Ordinarily I wouldn't give this kind of a story attention, but the radio host who said that disgusting thing has somehow gotten enough traction in radio-land to attract the likes of Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent. Plus, I've had my own personal encounter with him.
Back in 2008 I did a daily online radio show called NewsGang Live with some techies, some political types, and others. At the time, there was no BlogTalkRadio but Steve and Tina Gillmor managed to figure out how to do it with uStream and a call-in conference number . Peter Santilli would call into the show often, presenting himself as an independent voter who wasn't sure how he would vote in 2008. He was disruptive and annoying but he wasn't crazy and he wasn't especially much of an independent either, but more of a straight-up conservative and conspiracy nut.
Haley Barbour on Fox News Channel, August 29, 2012
It really horrifies me how openly nasty and violent Republicans feel entitled to be without repercussions. Remember how everyone wailed and condemned on the House Floor a email by MoveOn that called General Petraeus 'Gen. Betray-us'? When they said that we couldn't criticize George W. Bush because 'there was a war going on' and we needed to be united? Well, you know what the old saying is: It's OK If You're A Republican.
Barbour spoke at a fundraiser and briefing in Tampa last Thursday put on by Karl Rove, who co-founded the American Crossroads super PAC and its sister non-profit. Barbour is a former adviser to the groups.
“While I would love for [Chris] Christie to put a hot poker to Obama’s butt,” Haley said of his reaction to Christie's address. “I thought he did what he was supposed to do.”
Nope, nothing racist about making allusions to branding our first African-American president. And the Republicans say that Democrats are being divisive. Still, what can you expect from a former KKK-supporting governor who accused the Democrats of 'playing the race card' for calling out all the dog-whistles and overt racism on this campaign? Maybe Barbour thinks that his violent rhetoric and nasty tone will land him a position in Romney's cabinet. You know Romney won't disavow statements like that.
A Florida man "obsessed with Fox News and the Republican party" felt that his girlfriend was too "liberal" -- so he decided he had to kill her.
Police arrested David Kappheim, of Lake Park, on Saturday after the 60-year-old threatened a woman's life because of her supposed political orientation, according to a probable cause affidavit.
The report recounts several incidents in which Kappheim allegedly arrived "stark naked" at the home of his girlfriend's friend, choked his girlfriend and told her that he would "kill her and burn her home," the Palm Beach Post reports.
Kappheim explained to a sheriff’s deputy, “He was very conservative, and his girlfriend was liberal and he felt he was going to have kill her," according to the arrest affidavit, according to WPTV.
As tempting as it may be to write the guy off as just another crazy person, I think we do so at our own peril. When they're feasting on eliminationist rhetoric and hearing everyone all the way up to the Republican nominee claim what America "needs is an American", it's not hard to see where reality and illusion blend into delusional, authoritarian, deadly behavior.
Roger Ailes and the crew over at Fox News should be ashamed, but I'm sure they're just sorry the liberal got to live after all.
We've been saying for a long time that the right-wing media machine, led particularly by Fox News, has become an echo chamber for hate speech from the far right. At places like Fox, the virulent language found on the racist and extremist right has been largely toned down, but the underlying sentiments, not to mention the larger meta-narrative about politics remains intact. And this has been acutely the case in recent years regarding Latinos and Muslims.
This study analyzes how social networks that form around the hosts of commercial talk radio shows can propagate messages targeting vulnerable groups. Working with recorded broadcasts from five shows gathered over a six-week period, involving 102 scheduled guests and covering 88 topics, researchers determined hosts’ and guests’ ideological alignment on the topics discussed most frequently—including immigration and terrorism—through a content analysis of on-air statements and website content. The findings reveal that the hosts promoted an insular discourse that focused on, for example, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, and pro-Tea Party positions and that this discourse found repetition and amplification through social media. Of the 21 guests who appeared more than once, media personalities (57 percent) and political figures (19 percent) accounted for 76 percent. Fox News accounted for nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of appearances by guests representing an organization. Political figures accounted for 27 percent of all guests, and the Republican Party and the Tea Party accounted for 93 percent and 89 percent, respectively, of all political figures appearing on the shows. Eighty-nine percent of the scheduled guests were white, and 81 percent were male.
Despite being booted from his opening gig at the Army concert for his inflammatory and eliminationist rhetoric toward President Obama, Ted Nugent is unapologetic and claims to have the support of the Romney campaign for his particular flavor of free speech.
Ted Nugent, after a Secret Service investigation, a canceled Army concert and an outpouring of criticism, said presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's camp "expressed support" for the controversial comments he made about President Obama last month at the annual National Rifle Association meeting.
The no-holds-barred Texas rocker told CBS' "This Morning" that Romney's campaign told him to "stay on course" and not to tone it down after Nugent said he will "either be dead or in jail by this time next year" if President Obama is re-elected.
"I got the sensation it was, not from Mitt himself or Mrs. Romney, stay on course Ted, freedom of speech is a beautiful thing," Nugent said in the interview, which aired Friday morning.
Now if this were false, one might expect the Romney camp to firmly deny they said such a thing. But they didn't deny it, choosing instead to release the same non-statement they released when Nugent first spewed his nonsense at the NRA convention:
"Divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from," Romney's spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in the statement. "Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil."
So if Ted Nugent says it civilly, then it's totally all right with Romney? This is the problem with Mitt Romney and it will continue to be the problem with Mitt Romney. He is so afraid to actually take a stand on anything from his gay foreign policy adviser to a rogue supporter who now believes he has a blessing from the Romney camp to spew even more unpleasantries into the news cycle that he cowers behind a milquetoasty kind of "ewwww, divisive language" statement.
I have a confession to make. There was a time in the not-too-distant past where I believed civil conversations could be had between liberals and conservatives. The past three years have cured me of that misperception. Even Barack Obama, with his love of bipartisanship and civility stood firm on the issue of race and actually bothered to deliver a speech that called out those who were using his race (and his pastor) to score political points.
Yet Mitt Romney just continues his meander down the pathways of non-committal pandering in the hopes that it will get him elected. I would suggest that if he were elected, he would reveal himself to be the guy who thinks Ted Nugent's remarks were just fine. In fact, I could see him clapping Nugent on the back and telling him to keep up the good work. He just won't do it now. He's running for office, after all!
Beck: Most Democrats still love America, they love the founders and they love the Constitution and believe in this country. But then there's another group and they have infiltrated not just the Democratic party, but the Republican party...
Speak softly and carry a big stick. blah, blah, blah...We got this from an insider. Wait until you hear this story. The co-chair of the CPC...
How many times have I said they are like a virus feeding on the host of republic.
Mark Farmer of Winterville, Georgia went to the meeting on Tuesday to ask a question about Social Security reform, and said in an e-mail to TPM he was "shocked by the first question and disgusted by the audience response."
"I was gravely disappointed in the response of a U.S. Congressman who also laughed and then made no effort to correct the questioner on what constitutes proper behavior or to in any way distance himself from such hate filled language," Farmer wrote.
Reporter Blake Aued, who was at the town hall and originally reported on the incident confirmed to TPM that Broun was "chuckling a little bit."
Aued described the person who asked the question as "some old man" who "apparently was a huge fan" and had driven 75 miles to get to the meeting.
After laughing at the question, Broun reportedly said "there's a lot of frustration with this president."
"We're going to have an election next year," Broun said. "Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller... who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."
A Secret Service spokesman tells Greg Sargent that the agency was aware of the incident, had taken appropriate steps, and now consider it a closed matter. A law enforcement source told Sargent that the Secret Service interviewed the person who made the comments who now regrets making a bad joke.
Conservative humor never does work, does it? There's not a lot I find redeemable about John McCain, but give the man his due, when the crazy Fox-informed supporter stood up and said that she thought Obama was an Arab, McCain did take the mike from her and chastise her for her remarks, calling Obama a decent family man. Contrast that to Broun choosing to laugh and basically validate the frustration of a man advocating assassination.
After 72 hours of the local press and the blogosphere starting to snowball the incident, Broun released a statement distancing himself from his initial actions:
"I deeply regret that this incident happened at all," Broun said in a statement. "Furthermore, I condemn all statements -- made in sincerity or jest -- that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated." Broun also said his office "took action with the appropriate authorities."
Broun said that he "was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question."
Well, that's not exactly true, is it? It's hard to say that you didn't dignify it with a response when you in fact responded with a chuckle and an acknowledgment of a frustration level that made assassination an option to consider.
It's generous of Broun to recognize that suggesting assassination is a bridge too far, but it's not entirely clear where he draws the line. In the past few years, Broun has warned that members of the "socialistic elite" are plotting to declare martial law and repeatedly called for vigilance against his political opponents, whom he deems "domestic enemies":
BROUN: [Obama] has the three things necessary to establish an authoritarian government, and so we need to be ever vigilant because freedom is precious.
BROUN: Americans will be watching for Congress to fiercely defend this country against enemies, both foreign and domestic. Our foreign enemies may be easily identified and grab national headlines, but we must remain vigilant of our domestic enemies who ignore the original intent of the Constitution.
In other words, there's no reason for Broun to be "stunned" by his constituent's venom. If anybody takes Broun's histrionics seriously — and he was reelected, after all — why wouldn't they think violence was necessary to maintain their liberty?
Erickson really doesn't appear to be able to help himself. It's a sickness, really. But what does it say about CNN that Rick Sanchez can get fired but Erickson is still working, even after writing such violent prose like this?
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
That "only if" construct means that -- according to Erick Erickson's Red State -- "mass bloodshed" will be "necessary" if elected officials don't overturn Roe v. Wade. Again: Red State doesn't say "mass bloodshed" may occur if elected officials don't do what is "necessary to earn our support" -- it says such bloodshed will be "necessary."
But this kind of carelessly eliminationist rhetoric--especially in the light of the Tucson shootings and the Dr. Tiller assassination--is frightening to see so unabashed. And it would be irresponsible not to speculate if CNN was aware of it when they touted Erickson for their SOTU analysis.
Perhaps you might ask CNN. Politely, of course. Edie Emery is listed as the contact person for CNN's SOTU coverage. Maybe Ms. Emery is unaware of the Son of Erick's body of work.
It's interesting to see the two strawmen arguments continually put up by right wingers in response to the tragic shootings in Tucson. The first one is a variation of the "But...but they do it too!", pointing fingers at the left. I've yet to see anyone confront a right winger using that excuse as you would the second-grader equally as apt to employ it: if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do that too? Whether or not you agree with the premise that everyone does it (and for the record, I don't agree), that doesn't absolve you of your contribution.
The second strawman tactic is to dismiss any discussion because there's no evidence that accused shooter Jared Loughner was influenced by Sarah Palin's crosshairs map or Glenn Beck's 20+ hours of broadcasting each week, railing at the tyrannical impulses of progress and equality in this country. While it is true that we can't really know the motivation of a troubled brain like Loughner's, can anyone dispute that as soon as we heard about this shooting, our collective minds--left and right alike--went immediately to the state of political debate in this country and think, "it was just a matter of time before it happened"? And why is that? Because the tenor of debate in this country HAS degenerated into "I'm right and I want you to die/get hurt/be eliminated for not seeing it my way."
And surprisingly, David Gregory appeared to have gotten that this Sunday. He asks Sen. Tom Coburn no less than three times if he agrees that the political rhetoric has become dangerously apocalyptic. He even acknowledges that it is especially coming from the right (My goodness!!! What did they put in Gregory's coffee this morning?). But Coburn--the same man who said that doctors who performed abortions should be subject to the death penalty--doesn't think it's a conversation worth having and that we're all missing the real problem. Certainly, he doesn't like the media's role in this, although it's unclear if that is the real problem of which he speaks.
Finally, on his third try, Gregory gets Coburn to acknowledge that yes, there's no place for the kind of ratcheted up rhetoric that we're seeing.
DAVID GREGORY: --its fine to take-- it's fine to take on the media. And-- and a lot of people would support you in that. That's fine. But I asked you a very specific question. Do you reject those who believe that the President wants to injure the country and that will-- that will deny Americans liberty? And do you think-- violent metaphor of any kind is simply over the line in political discourse?
SENATOR TOM COBURN: Of course I reject that. But the point is, is we're spendin' all this time talkin' about-- something that i-- has nothing to do with the events, and what the real problems are, we're not spending time working on.
