This article gives more detail on Daschle’s comments.
And how is the 2000 election relevant to whether Rush Limbaugh incites political violence? The question is, is Daschle right that Rush Limbaugh bears some sort of responsiblity, or is Daschle a big idiot? If Rush Limbaugh incites political violence, what do you think should be done about it? Should he be arrested? What crime should he be charged with?
samclem- What “hate speech” has Rush Limbaugh made? I wouldn’t think his sponsors would put up with that for long.
See, this is the kind of hyperbole that gets the left in trouble, if anything has infected discourse this is it. Say what you mean, mean what you say and have the facts to back it up. How can these guys you work with listen to Rush “every waking minute of their lives” or anything even close? After news and commercial breaks, the man is on the air two hours and six minutes each day. 1/4 of the working day. 1/12 of the day. Now, if these guys are only awake for two hours in the middle of the afternoon, then maybe you’re right. If they’re not, why not tell the truth? They listen to Rush regularly.
Similarly, why can’t Daschle tell the truth? I find it highly unlikely that any of the alleged threatening callers (how do we even know that these threats exist, anyway?) identified themselves as Rush Limbaugh listeners. What is there, exactly, to support his great leap of logic? Nothing. Limbaugh was a convenient target, and by not making a direct accusation of malfeasance against him, Daschle was able to get in a nasty, cheap parting shot without exposing himself to a slander suit. Slick. Appalling, but slick.
And more hyperbole. Can you give an example via actual documentable quote of some of that hate speech? I’d normally dismiss such a challenge as being untenable right from jump, but I’m going to give you a chance to try.
(It will be quite fun to watch you dodge the question or offer up something that you can’t reasonably sell as hate speech or can’t legitimately cite.)
—He’s complaining about some phone calls, while 3000 Americans were killed in horrible ways just a year ago.—
Now that’s some stunning logic: “I hit this girl the other day, and she just started whining. How could she think of herself when 3000 people died just a year ago?”
—We’re debating whether he incites terrorism. Do you agree that Rush Limbaugh incites terrorism?—
As usual with december’s posts, I’m afraid I don’t get that out of Daschle’s comments.
First of all, december cuts out Daschles response to the actual question of whether the media plays a direct role in the increase in threats and personal invective: “No, I’m saying that the media plays a role in creating this foment, in creating this – this extraordinary emotional fervor that is sometimes not – not contained and, therefore, then leads to other – other actions that are outside the control of anybody in the media or anybody in politics.”
What I get is him attacking people like Rush that their rhetoric is extremely personal and often outrageous: it demonizes people and encourages knee-jerk hatred for the other side that is pretty scary. It’s factually sloppy and pure scorched earth, not honest political criticism. Can anyone here honestly deny that this sort of phenomenon has no effect on the country’s attitudes? It’s not new, but this is certainly a new wave, via a new medium.
And sure, it’s on both sides. Daschle is criticizing Rush because that’s who attacks him: someone on the right could make the same point, just as validly, about someone like Michael Moore. That he doesn’t certainly demonstrates that he’s mad about it when it gets directed at him and he’s preoccupied with his own concerns, which is certainly a double standard. But it’s simply bullshit to pretend that this is an excuse for the behavior, or even makes the criticism itself invalid.
Spinsanity has had a good handle on this: they criticize those who use this sort of rhetoric, and then criticize those who use it back: without playing the ridiculous “it’s okay as long as they do it too” bullplop.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021120.html
So it’s not a matter of inciting violence itself, and Daschle doesn’t say that it is (which is what I find so slimy about posters here who launch directly into responding to that unspoken claim as if that WAS what Daschle said).
I’ve read over Daschle’s comments, and I have to say, I agree with him on everything but the comparison to religious fanatics: though I can’t say I disagree with him there either (it’s just too easy to ). And not that he hasn’t been guilty of the same sort of rhetoric and spin himself sometimes (though certianly nowhere on the level and polish of Rush). But I’m not exactly sure what everyone thinks is so illegitimate about this statement.
Rush, of course, just takes it as a pretext to do exactly the same thing. Read Rush’s response. Seriously. And please tell me where in Daschle’s statement are all the things about blaming Rush for “losing the election?” Where is the “So they pull out this old pattern of blaming you idiot Michigan Militia types who are supposedly the only ones who listen to talk radio – despite my audience being well over 20 million strong.” Where does Daschle say that Rush “sit[s] there and encourage[s] anyone to call or write their leaders?” Indeed, Rush’s response include the same false charge he’s made against Daschle before about Daschle’s criticism of Bush’s statements. Rush is right: the Democrats didn’t criticize those that demonized Republicans hard enough. But how does that possibly justify quid pro quo? If we want to criticize the Democrats hypocrisy, we have to criticize this sort of thing when BOTH sides do it. Rush may feel justified in gloating now that he’s on top… but he’s certianly doing no better with his pulpit in terms of honesty or integrity than those he’s replaced.
Indeed, as is usual with WND, it isn’t even explained where Daschle made these statements, or what the interviewers actual questions were. Did WND call him up and ask for his opinion? Did he say it on the Senate floor? Did he call a press conferance?
Of course Limbaugh “bears some responsibility”. He’s a friggin muckraker. He appeals to the lowest common denominator of his audience, many of whom are compleat idiots who misinterpret whatever he says in terms of their own, even baser, instincts. Perhaps some of the wiser conservatives, such as december, and even a few of us libbies see the humor in his polemics, but rousing the rabble, as he and his ilk do, is not a morally neutral act. Rush is well within his rights to speak as he does, but that doesn’t make him any less of an ass. Would you pubbies have it made illegal to call a conservative on that point ? The patriot act certainly seems to aim at putting the administration above such “unamerican” criticism.
So Squink, Rush Limbaugh DOES incite people to commit violence. But then you say that he is within his rights to do so. No. It is a crime to incite violence. It is a crime to urge others to commit a crime. You can’t have it both ways. Either Rush Limbaugh incites people to commit crimes, which is a crime in itself, or he doesn’t.
Do you hold that criticizing, mocking, demeaning, or denouncing public figures incites other people to commit violence against them? If so, isn’t that criminal behavior?
I also work with people who listen to him, the idea that he is just entertainment is laughable.
However, I came to report a more disturbing note: a week after the elections he was presenting to the sheep the next big target: moderate republicans. They are really liberals you know :rolleyes: and it looks like that “point” will be blasted to the minds of those listeners 5 days a week from now on; this is a warning to all thinking conservatives * :
You are next.
-
december, you should not worry.
—Do you hold that criticizing, mocking, demeaning, or denouncing public figures incites other people to commit violence against them? If so, isn’t that criminal behavior?—
Squink may or may not think Rush does so: does Daschle? Does Daschle actually even compare Rush to Islamic terrorists, as the article says he does?
Wrong. The overvotes which were legal under Fl. law, but which were not counted, were those ballots which had a check by the candidate’s name, and then the same name written on the line which said “Write in candidate’s name.” There was no question about the “intent of the voter-” it was clear. The problem was that the machines which counted the votes rejected them. Read about it here.
True, this is OT, but that does not mean that we should simply accept false information without comment.
JDM
If you can’t have it both ways, then you need to choose between a police state where no dissent is tolerated and complete anarchy. Your pedantic lawyering of the issue suffers from the flaw of the excluded middle. It’s a fine example of what Shakespeare meant in re the legal profession. Rush is not just some guy tossing pure ideas out into to the magic fairy-castle world of the legal utopians. His words have consequences. Only a fool or a craven consie hack would deny that. You are free to choose either option, or admit the validity of my point.
Liberals claim to care so much about the poeple, but have no qualms about attacking anyone who disagrees with them.
(Just read Let Freedom Ring by Hannity)
First off, what Rush does is, and should be, perfectly legal. It’s scary hyperbole to suggest it’s a crime: the first amendment is big enough to cover Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.
Second, I don’t watch him very often. I do know that a couple of months ago, my girlfriend was temping at a local ABC affiliate. On the day that Bush was scheduled to give his “Top Ten Reasons we should invade Iraq” speech, she was inundated by phonecalls from furious conservative nitwits blasting her for ABC’s decision not to air the Bushspeech.
Finally, one of them told her that he was calling at Limbaugh’s request. Limbaugh apparently told his listeners to call their ABC affiliates to complain, not bothering to mention that:
- the decision not to air the speech was a national, not an affiliate, decision; and
- Bush didn’t ASK ABC to air his friggin speech! Normally the President asks for airtime when he wants it, and networks provide it.
Given this experience, I’m pretty sure that Limbaugh does exhort his listeners to make politically-motivated phone calls. Given the vitriol some of these nincompoops have, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if some of them made threatening phone calls to Daschle and mentioned some of Rush’s tripe during the course of the call.
While I agree that Limbaugh doesn’t urge people on to violence, I think your last sentence here is incorrect.
Daniel
would that it were phsyically.
That would be a pay-per-view!
What, you want hugs and kisses from the liberals now. :eek: Ewww !
The right to confront ones opponents is hardly restricted to the conservative classes. Whatever made you you think that it was ?
Like I said, Sean Hannity got to me…
GIGOBuster
[Moderator Hat ON]
GIGObuster, in this forum clearly implied insults do not get a free ride either. Cool it.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Not a good analogy, Apos It’s Daschle’s job to help lead the effort to prevent a repeat of 9/11.
Incidentally, do you remember when Newt Gingrich complained about flying in the back fo Air Force One, returning from Israel IIRC? He was blasted for that, and never really recovered. We want our leaders to lead, not to kvetch.
Not surprising that you didn’t get Daschle’s cheap shot, since you just casually made one of your own.
I agree that you said is what Daschle implied.
I agree that Limbaugh’s behavior is a separate topic. So, let’s go there, using the Spinsanity column that you cited.
[quote]
Last Thursday, Daschle again suggested that the war on terrorism has not been successful, in part because Osama bin Laden remains at large. During a press conference, Daschle remarked, “We haven’t found bin Laden. We haven’t made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were a year and a half ago. So by what measure can we say this has been successful so far?” Daschle elaborated on his remarks in an interview with Greta van Susteren on Fox News Channel later that day:
Daschle’s criticism represents some of the toughest yet from Democrats, though it is well within the bounds of reasonable political debate.
<snip>
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh launched into an extended rant culminating in the suggestion that Daschle is attempting to “sabotage the war on terrorism”
First of all, note that Limbaugh’s criticism was political, not personal. He was criticizing Daschle’s political statements.
Second I will argue that Daschle’s comments deserved to be blasted.[ol][li]Daschle was remarkably inaccurate when he said, “the president himself, Greta, held that out to be the standard over a year ago, when he said we wouldn’t be successful until we found him dead or alive.” Bush never said that. In fact, he said much the opposite. He said the war would go on for years.[]Daschle was seeking to be discouraging when he said, “We haven’t made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al Qaeda.” We have made progress in defeating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, in capturing many of their leaders, in getting many other countries involved, etc. What’s the use of undefined complaining? How is that helpful? [/li]
Also, note how political Daschle’s criticism is. Doesn’t the Senate Majority Leader have some responsibililty for the success of the War on Terror? What has Daschle done to help? Has he promoted actions that Bush resisted? Not that I recall. []Daschle’s comments included no suggestions at all of how to better prosecute the War on Terror. [/ol]So, I would argue that Daschle’s criticism was indeed playing politics with the war. He wasn’t recommending that we change or improve our approach. His comments served to discourage the American effort. That’s what Tokyo Rose’s broadcasts did, so the comparison is apt, albeit emotionally charged.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1979):
No question, Limbaugh does these things. But the statutory definition is probably a bit tighter, and probably makes the speaker responsible only for conduct he specifically recommends. So as long as Rush doesn’t specifically tell his listeners to threaten those he urges them to call (see Daniel Withrow’s example), he’s legally off the hook.
But Limbaugh’s been on the air for well over a decade. He knows how his listeners react when he’s denounced someone, and urged his listeners to call. And if, knowing what the effect of his words has been, he persists on spurring his listeners on in the same manner, then he’s morally culpable, by any reasonable standard, when the listeners call up Limbaugh’s targets, and harass and threaten them, just as they have done to other Limbaugh targets in the past.
Uh, I could swear I put a smilie in the line… . (checks up on the real “offending” post) yes indeed, I was just kidding, but just in case there is any misunderstanding; I have to say: Sorry december. As for Rush, my impression, after months of listening :(, is that he indeed does say the truth, but he usually omits the whole truth, As even Cervantes noticed hundreds of years ago: “Telling only part of the truth is the same as lying”, in light of the antrax attacs and the realization that most of the evidence does point to an American source, that targeted “liberal” media and mostly democrats, I understand why Dashle is reacting this way. Remember that he was specifically targeted; the only point Dashle would have is not that AM radio is helping to motivate the extreme right wing nuts, but that AM radio is reducing the pressure to investigate suspects that pretend to be patriotic. I would give Dashle a brake.