I drove from Michigan to Ft. Myers last month. I heard religious shows, country and western music, and right wing talk shows. When you drove near a college town or big city ,you had more variety. But once you left, it was all righty all the time.
There is no equivalency.
Erick Erickson called David Souter a “goat fucking child molester”. Olbermann seems tame in comparison.
Still, the point is (for this thread) that none of Olbermann’s commentary rises to the level of Beck fantasizing about choking Michael Moore to death. Or Erick Erickson calling for mass bloodshed if Roe is not overturned. Or Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload”. Or Sharon Angle suggesting if Congress does not change (to her liking) Americans need to consider 2nd Amendment remedies and that the first thing they need to do is take Harry Reid out. Or Michele Bachmann wanting her constituents “armed and dangerous” because they “need to fight back”.
I cited upthread that the Secret Service has seen a 400% increase in threats to the President over what they saw when Bush was president. The people above, among others, are creating a climate where the solution to our problems is violence. The people above are not some fringe hacks. They are front and center. Bet you never heard of the Tides Foundation (I sure hadn’t) till Byron Williams was caught (after a shootout with police) and they learned he planned to go to the Tides Foundation offices and kill people because Glenn Beck spun a wholly made-up conspiracy theory about them on his show.
If Beck had fantasized on his show about choking you (godix) to death would that make you worried for your safety?
Olbermann and Beck are not two sides of the same coin.
Too bad he didn’t say that on air at CNN. The standard apology then firing would have been amusing to watch. I can picture it now, “I’m sorry I said goat fucking child molester. I in no way meant to imply children are goats. On the other hand, ya know what kids means don’t you?”
Tell me, why is it that a democrat who was elected gets dismissed as not prominent yet other then Beck or Erickson (who I honestly had never heard of until you mentioned him), Republicans who are ‘prominent’ for running for elected office and failing count?
And the entire 400% is because of Republicans. Plain old racism, which has plenty of ignorant morons from all political stripes, doesn’t play a role in that at all? My my, astounding how people can tell exactly what the motive for threats are these days. You’d think perhaps people would question that considering how quick, and wrong, ascribing motive for the Tuscon shooting was.
Actually, yes they are fringe hacks. You know how you can tell? They did not win. Republicans en mass didn’t support them. Especially noteworthy is that Angle did not win despite how Reid was predicted to be doomed before she hopped in. Compare to mr ‘line republicans against the wall and shot them’ who WAS supported by Democrats. Enough so that he won. So it would appear that mainstream democrats actively support calls for violence while mainstream republicans reject it.
How does that follow? They won their primaries. Honest question: are we going on the assumption that the fringe drives primary selection and the “mainstream” drive the general election result? I suppose I could see that in select cases, although it doesn’t necessarily follow.
I’ve never heard of Erickson either, but then I’ve never heard of Piven or quite a lot of other people being dredged up so maybe I’m just out of the loop.
Originally, when Erickson was just running Red State, I’d dismiss him as a hack spewing his crap just like anyone with a computer can. For some reason (probably low ratings at CNN) the folks at CNN decided to use him as a commentator on their shows. This lends the CNN imprimatur to Erickson and unfortunately elevates his credibility. As such I think he counts. And remember CNN will use him for analysis tonight for the President’s State of the Union address. Not what I would call below the radar at CNN.
Are you referring to Kanjorski? So you found one guy? One? Did you know he lost his election and is no longer in Congress? Till you dug him up had you ever even heard his name before? I sure hadn’t.
Racism is a distinctly in the realm of conservatives and not liberals. Doubtless there are racist liberals out there somewhere but you’ll need to do more work to convince me racism is as alive and well among liberals as it is conservatives.
More to the point, you have no idea how much that 400% increase is due to racism alone. I seem to recall people here on this Board strenuously arguing against the notion that racism is an important factor in the dislike for Obama. Here’s one such thread that you participated in.
So, are you now saying it is really all about the racism? Or at least to a significant degree?
Kanjorski did not win but you tossed him out (I think it was him) and then berate me for pointing out candidates who lost? Who the hell ever heard of Kanjorski? You know who I did hear about? Sharron Angle (and I do not live in Nevada). Know who is still in congress? Michele Bachmann. Know who is considering a run for president in 2012? Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
And that doesn’t even take into account the pundits.
Oh yeah, know who is no longer on MSNBC? Keith Olbermann (he left last Friday).
I hope you got more than Kanjorski and Olbermann because if not you are firmly in false equivalency land.
Whether you’ve heard of them or not is irrelevant: what’s relevant is how many people have. Is this Eric Erickson someone with a huge listener base? That’s what’s important when you’re talking about rhetoric.
This is instructive, because it’s the exact opposite of the truth. Kanjorski was re-elected many, many times. He won his primary. THEN he made his obnoxious statement–and guess what happened? If you guessed that he got kicked out of office at the earliest opportunity, you guessed right. (Edit: never mind that your paraphrase in quote marks is terrible, given that he called for a specific, purportedly corrupt politician to be shot, not all Republicans–the point is that Democrat says something obnoxious and immediately gets kicked out of office).
And in case my earlier sarcasm was too subtle (Gyrate, I amuse myself, that’s what counts), I’m glad you agreed to the boycott plan. Whew, that was easy! Now that we liberals did our part, and Air America and Olbermann are both finished, we’ll sit back and wait for conservatives to step up equally.
That’s the conventional wisdom. Head hard right/left to win the primary, drive to the middle to win the election. I wasn’t aware that was a controversial or new observation. I know I’ve been hearing it as a complaint about the primary system ever since I had become politically aware.
He was elected. Later he lost, but at one point Democrats did indeed elect him. Perhaps people knew what he was like when they elected him, perhaps not. Either way, the point is an elected US Congressman called for murder. I believe an intellectually honest response would be along the lines of ‘alright, so the problem exists in the left as well, we aren’t gone to change the tone of public discourse by focusing only on one side then’. That’s not the response I’m seeing on the dope though. Instead, the dope is handwaving it away as if it’s meaningless, liberals are angels, and over the top rhetoric is solely a right wing problem. To which, for the third time, I gotta say I ain’t buying that bullshit.
No. Just no. Violent racism is distinctly the wacko fucking fringe. Anyone who would send a death letter because of skin color does not represent conservatives or liberals, regardless of what they may claim or wish for. Do not make these people happy by elevated their violent racism to the mainstream. It is the wacko fucking fringe and it should damned well stay the wacko fucking fringe.
No I don’t. But I also don’t have any idea how much of that 400% increase is due to over the top statements by the likes of Beck/Palin. If people want to make the claim that the 400% increase is because of them, they need to present some proof because there are other equally valid possibilities to explain the rise.
I haven’t seen evidence that his statement is what cost him the election, but alright. If you care to interpret it that way then feel free.
As for Angle or other failed politicians being more prominent than mr ‘up against the wall’, have you considered why Angle, Bachmann, etc are more known? It’s because the media made a circus out of them because of their statements. It’s not a sign that Angle and so on are worse for violent rhetoric, it’s a sign that they were elevated for it while others who have said equally bad things were not. It’s a sign that reporting is the issue far more than which side is more or less violent.
And before anyone says it, I’m not going down the media is liberal road. I’m going down the media is narrative road, and currently the narrative is conservative comments. Any story of incivility that doesn’t match that gets tossed, which is why none of us have heard much about mr ‘firing squad’. The same way, to use a non-political example, several years ago the narrative was sharks and any shark attack got heavy play even though they were actually less attacks than normal that year.
No, I caught it. Although I suspect Olbermann will be back when he finds a channel to suck up to his ego as much as he wants. Still, I’m perfectly willing boycott Fox and conservative radio shows. In true slacktivism style, I don’t listen/watch those anyway so it costs me nothing to agree…
Read up on it: his opponent hammered this quote home repeatedly leading up to the guy’s defeat. It might not have been the sole reason, but it definitely played into things.
First, that’s a ridiculous link to the name. You paraphrased him poorly and misleadingly. Don’t hide behind “It’s a nickname.” Own up to it and move on.
Second, Michele Bachman founded the House Tea Party Caucus. The Tea Party has been major news for two years now. That’s why she’s prominent. She’s considering a run for the White House. That’s why she’s prominent.
Sharon Angle is prominent because she was running on the Tea Party ticket in a high-profile race, and because she continuously said absurd and violent things. Kanjorski said one thing that was obnoxious that I’ve seen, and apologized for it. She never apologized, nor did her insane supporters.
Again, nonsense. What we don’t tend to hear about is off-the-cuff remarks from political nobodies for which people make quick apologies. WHat we do tend to hear about are patterns of grotesque remarks, or off-the-cuff remarks from people who are very high profile.
Given his statement, I find it a perfectly fine use. The same as if someone referred to Beck/Palin as some jackass with too much hair gel or some airheaded bimbo with a TV show is perfectly fine because they’re based on what the person’s actual behavior/statements. I’m not trying to disown that I did it. Interesting how no one complains when Palin/Beck get that treatment, but use dismissive terms about a Democrat…
Yes. Exactly. The Tea Party has been major news. The media choose to pick up on the Tea Party, because lets face it, they do make the news entertaining. It’s not because of what the tea party has done, after all Libertarians have a party and have been running for the White House for decades but they rarely get on TV. By now the tea party is like paris hilton, they’re famous for little more than being famous. And that is what got them prominent. Not any actual achievements, but just that the media choose to highlight what they say and to ignore others who say the same sort of thing.
Basically, liberals went crazy over tea party comments and ignored when Democrats did the same thing. And that’s why we all know second amendment remedies but not line him against the wall and shoot him. It’s not because one comment is worse than the other, it’s because internet, talking head shows, etc chose to focus only on one of them. Then you decide that this example of confirmation bias is somehow proof that liberals don’t say over the top rhetoric and the problem is ONLY conservatives. Somehow, this circular chain of logic of whine about something till it’s prominent then dismiss similar statements because you have chosen to not whine about them until they’re prominent is supposed to prove that liberals aren’t as bad as conservatives? Riiiiiiight.
To be fair, conservatives do the same shit. That we know who Bill Ayers is or Beck’s crusade against the lady who’s name I forget loan assistance comments is proof*. But liberals do the so outraged they push it to prominence thing better than conservatives, at last currently.
Regardless of all this, people on all sides are guilty of spewing bile. If you choose to dismiss when liberals do it, simply because liberals have thrown such a shitfit about it that it’s considered ‘prominent’, then you’re never going to get anywhere in the quest for civility.
- Yes, I know her comments were taken wildly out of context. Spare me the links. It’s just an offhand example of confirmation bias in what to focus on from the right, similar to what liberals are doing with the tea party. I’m not saying loan assistance lady actually did anything wrong.
A politician who won an election and served in the US congress is a ‘political nobody’, yet several politicians who never won office, in fact they lost quite badly precisely because of their over the top comments, are high profile. It doesn’t strike you as kinda weird when people consider winners as nobodies and losers are high profile?
Actually, I owe you a half-apology. I mistakenly was conflating his actual statement, which you correctly tarred him with, to your terrible paraphrase above, which you really oughtta refudiate.
I maintain that linking to wikipedia’s page about nicknames is absurd.
This is false. The media picked up on the Tea Party because they were essentially kicked off by a Fox News pundit (Glen Beck), majorly promoted by that network, and became a major force in the 2010 election. They’re not famous for being famous, they’re famous for sweeping in a Republican tide.
The difference between the Tea Party and the Libertarians is that the Libertarians are singularly unsuccessful at getting anyone into office.
Nonsense.
I’ve shown you many differences between these examples; the only “Riiiiiight” that’s appropriate is a sarcastic rejoinder to this totally inaccurate summary of the differences.
No, it doesn’t, because we’re discussing rhetoric. People with a bigger podium are more relevant in the discussion, not people with more legislative power.
And it was never liberals who made idiots like Sharon Angle prominent. The day after she announced her candidacy,
In June, she was favored to beat the Senate Majority Leader. Suggesting that the media made her high-profile to fit some kind of narrative is rank revisionism.
Pssst… folks, take a look at this dude’s profile, and pay attention to his favorite quotes.
Ask yourself who’s REALLY cheering and egging on violence.
Here’s another (don’t have to wait long for these to crop up):
Whilst I — obviously, living in another country; and less obviously wouldn’t if I were not — have never heard Mr. Beck nor read anything by him ( not to mention that he is confessedly outrageous to liberals not through conviction but for the money ), I think that’s pretty damn funny.
He’s being droll, and the laid-back irony on religious imperative is rather a giveaway. If one substituted Bush for Moore, liberals would see the joke.
If you could be bothered to read or view any of his other rantings to put that statement in context, you would not find it “droll”, “laid back” or “ironic.”
Or “funny.”
Byron Williams apparently did not see Beck’s brand of insanity as “droll”.