before they come crawling back.
Honestly this is even better than if Rush apologized. Way better. Be prepared for the commercials.
By Hanlon, on March 1st, 2009 at 05:27 PM
You know, I had my doubts that the “glue Rush to Republicans” strategy would work, but as always I think I gave those guys way too much credit. A diarist on DailyKos peeped out the reaction to Michael Steele and Eric Cantor speaking up against the Rushtafarian and the results were as ugly as they were hilarious.
HEY STEELE
Country and free marktets are going to hell in a handbasket WHEN IS THE TIME TO BE INCENDIARY? When its %*$ Gulags for Conservatives?
Thats it I am leaving the party.
Limbaugh and other limited government folks are drawing a line in the sand.
The Republican Party whores like Steele do not want lines. Instead they want to transcend across ideological plains with the hyper-collectivist who constantly play them like a Stradivarius.
I think Steele might be a Dem plant to destroy the GOP from the inside.
A little racism just because.
Gee Michael, maybe your BROTHERS will share a spliff w/you later. How pathetic to cave so they can say your bright. He thinks your a wimp and he’s right.
Frankly, I wouldn’t take this too seriously. Steele will be glad to have Rush on his side when the time comes. This is, to be honest, a black guy talking ya-ya with other black guys and that kind of “dialog” never yields anything terribly useful.
Then the beginnings of the assault on Cantor.
We need to start a Rebel Republican movement to drag the GOP our way. Or perhaps its time for the Turd Party? What have we got to lose?
Pray for America, Our Troops and obama’s Failure
There’s also RedState rage, people flipping out and making hilarious conspiracy theories like Stephanopolous actually plotting with Rahm Emmanuel and Obama having “dirt” on everyone to keep them quiet.
Folks, meet the base. When you talk about the conservative base, the deeply-rooted right-wing, the guys that still gave Bush high marks at the end of his presidency, this is who they are and this is what they talk about and this is how they think. There is no such thing as working with the other side, they are the literal enemy. The party is growing smaller and denser as these people become more and more hateful, more and more victimized in their minds, and more and more vociferous in their opposition to anything that even whiffs of the left.
To be honest, I totally support the idea of these people forming their own party. Go for it. I’d absolutely love to see the GOP break in half. Democrats would, within an election, latch onto an 80% majority.
|
|
|
