This blog will discuss many issues pertaining to current events and encourages others to discuss and do the same. The goal is to raise the level of discourse and hopefully have a good time sharing thoughts and ideas.
Rahm Emanuel recently made news when it was publicized that he had called liberals "fucking retarded" during a private conversation.
This sparked outrage from Fox News Contributor Sarah Palin (who has a child with disabilities) who called for Emanuel to resign.
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh jumped on Emanuel's comments and proceeded to call liberals "retarded" as well. Take a listen:
This set the stage for Sarah Palin to be questioned about Limabaugh's use of the slur versus its use by Rahm Emanuel. Palin was asked about this on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this past Sunday:
So if you are keeping score at home, in Sarah Palin's mind it is wrong for Rahm Emanuel to call liberals "fucking retarded", but it is okay for Rush Limbaugh to call liberals "retards" because of some perceived level of satire. I, for one, would be interested to hear Palin's analysis of how Limbaugh's so-called "satire" was artfully used on his radio show.
In the meantime, we have the witty and on-point Stephen Colbert to analyze the situation for us:
After last week's devastating earthquake rocked the nation of Haiti, there were several comments from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson that were not only disgusting, but that were downright revolting.
These comments were very public and received condemnation from across the political spectrum. As relief efforts continue and the United States role in the recovery efforts grows, there are some "behind the scenes" strings that are being pulled that need to be discussed.
Journalist and author Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine does a fantastic job in bringing forth some very important points when it comes to how disasters are often manipulated by those who hold power, to push through policies that are normally unpopular in times of calm. Klein gives example after example (from Chile in 1973 through Katrina in 2005) of how "disaster capitalists" use moments of chaos to apply so-called free-market solutions that will in turn benefit the economic interests of the United States.
Klein is warning people that this crisis in Haiti is no different:
By now I am sure that all of you have heard not only about the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti the other day, but also some responses to the incident that can only be described as nauseating.
Exhibit A is Pat Robertson telling us how Haiti may have brought this on themselves:
Exhibit B is Rush Limbaugh criticizing Obama for making a statement on this crisis just a little too soon for his taste:
Exhibit C is also Rush Limabaugh letting us know that we have already given Haiti enough money via the U.S. income tax:
At a time where bodies are still buried beneath the rubble and a largely poor population is suffering even more, to insinuate that this earthquake was somehow deserved or that this travesty is a "blessing in disguise" as Robertson stated last night on his show, is absolutely disgusting.
Almost equally disgusting is the attempt by Limbaugh at blindly advancing his political mission. He is the same man who criticized Obama for taking too long to make a statement after the failed Christmas Day attack and he is now the man who is criticizing Obama for speaking out too soon on this incident. Destroying Obama's Presidency is Limbaugh's only mission and he will continue at the expense of any kind of decency.
On a brighter note The Huffington Post has a great page that they have put together that has lots of great organizations that you can give money to for relief. Click here for that page.
Also, Causecast.org has an online store that enables you to purchase various materials that will also aid in the relief efforts. I encourage you to visit that site by clicking here.
The end of the year usually brings about many "Best of" and "Worst of" lists that attempt to summarize various points of interest from the previous year. Media Matters for America is no exception to creating such a list as the liberally-slanted non-profit has compiled the most "Outrageous" comments from Conservative commentators in 2009.
Many of the usual suspects are on the list, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck even had the dubious honor of being dubbed 2009's "Misinformer of the Year" for calling the President a racist and comparing modern day America to the rise of Nazi Germany. You can watch the special video that Media Matters created for Beck at the bottom of this post.
In the mix with all of these nationally known Conservative voices is a man who resonates in a special way with the city of Cincinnati and who had three of his comments make the "Most Outrageous" list that was compiled by Media Matters.
Bill Cunningham has always been known for stirring up controversy on his Monday-Friday talk show and there have been a few instances when he has gained some national attention for his antics. Remember when Cunningham warmed up the crowd at a local event before John McCain took the stage in 2008 during the campaign season? Or how about the times when Cunningham has gone on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News to give voice to one crazy theory after another?
It should come as no surprise that Cunningham would land on such a list.
Here are the three comments that Media Matters considers among the "Most Outrageous" of 2009.
On the January 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham continued his attacks on the poor, stating: "[P]oor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals." Cunningham added: "All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior."
and here is the video that Media Matters put together for Glenn Beck's "Misinformer of the Year" award:
You should check out some of the other items that made the Media Matters list and also feel free to post your favorite "outrageous" quotes in the comments section. What moments stick out in your mind from the past year either from national figures or on a local level from figures in Cincinnati?
Just watch how Wallace characterizes Rush Limbaugh in this online video from Fox:
Wow, Limbaugh is "nice", "sweet" and "vulnerable". Don't hold back there Chris. As for the actual interview, Wallace lobs softball after softball at Limbaugh like he did for Cheney. Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:
WALLACE: If you had to bet now, does Barack Obama win re- election in 2012?
LIMBAUGH: If I had to bet now, he will not.
WALLACE: Have you got a name of somebody who’s going to beat him…
LIMBAUGH: No.
WALLACE: … can beat him?
LIMBAUGH: No. I have no clue about that.
WALLACE: If he does win, how is Rush Limbaugh going to handle seven more years of Barack Obama?
LIMBAUGH: You know, I’m glad you asked me that, because one of the questions I always get is, Rush, isn’t Obama — aren’t these Democrats in power good for your business? The way I go about my business, I’m out to get the highest ratings I get every day. I’m going to attract the largest audience I can regardless the news. It’s my — it’s my talent that draws the crowd. The news is incidental to it. No. I’m worried, seriously worried, about the future of the country. I would never put my personal success in front of what I think is something that’s disastrous for the country.
[...]
WALLACE: I think you’re a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?
LIMBAUGH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do what you do. I’m probably worth more. I’m not complaining. Do not — do not misunderstood. But you know, this whole question — see, because I’m a capitalist. You’re worth whatever you can get. You’re worth whatever your value is, and that’s determined by what somebody’s willing to pay you for it. And the only reason I get that money is because the people who invest in me get results beyond their expectations.
[...]
WALLACE: In the Time Magazine article about Glenn Beck recently…
LIMBAUGH: Oh, yeah.
WALLACE: … they write just as you found your place as the triumphant champion of the age of Reagan, that Beck is tapping into the fear and anger on the right today. Is that why you think he’s struck such a chord, because he taps into the fear and the anger of the conservatives today?
LIMBAUGH: There is a lot of fear. There’s a — there’s a tremendous amount of fear in the country over what is happening in Washington to individual liberty and freedom. He may well have tapped into that. The anger — I think that’s — that’s sometimes overplayed, because it’s become a cliche for the left to say angry white men as a way of denigrating conservative energy and ideology. But there’s no question there’s a lot of anger. And if — and if he’s tapped into that, I wouldn’t be surprised.
WALLACE: When you look at Glenn Beck and you see this explosion, what do you feel?
LIMBAUGH: Well, I’m kind of — I’m kind of proud.
WALLACE: No envy, no competition?
LIMBAUGH: No, no, no, no, no. I mean, my radio audience is astronomically high. I’m — look it, in 1988 there was nobody doing what I’m doing. Nobody. You had — CNN was the only cable network, and you had the three networks and the newspapers. And now look. Now look what’s out — all of this conservative media, conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere. I mean, I — in one way, I could — I could — if I wanted to have my ego to be as big as Obama’s is, I could say, Look what I created. So any success out there on my side, conservative media — damn, if it’s going to help us get this country back, bring more in.
You can watch the whole interview here and remember, this is the "news" programming that Fox claims is "Fair and Balanced".
Last week Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh began comparing President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic Party to both Adolph Hitler and Nazis. Here are a few clips that were compiled by Media Matters:
While Limbaugh is one of the latest national media hosts who has advanced these claims, Fox News host Glenn Beck began doing things like this, months ago:
Of course, Beck is the brain-child behind the "9/12 Project" where he encourages citizens to embrace his 9 principles and 12 virtues which include:
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Ever since, Beck's "9/12 Project" has spawned chapters all over the country (including in Cincinnati) who have been active in their participation with local chapters of the Tea-Party movement and who have recently been in attendance at local health care forums.
So is it any surprise that members of the Cincinnati 9/12 Project are now adopting the same comparisons to Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany that we are seeing from people like Limbaugh and Beck? Here is a clip from a recent post of a letter by Pete Wolf from the blog over at the Cincinnati 9/12 Project (emphasis mine):
Dear Fellow Citizens,
I appeal to you to express outrage to your elected officials regarding the latest affronts to our freedoms by the White House. Based on my reading of history and my own family’s experiences, these latest White House initiatives resemble those used by totalitarian states. I am very familiar with these tactics since I immigrated to this great country of ours, have parents who survived the Hitler years in Germany, and have relatives who resisted Communism in East Germany. I am personally outraged by the following:
• INTIMIDATION - The Democratic National Committee, in undoubtedly close collaboration with the White House, released a web video on Wednesday titled “Enough of the Mob” in which they refer to constituents in community forums as “mobs” and “right-wing extremists”. This labeling, at best, appears to be an attempt to intimidate average citizens from expressing their views. At worst, it could be an attempt to define and isolate the White House’s opposition for subsequent actions by either the government or its supporters. Hitler started his assault on Jews with labeling and disparaging propaganda!
The Cincinnati Tea Party enjoyed this entry so much, that they reposted it on their own blog.
This implication, that the opponents to Obama's health care plan are being labeled and targeted for "subsequent actions" from the government much like Hitler did to the Jews, is the same type of hyperbolic rhetoric that has led to the following condemnations:
It is wrong, outrageous and damaging for Rush Limbaugh to compare Obama to Hitler. . . . Such hyperbole only serves to confuse and trivialize issues much more grave than tax rates and health-care plans.
The Limbaugh comments comparing Obama ( and Pelosi )to Hitler and the Nazis are grossly offensive and intolerable. They reflect a nasty and hyperbolic tendency on our political culture, one which makes reasoned discourse impossible, confuses disagreement with evil, and which makes it impossible to distinguish evil from ordinary politics. . . . It behooves all participants in the political process to unequivocally disavow the comparison and to make it plain that peddlers of such noxious comparison have no place in our politics, no matter how large their audiences. And all Americans should make plain their disgust at the comparisons by talk show hosts by a prompt use of the off button.
"Regardless of the political differences and the substantive differences in the debate over health care, the use of Nazi symbolism is outrageous, offensive and inappropriate," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor. "Americans should be able to disagree on the issues without coloring it with Nazi imagery and comparisons to Hitler. This is not where the debate should be at all."
[...]
"Comparisons to the Nazis are deeply offensive and only serve to diminish and trivialize the extent of the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity and the murder of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust," said Mr. Foxman. "I don't see any comparison here. It's off-center, off-issue and completely inappropriate."
It is troubling to see local organizations fall into the same patterns that have been condemned nationally, so I hope to allow Karen Best of the Cincinnati 9/12 Project and Mike Wilson of the Cincinnati Tea Party organization to weigh in on why this type of language is posted on the blogs of their organizations and give them an opportunity to address these comparisons. Thus, I have sent the following email to each of them:
Good afternoon,
As you are aware, much media coverage has been given to the town hall meetings at which there has been vocal opposition to the proposed health care legislation. Nationally, figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have compared President Obama and Democrats to Adolph Hitler and Nazis which has sparked condemnations from Conservatives, Liberals, and organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League.
Recently, both on the blog for the Cincinnati 9/12 Project and re-posted on the Cincinnati Tea Party blog, was a letter from Pete Wolf which, in part, states the following (emphasis mine):
"•INTIMIDATION - The Democratic National Committee, in undoubtedly close collaboration with the White House, released a web video on Wednesday titled “Enough of the Mob” in which they refer to constituents in community forums as “mobs” and “right-wing extremists”. This labeling, at best, appears to be an attempt to intimidate average citizens from expressing their views. At worst, it could be an attempt to define and isolate the White House’s opposition for subsequent actions by either the government or its supporters. Hitler started his assault on Jews with labeling and disparaging propaganda!"
This comparison and implication (that opponents of the Obama health care plan may be targeted like Hitler targeted the Jews) is a continuation of this rhetoric that has been nationally condemned.
I have highlighted these blog entries in a recent post at the Cincinnati Beacon and have also included the text of this email with the anticipation of posting your response.
I am interested in your reaction to this kind of rhetoric and the injection of these comparisons into the dialogue on this issue. Do you condemn comparisons of President Obama to Adolph Hitler and other Democrats to Nazis or do you feel that these comparisons are constructive ways to voice opposition to these political policies? If you find the material objectionable, will it be removed from your websites?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Chris Johnson
If I receive any responses, I will post them here.
Rachel Maddow had an explosive and very relevant segment at the beginning of her show this evening regarding the health care debate. It updates some of the events that I didn't get to post about today (including comments from Sarah Palin) and for the first time openly injects the word "assassination" into the conversation about all the rage that we are seeing at these town hall meetings. You can feel the anger building and I think it is quite proper to have this discussion at this point:
I am sure that many of you have heard about the fighting that has been going on between the RNC Chair Michael Steele and the conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh. In case you are late to this story here is an intentionally brief summary:
- Rush Limbaugh made the comment that he hopes President Obama will fail. - Limbaugh is criticized for saying this but stands by his comments saying that if Obama succeeding means going against the principles that he believes, then of course he hopes Obama fails and he would think that many Republicans want Obama to fail as well. - RNC Chairman Michael Steele goes on CNN, says that he is the head of the Republican Party and that Limbaugh is an entertainer. He also says that Limbaugh can be "incendiary" and "ugly". Here is the video of this exchange:
After this exchange, Limbaugh retaliated saying that Steele is not the head of the Republican Party. Steele then apologized to Limbaugh by saying:
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. …There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
Now, there is some revisionist history taking place as Michael Steele is claiming that he never attacked Limbaugh in the first place. He claims that he said that there were other "people out there" who may think that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly, but that he never meant that to be his viewpoint. Watch:
In case you want to hear the exact language from Steele's CNN appearance that directly contradicts his most recent claims that he "never attacked" Limbaugh, just go watch it again for yourself. I also enjoy how Steele and others within the Republican Party are now saying that it is the Democrats and the left who are distracting America by bringing attention to all of this. Steele mentions in his final clip that the left are implementing some kind of plan that they have wanted to enact for a while...to distract Americans from the real issues by bringing up this controversy. Sure, that's it.
It's not only Steele either. Check out this exchange between MSNBC's David Schuster and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. Fleisher comes out on the offensive with his talking point about Obama acting "childish" and Schuster tries to show Fleisher just how hypocritical this claim is. It takes effort to not go insane when these items get flipped on the head on such a consistent basis and as part of a strategy to falsely revise history:
It's no surprise to hear the continued criticisms of President Obama from the right regarding his being a "socialist". After all, if being a "tax and spend liberal" isn't enough then I guess you could always through the dreaded "socialist" label around to get people riled up. As we saw during the campaign season, this type of language could be expected, but I have seen a recent trend of hyperbole and rhetoric that leaves a different taste in my mouth and I see that Digby and Andrew Sullivan have also picked up on this.
"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true. He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
This may seem ridiculous at first, but the language of "either we stop Obama or America will not exist" is a little alarming and not isolated to Keyes. Rush Limbaugh recently stated:
RUSH: At this point, at this point, Gretchen, I don't care about the "why." They're not going to leave; they're trying to control it. At this point, the only thing is: They. Must. Be. Stopped.
CALLER: I agree, and what can you do, Rush?
RUSH: Within the confines of our Constitution and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don't care why they see this country the way they see it. I don't care why a murderer does it. I don't care why a rapist does it. I don't care why this Muslim guy off-ed his wife's head. The NOW gang is out there saying (paraphrased), "Nah, that's not domestic violence. That's just..." What did they call it? "It's a cultural thing, an 'honor killing.' This woman was going to divorce him, and that's against the law. That's his diversity." You know, I don't care. I don't care why anymore. If I figure it out I'll be glad to tell you because it's interesting to know, but it doesn't matter in terms of defeating them.
Limbaugh did mention that Obama should be stopped "within the confines of our Constitution", but if this the type of rhetoric that is being whipped up against Obama only one month into his Presidency, you can only imagine the road that we are headed down over the next four years.
