| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Hatred Oozes
The agonizingly close relations between the GOP establishment and the loonier elements in the right wing media who have been on an increasingly mainstream basis feeding the hatred of the far right extremists who have been committing violence has been receiving increased attention. This has been discussed recently by Judith Warner, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich. Krugman recently wrote, “Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.” Frank Rich discussed this topic at length in his latest column:
Conservatives have legitimate ideological beefs with Obama, rightly expressed in sharp language. But the invective in some quarters has unmistakably amped up. The writer Camille Paglia, a political independent and confessed talk-radio fan, detected a shift toward paranoia in the air waves by mid-May. When “the tone darkens toward a rhetoric of purgation and annihilation,” she observed in Salon, “there is reason for alarm.” She cited a “joke” repeated by a Rush Limbaugh fill-in host, a talk-radio jock from Dallas of all places, about how “any U.S. soldier” who found himself with only two bullets in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden would use both shots to assassinate Pelosi and then strangle Reid and bin Laden.
This homicide-saturated vituperation is endemic among mini-Limbaughs. Glenn Beck has dipped into O’Reilly’s Holocaust analogies to liken Obama’s policy on stem-cell research to the eugenics that led to “the final solution” and the quest for “a master race.” After James von Brunn’s rampage at the Holocaust museum, Beck rushed onto Fox News to describe the Obama-hating killer as a “lone gunman nutjob.” Yet in the same show Beck also said von Brunn was a symptom that “the pot in America is boiling,” as if Beck himself were not the boiling pot cheering the kettle on.
But hyperbole from the usual suspects in the entertainment arena of TV and radio is not the whole story. What’s startling is the spillover of this poison into the conservative political establishment. Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan G.O.P. chairman who ran for the party’s national chairmanship this year, seriously suggested in April that Republicans should stop calling Obama a socialist because “it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.” Anuzis pushed “fascism” instead, because “everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.” He didn’t seem to grasp that “fascism” is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find “bad” because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler.
The Anuzis “fascism” solution to the Obama problem has caught fire. The president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and his speech in Cairo have only exacerbated the ugliness. The venomous personal attacks on Sotomayor have little to do with the 3,000-plus cases she’s adjudicated in nearly 17 years on the bench or her thoughts about the judgment of “a wise Latina woman.” She has been tarred as a member of “the Latino KKK” (by the former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo), as well as a racist and a David Duke (by Limbaugh), and portrayed, in a bizarre two-for-one ethnic caricature, as a slant-eyed Asian on the cover of National Review. Uniting all these insults is an aggrieved note of white victimization only a shade less explicit than that in von Brunn’s white supremacist screeds.
Obama’s Cairo address, meanwhile, prompted over-the-top accusations reminiscent of those campaign rally cries of “Treason!” It was a prominent former Reagan defense official, Frank Gaffney, not some fringe crackpot, who accused Obama in The Washington Times of engaging “in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain.” He claimed that the president — a lifelong Christian — “may still be” a Muslim and is aligned with “the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.” Gaffney linked Obama by innuendo with Islamic “charities” that “have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.”
If this isn’t a handy rationalization for another lone nutjob to take the law into his own hands against a supposed terrorism supporter, what is? Any such nutjob can easily grab a weapon. Gun enthusiasts have been on a shopping spree since the election, with some areas of our country reporting percentage sales increases in the mid-to-high double digits, recession be damned.
Violence committed by right wing (or left wing) extremists is the more serious problem. But a similar, even if less violent, mindset can be seen in the recent outrage against David Letterman: despite agreement from Letterman that he should not have told a joke which was clearly about Bristol Palin, and despite the fact that Bristol Palin has been the target of jokes from multiple comedians largely because of the manner in which Sarah Palin has intentionally placed her children in the public spotlight for political gain, many of them continue to attack with outright lies as to what Letterman actually said.
There was no point in attacks on David Letterman once he conceded that he should not have told the joke, with many of these conservatives proceeding to over play their hand and ultimately discrediting themselves. The controversy is about the desire of the authoritarian base of the Republican Party, which has hijacked the right, to prevent any criticism of their extremist agenda and has little to do with any real concern about sexist jokes. They tend to wage their war with little regard for fact, with such distortions being common place. This has included a similar distortion of a joke told by John Kerry in 2006, the fabrications of the Swift Boat Liars, all the lies about Obama which were spread during the presidential campaign, and the recent lies about Sotomayor such as that sixty percent of her decisions have been overturned (& not surprisingly though, even a Next Right editor repeated it.) While less extreme and violent than those who have been committing violence, the conservative movement has increasingly become dominated by those who show hostility towards reason, freedom of expression, and the contemporary culture.


Comments
Hatred from the right? Hatred from you!
It is just this type of "connect the dots" post that shows where the real hate is coming from. You and people like you on the left.
You can say that Dr. Tiller's murder was committed by someone who was against abortion (and was a loon). And you can say that in general "the right" is against abortion.
But the actions of the murderer have been roundly denounced by all responsible people on the right and in the GOP (in spite of some people's efforts to parse words of prominent leaders). And, of course, Dr. Tiller had been shot and attacked long before talk radio was ever popular. You do understand that, don't you?
And oh, by the way, Sarah Palin had her daughter Willow at the Yankees game, not Bristol. So when Letterman makes a joke that clearly refers to mother and daughter at the Yankees game, the clear impression he leaves is that that is the child to whom he was referring. The fact that you can complete the mental gymnastics required to link the Holocaust Museum murder to the right, but can't follow something as simple as the Letterman story says a lot about your lack of intellectual honesty.
and in general the Right is for "christian warriors" taking
over the government, at least if we're to judge by the reception that Sarah Palin (annoited by G-d and her pastor) recieved.
I know you... I know you're against what Sarah Palin as President would mean for this country... but you aren't all Republicans.
And personal responsibility means saying, not just "he was wrong", but asking yourself, "Was I wrong? How culpable am i?"
O'Reilley didn't shout fire in a crowded theater. But he ALSO wasn't the guy at the back of the lynching, after the Jew's already hung, crying out only then "lynch the kike!" The first is culpability and prosecutability under the law. The second is objectionable, but really utterly disassociated from the murder. O'Reilley's numerous screeds on Tiller The Baby Killer fall somewhere in between.
Is this hard to grasp?
You can have moral responsibility, moral culpability, for something that you shouldn't be prosecuted for... (a guy on campus holds up a picture of the girl who is organizing a protest against him speaking... he says, "This is the girl who's trying to get me to not speak! I won't be intimidated!" Now, if the girl is subsequently beaten or yelled at by people who attended his speech, he's got some responsibility -- likely they wouldn't have done such a thing without him showing her picture. But he's got a lot less than if he had outright called for her personal and complete destruction).
There's enough nuance to say that FoxNews is fanning the flames, and they should take responsiblity for their inflammatory rhetoric.
I would agree that O'Reilly
I would agree that O'Reilly should be asking himself those questions. After all, he had been harshly and publicly criticized a man the was then murdered. But, this particular man had been shot and bombed before, and everything O'Reilly said had been said many, many times before.
I guess where we differ is on culpability. I do not see how O'Reilly could be blamed for Tiller, any more that Keith O could be blamed if someone took a shot at O'Reilly. Once we let the narrative be defined by whacko fringe groups (afraid to condemn bad behaivior because we are afraid of what someone who is unbalanced may do), we have effetively ended free speech and debate in this country.
I mean NOW puts Letterman on the "wall of shame". Pretty harsh, huh? Now what if some unbalanced person (and Letterman has had stalkers) goes off? Is that NOW's responsibility? Would they take partial blame?
There's an easy boundary between condemnation and immoral
words. That's dehumanization. You can say that Bush is doing a bad thing, and that people will suffer (or Obama, your mileage probably varies!). That's intelligent criticism, particularly when you focus on the cause and effect.
At some point, however, you get to "tiller the baby killer" who "murders without a second thought" and FEMA concentration camps!
Once you take things out of the "I think that's wrong" and into "that person is ugly and utterly without merit as a huma being", you've entered the realm of immoral.
You can bitch about Mr. Rodgers being instrumental in the pussification of America... but there is a line that people shouldn't cross (umm... somehow because of Mr. Rodgers we will become a fascist nation? there's a point where you've left logic WAY behind. and I'm a fan of hyperbole!)
I'm not so sure that O'Reilley is culpable for Tiller's murder. But he is culpable for the words that come out of his own damn mouth (glad to see we agree on something! tee hee!). And when they lend support and mainstream conspiracy theorists with eliminationist rhetoric, well, that's Immoral.
And there are people behind this covert mainstreaming (dogwhistling) of the loonatics. Why else do you think that everyone (little green footballs excepted) reacted with such venom when the DHS memo came out? A reaction that on the surface says "we aren't them!", is on the underside saying "you aren't so crazy! the DHS shouldn't be monitoring you"... and that's a message that the crazies hear.
I mean, here we have a fine example of Conservatism saying we ought to beat our legislators faces in, over sparkly dishes! http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/03/31/at-what-point-do-people-revolt/
I know politicians aren't the most savory of people... but... at what point do sparkly dishes become worth beating someone's face in?
Mainstreaming of racist conspiracy theories is a FoxNews thing... and it's not good for our democracy. http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/pittsburgh-cop-killer-egged-on-by...
You know, I try to put myself in O'Reilley's shoes. I'd probably handle it with some sense of humor, and say "My Show is not License to Kill!" and repeat that regularly, as a sort of running joke. I'd interview crazies, and make fun of them (they're at least interesting. and it's easy to find them). That's not overreacting, and he doesn't need to change anything else that he's saying. Just put the message out, front and center, that some things are utterly unacceptable... and the people thinking of it are really dumb.
There's a book out: The Eliminationists. here's a review: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/12/718452/-Book-review:-Dave-Ne...
Seriously, when people consider it acceptable to go on national Television and talk about Armed Insurrection against Obama and his gov't... someone's gone off the deep end, and needs to reevaluate their reality.
And oh, by the way, Sarah
But Bristol is the daughter who everyone knows was pregnant. She is also the one making public appearances regarding her pregnancy, including a recent town hall in New York. Nobody knew who Palin went to the game with. Letterman’s jokes frequently mix such fact and fiction. To listeners it was clearly a joke about Bristol Palin, similar to many jokes Letterman has told in the past, and similar to jokes told by all the other late night comics. Using the game was just a formula for his jokes. If not for all the uproar he would probably still be making jokes about people going to the game with Palin who had not really been there.
The story began with conservatives first objecting to the slutty flight attendant line about Sarah Palin. It wasn’t until later Tuesday morning that the conservative bloggers picked up on the Bristol Palin joke. They realized that there was no benefit in attacking for a Bristol Palin joke so they invented the charge that it was about Willow. This was an intentional smear, and a tactic frequently employed by elements in the right.
Sarah Palin
I agree that Sarah Palin took an over-sensitive stance on the initial jokes about her “slutty flight attendant outfits.” However, regarding the daughter jokes, although the general populace might not have known she was at the game with Willow, you have to imagine that from Sarah’s point of view. The comments were about “her daughter” who was with her at the game. They can easily be misconstrued to suggest that her younger daughter would fall into the same mistakes as her older daughter. It’s an honest misunderstanding.
With that said, I think both sides of this have been spun grossly out of proportion. The conservative press seems to have added the key “rape” term into the mix, which has added a level of vehemence to the comments to suggest slander, which is just not accurate. Of course, the smear tactics don’t end on the right. Just as many commenters (on left, and also right) have taken this opportunity to open attacks anew against Sarah Palin that are completely irrelevant to the topic.
I also think the way David Letterman clarified his intentions with the joke while still being funny was very tactful, honest, and appropriate. Sarah’s response to the whole situation has been one of a protective parent, which is totally understandable. Even her “quip,” as you put it, about Willow can be seen in that light, rather than sexual in nature.
“Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman”
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and working with Sarah in the past and though she is a very smart, dedicated, and passionate governor, she wasn’t brought up in the spotlight and she really doesn’t handle it well. I honestly hope she doesn’t try for another national campaign. She’s done a lot of good work for the State of Alaska in the past and I hope she can find her way back to doing more of the same, but she puts her foot in her mouth far too often for a national stage.
Thanks, Pete
Cape Republican, your reply
Cape Republican, your reply above clearly sums up why anyone with half a functioning brain should realize the joke was about Bristol Palin and nothing to do with either Willow Palin or rape. So what do we call those who continue to spread such a transparently untrue story--liars or idiots.
or people who choose to believe that your audience MATTERS
If Palin thought it was a rape joke about her daughter, she's free to respond. and since rape jokes are categorically offensive and condemnable, Letterman gets called on a really bad joke.
That's life, you move on. I'm glad NOW called Letterman out, it was deserved.
Re. Liars or idiots?
Leslie,
Liars or idiots? It depends upon the individual, and in many cases both. In many cases they love to believe conservatives are being persecuted and are willing to believe whatever they hear from the right wing noise machine. The facts are of little concern to them. Many also have a religious adherence to their beliefs and think that doing anything to spread them or attack a perceived enemy (or to limit freedom of expression against them) that they feel justified in lying in this nature.
And of course, if the right wing bloggers who started this had any respect for Willow they would not have dragged her name into this. I’m sure Sarah Palin does have concern for Willow but she is certainly willing to let her name get dragged into this for political gain, which doesn’t say much about her.
Seeing Letterman as a liberal who has attacked Sarah Palin is only partly true as the jokes were far more about getting laughs than about support for either party. Letterman has also told jokes about Al Gore’s son as well as about many Democrats. He certainly told a lot of sexist jokes about Hillary Clinton as well as Sarah Palin. He tells jokes about Sarah and Bristol Palin as they are virtually guaranteed laughs, as are jokes about sex (including Bristol’s pregnancy).
That’s simply the nature of late night comedy. If they want to criticize this it would be one thing, but it sure does not justify smears such as claiming it was about a 14 year old or about rape.
Exactly
The right wingers making these attacks are unable to do the mental equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They cannot understand that people can simultaneously object to some of Letterman’s jokes while also objecting to them spreading these lies about Letterman.
They also don’t care at all about Willow, and these conservaties certainly don’t have any interest in feminism or jokes about women. And it is getting even harder to deny Sarah Palin’s blame here. This story could have died on Wedensday but Palin is had to bring up the bogus attacks on Letterman and misrepresenting what he said. She continues to drag Willow Palin through the mud for political gain when repeating the lie that Letterman told a joke about her.
Palinphobes
Its funny to watch you Palinphobes thy to justify jokes from Letterman that were clearly over the line. I guess that some people over react when they are called a "slutty" on national television, or that their daughters are referred to as being "knocked up" or in need of being kept away from men known to employ prostitutes.
As far as what to call us? How about "decent"? How about people who think that the time for base jokes about women has long since passed?
If you want to put yourself into the position of defending that which is not defendable, knock yourselves out. I don't know whether we should call you "liars" or "idiots". Maybe both?
Not just "decent" but also "classy"
How about we say that people like you are not just "decent" but also "classy", taking your cue from Palin:
And I guess we can also toss in "witty" and "articulate".
The irony is that, while
The irony is that, while Letterman never joked about Willow, Palin dragged Willow’s name into this (as the right wing bloggers did) to take a cheap shot.
She can’t have it both ways--objecting to jokes about her daughter (especially when based upon false charges) and then use her daughter to attack Letterman.
Letterman did go a bit
Letterman did go a bit overboard with the slutty flight attendant line, but he is a comedian and everyone knows he is doing biting comedy. Personally I’m bothered more by the crap which comes out of Sarah Palin’s mouth when she is claiming to be serious such as her comments noted here and here.
Letterman has apologized to both Sarah and Todd and has invited both of them on to the show.
Letterman has also said that he shouldn’t have told the joke about Bristol. It also makes no sense to continue to smear him with untrue claims about what he said, as so many conservatives are, when he has stated he shouldn’t have told it and (even if inappropriate) his joke about Bristol’s pregnancy isn’t all that different from tons of jokes already told by many comedians.
Right now, despite all the noise from the right, Letterman has the high moral ground. Letterman is the victim of untrue charges. He is the one who both apologized and explained the situation.
This type of noise from the right, a gross mis-representation of Letterman, e.g., saying he endorses rape or some other ridiculous claim, only hurts Palin’s position because it’s a distraction. Just call Letterman out on what he really did and let it go. In fact, in his apology, he admitted it wasn’t his finest moment. Let it go wingers!
George Allen apologized
Welcome to the world you on the left have created. People mispeak. People apologize. Look ad George Allen. Look at Don Imus. Look at what the left has created. To squeal now (unless you are going to admit that those instances were bogus-they were) is disingenuous.
But fun to watch. Do you think NOW should let it go too? Or are they "liars and idiots" too?
ha ha ha
This is all worth it now. Conservatives are quoting NOW as a legitimate source when normally whenever NOW criticizes sexist comments from a conservative they just laugh it off saying that feminists have no sense of humor. Next time they do this we can show how they were willing to quote from NOW about Letterman. Unfortunately for them they don’t even understand that NOW’s complaints have nothing to do with their false claims about what Letterman said. I don’t see anyone disagreeing that what Letterman said was sexist or in poor taste.
NOW
Leslie,
I’m not sure I would consider this to be NOW’s finest hour. They certainly have a point that Letterman’s joke was sexist, as are many other late night jokes. With many potential choices to criticize I would have preferred that they not go with this example. They are largely reacting to the controversy created by the right wing smear campaign as opposed to Letterman’s actual jokes. While they are not saying the same thing as the right wing attacks, they give the appearance of giving them some credibility.
I also think that NOW is taking advantage of the noise created by these right wing smears in latching on to this issue. While there is validity to their criticism, it could be countreproductive to join up with the right wing when their agenda is so different from NOW’s.
NOW legit?
Hardly. I was asking what you thought, apparently an exercise in futility.
Seems you find your own medicine a tad bitter?
I'm saying that if you are going to create this atmosphere, you are going to have to live in it.
Lonestar - bit of difference between a comedian and a pol
Lonestar - bit of difference between a comedian and someone who wants to govern or legislate, don't you think?
what was Imus running for?
I seem to have forgotten.
OK, you have convinced me.
OK, I get it now - becasue Imus said some nasty racist things on his radio program, it is OK for Sarah Palin to pretend to be offended by a strained interpretation of a Letterman joke, and then turn it into a week long jihad in the hopes of getting just a little bit more of that feeling of celebrity.
Sarah Palin to pretend to be
Yeah, it was a real stretch. Thats why people that hate Palin defend her.
Go back to being a dot connector . . .thats more entertaining to me.
These are totally different
These are totally different issues. Making such analogies shows the persecurtion mentality and the current state of the popular conservative thinking. Pretty much everyone--including Letterman--agrees the jokes were in poor taste. That does not justify singling out Letterman in this manner when his jokes are no different than the jokes of any other late night comic. It certainly does not justify the lies being spread about his jokes, such as claiming they were about rape or a 14 year old.
Criticizing this type of joke about women in general as NOW did and smearing Letterman as the right wingers are doing are two totally different things.
I would imagine that Letterman’s attackers from the authoritarian elements in the right share Sarah Palin’s Orwellian view of the First Amendment--that it was intended to protect her from criticism. Their outrage would be far more tolerable if they were honest about it and if far worse comments weren’t being made every day on conservative talk radio and on Fox but presented as serious commentary as opposed to jokes.
Defending free speech does not mean picking and choosing which speech is allowable. Bristol Palin has been making public appearances to speak about pregnancy, including recently in New York, and Palin has made a point of parading her children in public. This makes her fair game for Letterman’s jokes. While this might not be in the greatest taste, his joke was far tamer than some of the jokes about Chelsea Clinton from the right--at a time when she was far younger.
Conservatives must realize that they have no argument here which has led them to see a need to lie about what Letterman said.
Hilarious
You are a dot connector who is offended when conservatives start connecting dots. And on a topic without nearly the gravity as what you are doing. Which is trying to connect conservative thought to murder.
Please don't spew dot connector theories and then lecture me on free speech. It makes you look foolish.Entertaining, but foolish.
Apart from your proclivity to
Apart from your proclivity to projection and arguments with strawmen, you seem to enjoy cherry picking what dots to pick on a perfect circle and drawing perfect tangents to any given point while others are busy plotting a graph.
you are a strawman?
I am directly picking apart your arguments, not stawman arguments. And you clearly argue one line of thought when it suits you and another when it doesn't. You are inconsistant and dishonest in your approach.
Giving far too much credence here
But I love how he doesn't fail to come up with his brilliant winger analogies most times.
Aw shucks
Its a gift really . . .
I didn't hear you calling out the Hillary nutcracker...
you'd have much more legitimacy to make this argument if you had, or had called out any of the other numerous sexist craziness surrounding Hillary.
Re. Palinphobes
Nobody disagrees that such jokes about Bristol Palin were a mistake. There’s universal agreement on that. Even Letterman agreed to that.
That should no longer be an issue with such universal agreement. The question now is why the right wing continues to make an issue of this. Letterman’s jokes are no different than jokes told by all the other late night comics who have also told jokes about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. It makes no sense to single him out for personal attacks.
Letterman was wrong in telling the joke but that does not excuse spreading untrue claims about him as is now being done. The right wingers who are spreading these claims don’t care about Bristol Palin. They just see this as a way to inhibit criticism of Sarah Palin. If they cared about the kids they would not have dragged Willow Palin into this by making up the ridiculous claim that the joke was about her. Even worse, Sarah Palin continues to spread the same smears, making her own jokes about raping a 14 year old, and is dragging her daughter through the mud for political gain.
What Letterman did was a mistake. What the right wingers and Sarah Palin are doing is far worse.
Political Props = Fair Game
One thing that continues to get short shrift:
Palin shamelessly used and uses her kids and family as Political props. It was a huge part of her roll-out and continues on in media appearances, etc. That makes them and her fair game when it comes to pointing out inconsistencies and inanities.
If you don't want your kids and family to be the butt of jokes on edgy late night comedy, then don't trot them out as some sort of idealized Christian paragons who turn out to be mostly trailer trash; then be shocked, shocked, when the media call you on it.
Please pass the popcorn...
Let's recap Palin/Letterman, shall we?
Cape Republican
Wow. The great right wing conspiracy. Haven't had that fossile trotted out for a while. Welcome aboard!
Leslie G
Congrats on being the most tone deaf in a group of tone deaf posters! You set the bar high for liberals and make an art form of blaming the victim.
Next Right Nando
What can I say? Strained interpretation of a joke. How Palin found any of this offensive is beyond the comprehention of NRN.
National Organization of Women
Huh. Somehow NOW doesn't seem to think it makes a difference whether the target of the jokes was 18 or 14. Maybe Cape Republican can straighten them out. Leslie- is NOW a group of liars or idiots? You did only give two choices, didn't you?
David Letterman
Letterman gets it! Finally.
You certainly have a strong
You certainly have a strong tendency to twist whatever is said.
The joke was clearly about Bristol, which Letterman said yet again in his apology tonight. He did not apologize for telling a joke about Willow.
You said this is all a right wing smear
And that is totally absurd.
Now that it is obvious that this is an issue for left wing organiztions, you change your tune and start splittng hairs about "who was at the game". All the while missing the point that it was offensive whether the girl is 14 or 18.
good. he apologized!
now can we give him some time to improve his act? (he looks like he could use it. those jokes were awful!)
I truly would hate to see Letterman fired for inappropriateness. He's a comic, for christ's sake! They screw up, and then the jokes are offensive and not funny.