In his final day as Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle made a number of comments, including these:
In my opinion, Daschle’s comments were foolish. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that there were some threatening callers. However, I doubt that the callers were inspired by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has criticized Daschle and made fun of him, but absolutely never suggested calling him and certainly never suggested any sort of violence. The only action he generally suggests is voting. Daschle didn’t say how he knew that talk radio or Limbaugh were to blame for the calls.
Second, Daschle looks petty. He’s complaining about some phone calls, while 3000 Americans were killed in horrible ways just a year ago.
Third, the comment sounds self-centered. He’s supposed to be concerned about America’s welfare and the Democratic Party’s welfare. Instead, he’s complaining about phone calls because they came to his office.
Fourth, there’s a chance that Daschle was following some sort of planned attack on talk radio, in which case the entire comment might be questionable. Maybe Daschle felt that he could gain some sort of support or sympathy by portraying himself as a Limbaugh victim. In that case, his whole statement might be exaggerating the problem.
Fifth, Daschle seems to be comparing conservative talk radio to religious fundamentalism, which suggests Islamic terrorists. That’s beyond the pale.
I put this in GD to invite posters to support Daschle or to defend his comments.
I can’t see what this has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that the September 11 attacks have rendered all complaints about lesser issues meaningless? Please. It’s shameful to use those attacks as a political football, especially where an issue as trivial as this one is involved. I’m offended.
I see the Limbaugh response also exploits the 3000 deaths for petty purposes. Well, I’d expect it from Limbaugh. Not from a journalist or even a pundit, but I’d expect it from Limbaugh. And maybe Howard Stern.
Tom Daschle is just a crybaby. Even his voice reeks of “wimp”. Of course Daschle has a right to be upset about the threatening calls, but his blame shift is weak. Limbaugh may be annoying to the left, but he is harmless. I heard Rush’s response today, I thought it was rather funny. I listen to Rush just about everyday. I have never heard anything that could be construed as inciting violence.
How so ? There seem to be some very strong ties between the two groups. Unless you can document the absence of a connection, I’d say that commenting on the unsavory connection twixt Godders and politicians is well within the pale. You’re correct in your assertion that the connection is ugly, but it’s hardly a secret that is, or should be, hidden from the eyes of the world.
I understand how someone who is in lockstep with the thinking that Rush presents in his programs might believe that. But it doesn’t make it true.
I work with two people, both male, who are born-again Christians. They listen to Rush in every waking minute of their lives. They get indoctrinated with his mindset. But what they don’t realize is that Rush is an entertainer. Much of what he says is for effect. It keeps him on the air. And who could blame him.
Now, neither one of these middle-class white males would ever dream of threatening a politician. I know them well enough to say this. But that doesn’t mean that some looney looser who listens to Rush every day for hours doesn’t get the idea to do just what Daschle says has happened.
Is Rush responsible? I think that he, and others like him, who bang their drum day and night, spewing hate speech, ARE responsible. They don’t supply the gun. They don’t drive the car. But they are a main contributory factor.
Squink, it’s not the connection between conservative talk radio and religious fundamentalism that’s silly. It’s the connection between conservative talk radio and TERRORISM that is simply pathetic. He accused Rush Limbaugh of inciting terrorism. Do you agree that Rush Limbaugh incites terrorism?
Again, samclem, Noam Chompsky bangs his drum every day against the US government. He doesn’t supply the gun. He doesn’t drive the car. He doesn’t fly the plane. Is he responsible for terrorist attacks on America? Is he a main contributory factor? Is he part of a conspiracy? If you criticize the US government, are you partial responsible for terrorist attacks on the US government?
It’s a ridiculous concept. And anyway, the right has no monopoly on bombastic speakers. Ever listen to Michael Moore? How about James Carville? Or any number of Hollywood nutbars who run around slandering Bush in public.
And if you wanted to make a claim about someone’s speech harming the Republic, you need go no further than to listen to the endless claims about Bush stealing the election, his presidency being illegitimate, etc. Think that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy about their government?
I should hope it doesn’t make anyone feel warm and fuzzy about their government! But pointing out that the Bush team derailed the American election process is necessary. Where there’s a wrong, you need to point it out. This actually strengthens the republic. It helps us not to do it again. If we pretend that nothing went wrong, what good are we serving?
Limbaugh does harm to the very concept of healthy debate by inciting his listeners with empty, lopsided rhetoric. He’s an entertainer masquerading as a thinker. I wouldn’t want to listen to any shallow, blathering fool—even if he happened to harp on something I agreed with now and again. The people who turn to Rush Limbaugh for political insight are the same kind who turn to Howard Stern for pickup lines.
On the other hand. The fact that Bush actually did steal an election (or rather that daddy stole it for him). And that he really is illigitimate seems to be perfectly fine with the Republicans.
Wait, we’re not debating whether Rush Limbaugh is a shallow blathering fool, Chance. We’re debating whether he incites terrorism. Do you agree that Rush Limbaugh incites terrorism? You veer very close by saying that Rush Limbaugh “incites” his listeners. Could you please explain what you think he “incites” them to do? Does he incite them to commit violence?
**Lemur866—**You know, I meant to mention terrorism in my post, but I forgot. Thanks for catching it; its absence is terribly conspicuous.
To answer your question: no, I don’t feel Rush Limbaugh incites terrorism. I do complain that he harms intelligent debate, which is not necessarily the same thing. While very many all Rush listeners I’ve ever discussed politics with are typically impolite and underinformed, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a terrorist streak in them. Further, I don’t see any link to domestic or international terrorism that can be linked to Limbaugh. Crackpot terrorists like Tim McVeigh and Operation Rescue seem to get their inspiration from other sources. But no, the damage that Limbaugh does is strictly intellectual.
G. Gordon Liddy, on the other hand, with his “aim at their heads” advice… well, that’s closer to the terrorist argument. But not that buffoon Limbaugh, though.
I think your exaggerating a bit. Rush rants can hardly be considered hate speech. Ridicule yes, but not hateful or inciteful. Kooks are kooks, if they don’t get their ideas from Limbaugh or other talk radio hosts they’ll get their inspiration elsewhere. I don’t find Limbaugh responsible for threats on Daschle any more than I find Cutco responsible for a stabbing death.
Do I even need to mention the many times Howard Stern has gotten beautiful women to undress for him on his show?
Fine then. I just wanted to get you to state your opinion. After all, if Daschle is correct then your hateful words could inspire someone to take this debate beyond the verbal to the physical.
So how about you, samclem? Does Rush Limbaugh incite violence? Is Daschle right in blaming him for political violence?
I am sorry to have to burst your little “But Gore Won” bubble but according to this it depends on how the recount was done and what defines ‘acceptable’ votes. Actual votes gives Bush the win while ‘overvotes’ may have given the win to Gore. Now, what is an overvote? It is a vote where someone punched too many holes in the ballot. Was Bush Sr. standing there punching extra holes in ballots for Gore? No, the fact that people make mistakes, or are so stupid they cannot use a simlpe machine, isn’t Bush’s fault.
Next, Daschle comes across as a psycho. Rush, no matter how much you hate the man, does not advocate violence or anything else. Rush puts on a radio show and his aim is to entertain people. Rush gets singled out because he is a conservative. That is the only reason. The fact that people agree with Rush angers those on the left because, well, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a mean, evil, sexist, racist bastard.
According to your own cite it depends only on whether a hand count looked at all of the ballots or not.
In any scenario where all valid ballots are counted, Gore wins. It’s that simple. The only scenario where he doesn’t involves not counting some of the valid ballots. No mind reading required, You can discard all of the spoiled ballots, and any one in which the intent of the voter is not crystal clear, and Gore still wins.
Certainly it isn’t Bush’s fault that far more spoiled ballots were in Democratic counties than on Republican ones, but it is his fault that the some of unspoiled ballots in many counties were never even looked at until well after the election was over.
Nothing confers illigitimacy like subverting the will of the people.
Daschle’s got a right to feel that the hate mongers like Limbaugh encouage assassination attempts against him like the anthrax sent to his office if he wants to. And he has a right to say it out loud.
“Who cares what you think?” George W. Bush July 4, 2001
Of course Daschle has a right to be upset about the threatening calls, but his blame shift is weak. Limbaugh may be annoying to the left, but he is harmless. I heard Rush’s response today, I thought it was rather funny. I listen to Rush just about everyday. I have never heard anything that could be construed as inciting violence.