The fire next time? Probably lit at home.
Nancy Pelosi drew arched eyebrows and a fair number of sneers when she worried out loud that overheated rhetoric from the Right could lead to violence. Here's coverage from The Hill.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco, this kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it created a climate in which violence took place," Pelosi said.Republicans -- who also grimaced at a government report earlier in the year warning of an increased threat of home-grown extremism -- dismissed the anxieties as political theater.
"And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the people -- the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume," the speaker cautioned.
Here's the UPI's treatment of the conservative response:
House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia told Politico he thinks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "is in another world" if she believes the demonstrations could lead to violence.But a growing number of independent (and even conservative) sources are echoing Pelosi's fear.
In today's Politico, reporter Eamon Javers reports that she's "right to fear violence."
But it’s not just Pelosi who is worried. In interviews with POLITICO, five former Secret Service, FBI and CIA officers say that they, too, are concerned that today’s climate of supercharged political vitriol could lead to violence.
Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough also weighed in, arguing that right-wing pundit Glenn Beck (and conservatives who fly under Beck's flag) will be culpable if violence occurs. (See the video here.)
You need to call out this kind of hatred, because it always blows up in your face...You cannot preach hatred...
I want to repeat this again because I wonder where Republicans are and where conservatives are...but when you preach this kind of hatred and say that an African American people hates white people you are playing with fire and bad things can happen.
And if they do happen, not only is Glenn Beck responsible, but conservatives who don't call Glenn Beck out are responsible.
I want to say explicitly: A passingly small percentage of critics of Barack Obama and the Democrats are dangerous or racist.
Obviously, 99.999% are not.
They have legitimate policy disagreements and valid differences in values and beliefs.
If opponents of the current President and congressional leadership can muster the votes to boot the Democrats out of office, fine and good.
But as we've seen in the Muslim community, rhetoric matters. A culture that tolerates extremism in its midst is morally culpable when that extremism erupts into violence.
Does the Republican Party need to do more to distance itself from this kind of language?
If not, why not? Comments welcome below...
posted by Brian Mann @ 9/25/2009 10:24:00 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
I really don't think anyone has anything to fear. I remember Bush being burnt in effigy, all the vitriol that have floated over the airwaves- on both sides of the polical spectrum- and we're still fine. The last assasination we had were not against people who were ideologically targeted- (Kennedy family).
Not gonna let it go and open your eyes, eh Brian? Could you please direct me to the posts or reports you made decrying the BOOKS and MOVIE made about ASSASSINATING GEORGE BUSH?!!! That was all well and good wasn't it? You just aren't opening your eyes. All the crap Pelosi and the others say is politcal speak engineered to cut the common man protesting things off at the knees. It's NOT about race, that's just the easy answer and it's the pathetic answer. It's about people finally having enough of the status quo- Democrat OR Republican- and wanting some responsibility, humility and honesty from their elected leaders.
All you're doing is toeing the liberal NPR line and repeating the DNC talking points.
The anti-government rants are the most worrisome. What is the alternative? Revolution? Anarchy?
"United we stand, divided we fall"
United as Republicans? United as Democrats? Obama's election was the silent majority's hope for the beginning of bipartisanship or as Bret4207 wrote : "wanting some responsibility, humility and honesty from their elected leaders" Hasn't President Obama delivered on all three?
Good Lord Pat, open your eyes and look at what Obama is doing. Humility? Where? Honesty? Where? Responsibility? Where? From day one appointing crooks and tax cheats to his cabinet to the present day forcing health care, cap and trade and still making use of the Patriot Act....where's the change? ACORN? Giving grant money to artists who support his programs through their art? TAKING Chrysler and GMC from it's rightful owners and giving (Chrysler at least) to the UAW? He's just more of the same and until people say ENOUGH! we'll continue to decay from within.
The alternative? A smaller, more efficient Federal Gov't that operates within it's Constitutional mandate. An end to career politicians. An end to entitlement programs that create nothing but a tax drain and dependent culture. And we can demand the same of State Gov't.
It boggles my mind that anyone who works for a living would be adverse to the idea of keeping more of your own money and personal freedoms. This isn't just about Obama people, it's about the whole corrupt system.
Bret4207 -
I think you're missing the point of my post and -- perhaps -- of Pat's comment as well.
Some of the arguments you make are legitimate and interesting.
What's not legitimate is the suggestion (made by some on the right) is that there are no ways of reforming or changing the government other than violence.
President Obama and the majorities in congress were elected by popular vote less than a year ago.
If you want them gone, organize and develop a majority to vote them out.
Don't bring guns to protests. And don't talk about spilling blood.
-Brian, NCPR
I'm sorry Brian, refresh my memory and direct me to where I ever advocated violence of any type? As far as guns go, the people bringing them were using them as a form of political speech. That IS what the 1st Amendment is about isn't it? Free POLITICAL speech? Freedom of the Press to say nasty things about The King without fear of retribution? Freedom for the people to gather and protest The Kings actions (taxes) without fear of the Gov't (Pelosi) sending in troops? If you want to disagree on that point then you had better start reading the Founders comments and thoughts when they wrote the Constitution and BoR because almost ALL of it regards political activity. All their issues were the result of their political standing and The Kings political standing. .
I'm still waiting for your answer on why you take such umbrage at the current ground swell of anti-government sentiment and yet have nothing to say regarding the books and movie justifying the assassination of Bush. Why was that right? Where was the outrage from NPR and NCPR when that was happening? I listen everyday and don't recall so much as a whisper decrying that garbage, but boy, you cry out for some real change in Gov't and you're a terrorist!
You also seem to ignore the problems with the National Debt and Deficit and the fact that we're broke. We're spending our grandchildrens money and there's no end in sight to it. We had a chance to fix things back in the 90's and we were actually approaching moving into the black for the first time in 40 years. But, a "projected surplus" doesn't equal a real surplus and all that talk did is lead to more spending. Bush never saw a spending Bill he didn't like and today our President has already spent more than every other President before him combined! (And yes, I realize he hasn't "spent" all the money yet, but he signed the Bills authorizing the spending) Meanwhile our Treasury prints fiat currency, our gold reserves are not sufficient to back it and the public at large doesn't care as long as they get football and "Dancing with the Stars". Bread and Circus. Here's a link to the real time National Debt clock. Take a look and tell me there isn't a problem. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Those people protesting the Gov't that you refer to as "...some on the right..." aren't all right wing neo-cons. A lot of us are Libertarians, Blue Dog Dems, Independents, mixed in with the Conservatives and non-affiliated conservatives. And there are a lot of disgusted people who think of themselves as Republican but who wonder where their party went. Yeah, there are a few who worry about a true revolution Brian. But look at WHY they worry and talk about it. They're scared. They can see whats happening, that their livelihoods and traditional style of life is under attack. They have a right to be scared. And moreover, they have a right to gather and protest just as loudly and vigorously as any other political/civil rights group. No one calls Louis Farrakhan a terrorist when he advocates violence (however subtlety) against whites or Jews. No one seems to find the talk of violence by animal rights protesters troubling. Why the double standard? Simple. Because we don't fight YOUR agenda.
I wouldn't worry about any talk of violence Brian. Most of the talk of violence I've heard has been from Pelosi and other members of the political left who realize some people are actually on to what they're doing. Yes, a few scared people mention Jeffersons quote about the Tree of Liberty, but I've seen a lot more of that brought up by the press when they try and link that cowardly criminal Timothy McVeigh with the current crop of Tea Baggers. That's a pathetic move right out of Saul Alinskys playbook. It doesn't wash.
You're not stupid Brian, look beyond your bias and LISTEN to what the other side is saying. It's not about revolt or revolution. It's not black vs white or urban vs country. It's about those things I mentioned- responsibility, humility and honesty. All are sadly lacking in Washington and Albany and have been for far too long.
Obama has repeatedly stressed responsibility, most recently and notably in his speech to school children. He has acted responsibly by trying to fufill one of his most important campaign promises - health care reform.
In terms of humility, the President has tried to reach out to the Republicans, which required a great deal of humility. He has a large enough majority to be able to push the reform through but he realizes that he is not only the President of the Democrats but was elected to work for bipartisan solutions.
I think he has honestly tried. I haven't seen any dishonest misrepresentation of this issue on his part but I know Bret4207 will be sure to point some out to me.
And I'm sorry, if people are continually ranting against government, then the rational conclusion one draws is that they are advocating an over throw of the government since as Brian pointed out, "President Obama and the majorities in congress were elected by popular vote less than a year ago."
Furthermore, it amazes me that there was no outcry against spending our grandchildren's money on a foreign war but when it comes to health care for Americans or stimulus to help Americans, it becomes a worry.
So Pat, were all the people calling for Bushs impeachment from 2000 on calling for the overthrow of the legitimately elected Gov't? For that matter, how would you have reacted if Bush had made nationwide speeches to our school childrens classroom? How is it responsible or honest of Obama to say his health care package will be budget neutral? There is no possible way to say that is even remotely true! When did Obama reach out to Republicans? When? Point out any example of where that happened beyond words in speech. Show me one instance where he's listened to Republican alternatives, or alternatives from any group on health care, the budget, TARP, the bailouts? Show me one.
There's been plenty of outcry against the money we're spending Pat, but you don;t hear about it because the so called media in the country doesn't report it.
Bret,
You're big on show me statements. Can you show us citations for the following? "...the books and movie justifying the assassination of Bush."
What books and what movie? What were the sales figures and box office for those? I am not familiar with them.
Also, Brian never said you were inciting violence. He said the fringe on the right is. Which is verifiable.
Anyway, you should calm down a bit. No matter how hard people rant, or what Obama does, it's all over anyway. Oil's drying up. Sea levels are rising. But we enjoyed watching TV and going to the mall.
Bret,
A couple of corrections, courtesy of two minutes with Mr. Google:
"No one calls Louis Farrakhan a terrorist when he advocates violence (however subtlety) against whites or Jews."
--http://mrminority.blogspot.com/2005/01/loius-farrakhan-terrorist-lover-and.html
--http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/06/louis_farrakhan.html
--http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//f/farrakhan.louis/farrakahn-lybia-connection
"No one seems to find the talk of violence by animal rights protesters troubling."
--http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2857
--http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925383.000-animal-rights-activists-violence-escalates.html
--http://beta.dailybruin.com/articles/2009/4/6/pro-test-against-activists-violence/
--http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/Other_Extremism/shac_convicted.htm
Happy to help.
Why is it OK for coercion and the threat of violence to be forever used to maintain the status quo? When I contemplate the Corporate Fascist state we live in, where our choices in our elections are a choice between a republican fascist, a democratic fascist, or a "conservative" republican corporate fascist nincompoop, I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would recommend. There are two criminal gangs that control our government, airwaves, and money supply. They pretend to oppose one another. I know I don't work for National Propaganda Radio, but can you suggest a non-violent solution to oppose this violent gang if thugs?
"Bret,
You're big on show me statements. Can you show us citations for the following? "...the books and movie justifying the assassination of Bush."
What books and what movie? "
The movie was called "Death of a President", the books- "Checkpoint" and "The Assassination of George Bush". What they sold or grossed, what the reviews were, I have no clue. That they were in circulation and the main stream media ignored them is what I was getting at. Imagine if they were about Obama instead. Do you think the press and our beloved NPR would keep mum? Not in a lifetime.
And I won't stop "ranting". Ranting seems to have worked for a whole lot of special interest groups and political organizations. It's time the silent majority (the taxpayers) started making some noise!
As for all those nifty links, that's great. Tell me, is The Speaker of the House listed there anywhere? Are the anchors of MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc listed? Are NPR or PBS reporters listed? I didn't think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home