Wattree's picture

    Anyone Who can't See that the GOP is Purposely Provoking violence is an Idiot

    By Wattree on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:19pm |

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

    Anyone Who can't See that the GOP is Purposely Provoking violence is an Idiot

     It was my intent to do part IV of my Common-Sense Plan to Save the Postal Service, but in light of the senseless shooting committed by Jared Loughner in Arizona on Saturday, January 8, and the grossly disingenuous response by the GOP, I felt that I would be unforgivably remiss if I joined much of the weak-kneed press in failing to point out that anyone who doesn't recognize that this shooting is a direct result of the GOP's irresponsible and concerted campaign of violent rhetoric is either a fool, complicit, or blind.

    Let us look at the facts. Every since President entered office the GOP has been engaged in rhetoric specifically designed to provoke the unstable, feeble-minded, and radical elements of this society. In spite of the fact that President Obama has a birth certificate on file in Hawaii, and a Hawaiian newspaper carried an announcement of his birth, right-wing birthers insisted that Obama was not a United States citizen, and thus, held the office of the presidency illegally(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg&feature=related).

    In addition, the New York Post even went so far as to publish an assassination cartoon of Obama, portrayed as a monkey, being shot by a policeman. I pointed out the following in my article, The Assassination Cartoon:


    "I'm all for freedom of speech, but there are limits. Along with freedom comes responsibility, and the New York Post demonstrated the complete absence of responsibility with the publication of their cartoon depicting the assassination of the President of the United States.

    "While freedom of speech and expression are indeed a cornerstone of American democracy, it is against the law to shout "fire" in a crowded theater - and with good reason. It is necessary for a free society to protect itself from those who don't have the common sense to recognize that what they consider funny, or a practical joke, can get people killed. Thus, even in a free society it is sometimes necessary to jail a free citizen for behavior that amounts to criminal stupidity. While I'm not an attorney, I think they call it criminal negligence.

    "That is exactly the rationale that should be used to prosecute, and jail, all those responsible for the publication of this criminally ill-considered cartoon. Most of the criticism that's being lodged against this cartoon seems to have more to do with its incredibly poor taste. But it's one thing to be petulant, immature, and bigoted - we expect that from ultraconservative extremists. But when you begin to advocate the assassination of the President of the United States, you've crossed the line - a line that separates the merely stupid, from that which is criminal.

    "That cartoon literally sent a message out to every deadbeat, bigoted loser in the country that they can finally make something of themselves. They can finally find purpose in their previously miserable and lackluster lives by assassinating the President of the United States. Thus, what the New York Post is calling a meaningless joke is actually a clarion call to every bigoted fool in the United States. It says that there are people in this country who will consider you a hero if you bring violence against the president - and they know it. Can you imagine the hue and cry coming from Republicans if the New York Times had run a cartoon depicting the assassination of Ronald Reagan?

    "The mere thought of perpetrating violence against the President of the United States shouldn't even be a part of the public discourse. It serves to desensitize the public to a possibility that should be unthinkable in a civilized society. But history has clearly demonstrated that one of the most lethal weapons in the conservative arsenal is subliminal suggestion - along with suggestions that aren't so subliminal - such as, liberals are aligned with drug dealers, criminals, and welfare cheats; Obama sympathizes with people who hate America and "pals around with terrorists"; and anyone who is against spying on American citizens, torture, or the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is un-American. Now we have this, and they're complaining, "What's all the uproar about? It was just an innocent joke."

    Since I wrote that article in February of 2009, the Republican rhetoric has only heated up, with Republican congressman, Joe Wilson, of South Carolina calling the president a lie during a presidential address to a joint session of congress, Republican governor, Rick Perry, of Texas alluding to seceding from the union, clearly a statement designed to whip up revolutionary sentiment.

    In addition, during the 2010 midterm election, Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for the U.S. senate from Nevada, suggested to her supporters the possibility of relying on "Second Amendment remedies," and allusion to armed insurrection against the government. Sarah Palin told her supporters, "Don't retreat, instead, reload." Palin also put up a "crosshair map," and one of the targets on that map was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the congressperson who was shot in the head critically wounded during last Saturday's shooting. Eighteen people were wounded and six are dead, including U.S. District Judge John Roll, and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, the granddaughter of former pro baseball manager Dallas Green.

    Now the Republicans are asking, what did we do?  Well, I'd like to answer that question, and without any of the wobbly-kneed equivocation that I'm hearing in the corporate media.

    You and your corporate cronies are doing everything you can to keep the American people undereducated, miserable, frustrated, and divided.  And to insure that condition, in spite of record corporate profits, you're sending American jobs overseas, threatening to starve the unemployed, and obstructing everything that president Obama and the few responsible politicians are trying to do to provide relief. Then you're stirring the pot with inflammatory language in an attempt to incite insurrection in order to promote your own selfish political agenda. That's what you're doing, and it should be clear to anyone with eyeballs.

    These people need to be held accountable.

    Eric L. Wattree
    wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    WATTREE, I know. I get so goddamn mad

    [comment edited by moderator]  And that is the truth that I try to sit on all the time.

    Rush and beckerhead have been over the top on this. They are saying that liberals were hoping and PRAYING for these assassinations.

    And now Palin is playing some subliminal Jewish card with this blood libel crap.

    But I am attempting to slow down, take a breath.

    We are all Americans. Or at least 80% of us are true Americans.

    Fine, lets yeal about tax policy and such.

    But damn, they have machine guns at rallies where they shoot people in effigy.

    And they talk about lock and load. And they keep talking about lock and load and they talk about second Amendment rights and....

    Secession was a big subject four months ago.

    See, just reading your blog and I am angry again.

    They have this YOU LIE monogram or etching on new guns now?

    Oh Damn.

    We just need to take a deep breath and exhale slowly.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:32pm

    You are not the only one tired and mad at all the threats and bullying.  I got to the point where I could not listen to some of the statements made by republican canidates.  I would hit the mute button as soon as I saw their face.  Our new Speaker of the House drives me to check out the weather channel for a few short minutes.  It is not because they are Republicans but it is their ranker that I no longer want to hear nor do I find anything to respect about this kind of politics. 

    I hold the ranker, hate speach and vitriol responsible coming from the far right Republicans.      


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:12am

    [quotation of above-deleted comment is here deleted by moderator]

    er, sounds familiar, like some Tea Partiers.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 2:19am

    I meant that as an admission that I have feelings, deep deep feelings about all this and that I am not a saint with regard to this vitriol.

    Perhaps I should not have included that in my comment; except for the fact that I know from whence Limbaugh's anger arises. I would bet you that that prick receives hundreds of death threats every day.

    He is such a pig. And the death threats and the organizations that call him out for his lies, must just enrage him further. I mean how in the hell did he reach the level of rage that he has achieved?


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 2:29am

    Anyone Who can't See that....is an Idiot

    Sorry, that sounds like vitriol to me, too. Always has. It's part of the whole verbal abuse game, a game that when it ramps up, is one step away from violent abuse. Perpetuation, think about it.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 2:09am

    Hmmm.  Well, ArtA, you know what I am seeing here?  I see someone using the same overbearing tactics of the right-wing message twisting machine, highlighting an individual sentence out of a grouping (Mr. Day) and omitting words from the middle of a sentence (Mr. Wattree), in order to use them to fit a crusade to sanitize the blogosphere.

    I read Mr. Day's comment before it was edited and, coupled with the sentence that followed it, I had absolutely no problem understanding what he was saying and found no reason why anyone would misconstrue his meaning.  But, surgically removing the first sentence from the body of the comment and then isolating it turns that one sentence inflammatory, so you indicate.  So are we now obliged to critique each and every sentence before we include them in a paragraph or a comment to see if it can be used as cannon fodder by the opposition?

    I feel Mr. Day was unfairly censored.  I am just an uninvited guest here at dagblog (even though I feel welcome) so the strength of my opinion has limits.  I accept A-man's decision to edit Mr. Day and understand the reasons for doing so.  But, I do not agree with it.  I also must wonder why Mr. Wattree's blog title was not edited since exception was taken to that as well.


    by wabby on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:06am

    Hi Flower, I appreciate your comment and have to agree that the common practice here of selecting one word or one sentence out of many and using it as a mallet to drive an insult really takes away from the general discussion and worse, waters down the OP's original intent.  Beyond that, it's a time-waster and usually says more about the person doing it than it does about the person receiving it.

    But I thought both A-man and Richard were gentlemen about the editing of Richard's comment.  I know Richard didn't mean anything by it, but I understand why A-man felt the need to remove it.  We have spent the last couple of days talking about civility, after all, and the need to cool the violent rhetoric. The events in Tucson are still an open wound to A-man, who knows both Gabby and the judge personally, and since Dagblog is his baby, in a sense, he wants to guide it in a direction of his and Genghis's choosing.  That's not to say that suddenly censoring (or admin. editing) is going to be the order of the day--I don't see that.  Just a toning down of the language of violence.

    I'll admit here that I had reservations after the fact about my own title, No more Pussyfooting: The Republicans and the C of C are trying to Kill us.  I wrote it before the shooting in Tucson and didn't think much about it.  Obviously I didn't mean it literally, but there's that word "kill", and once we began talking about the shooting and how words can do damage, I would have liked to have gone back and re-worded it.

    But Flower, you're wrong about being an "uninvited guest" here.  We were all invited by both A-man and Genghis to come over and participate on this site, and the voices here, including yours, are what make it unique and interesting.  I'm glad you feel welcome, because you most assuredly are.


    by Ramona on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:54am

    I agree, It's nice to see others perspectives.

    I hear what YOU say

    And if ever I disagree, which is very seldom

    We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

    As far as Richrd is concerned, there's no one like him, Think about all the research and the time he puts into driving home the point, of his passion. A real labor of love.

    Sometimes a little on the devilish side. With a little reminder "Come back Richard, stay away from the Dark side"

    I have rarely see him keep account of the injury, always the agreeable one. HA!

    He graciously accepts counsel.

    You are definitely one that I read, something rather than "got Ya" posts.


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:36am

    Well said, Resistance.  Thank you.  Yes, there's no pretending that we're all going to agree all of the time, but an argument is only effective if both sides come away knowing something more about the other's reasoning. Even on sites like Dagblog, where like-minded people gather, the "discussions" can get hot and heavy.  We're impassioned and committed to our own viewpoints, and we're putting ourselves out there because we obviously think we're right!  But when everybody in the room is screaming, nobody is listening.

    The last thing in the world anybody here wants to do is to stop Richard from doing what he does so well.  He works hard at it, and comes up with the most fascinating takes on issues--both current and historical.  Richard is Richard and I wouldn't have it any other way.  This was just a little blip and now it's over--I hope.

     


    by Ramona on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:05am

    Hi Ramona. Oh! That's right!  Genghis did extend an invitation at TPMCafe.  I'd forgotten that!  Okay.  But, I'm still a guest here (and at any other blogging site as well) and I do respect the right of the creators and administrators to protect their creations.  I do understand there is a need for Terms of Service and an adherence to them.

    I also thought A-man and Mr. Day were gentlemanly about the situation; they clearly have gotten past it.  It's me. I'm seeing the pendulum swing too far over into censorship and it becomes worrisome.  Again, I understand the raw feelings of A-man at this time of personal sorrow for him.  I could not, however, not mention the action and register my objection to being over-policed by ArtAppraiser.

    I wonder, Ramona, if it even is possible to get away from the language of violence that has become such an integral part of our communication style here in this country.  It is very deeply entrenched.


    by wabby on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:43am

    I have your same misgivings about censorship, but I honestly don't see it happening here. Do you?  Sometimes admin on any site has to step in and calm the room down, but I don't see that as censorship unless it gets to the point of silencing any dissent.

    We probably can't get away from the language of violence.  If we weren't angry we wouldn't be spending so much time on these blogs talking about issues that bother us. And obviously trying to rise above the fray doesn't get us anywhere!  But yes, that "overpolicing" by the commenters gets real old real fast.  It adds nothing to the conversation and only serves to shut it down. People just stop talking after a while, and that's the end of any real dialogue.


    by Ramona on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:24am

    You and your corporate cronies are doing everything you can to keep the American people undereducated, miserable, frustrated, and divided.  And to insure that condition, in spite of record corporate profits, you're sending American jobs overseas, threatening to starve the unemployed, and obstructing everything that president Obama and the few responsible politicians are trying to do to provide relief. Then you're stirring the pot with inflammatory language in an attempt to incite insurrection in order to promote your own selfish political agenda. That's what you're doing, and it should be clear to anyone with eyeballs.

    That's it in a nutshell and bears repeating.  Over and over again. 


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:23am

    I know this is true Ramona. I know this as sure as I know where my keys and my shoes are.

    I know where the propaganda lies and where the oligarchy is aimed. But the rural and the South and the West just eat that propaganda up.

    I am watching Morning Joe today, and the show sounds nice. I despise Peggy Noonan as being a 'reasonable repub' and Joe being an centrist....but there are roles to be played and when those 'reasonable repubs' sound sane, whatever the reason, it is all right with me.

    I read these statements from rush limbaugh and beckerhead and I went nuts. to accuse the left of being responsible for this tragedy in Arizona is just beyond my intellectual reach. I do not understand it.

    The pro gun lobby would authorize ground to air missiles in everyone's backyard. It is insanity.

    I am ranting again and this is Wattree's blog.

    He shall join us soon.


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:34am

    I'm watching AM Joe, too.  Peggy Noonan's ego keeps on raging and poor luv-struck Pat Buchanan can't bear to hear a bad word about Sarah.  Interesting convo, though.  We need more conversations about our loopy disregard for automatic weapons in the hands of just anybody.


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:49am

    The pro gun lobby would authorize ground to air missiles in everyone's backyard. It is insanity.

    Only if America were to come under some Talibanic *  type rule

    Would stinger missles be alright then? 

    * Is Talibanic a word,  and is it synonomous with  right wing extremists?  

    Extremists like the ones in Texas who want to secede.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:09am

    I read these statements from rush limbaugh and beckerhead and I went nuts. to accuse the left of being responsible for this tragedy in Arizona is just beyond my intellectual reach. I do not understand it.

    I think you do understand it, Dick.

    As the Bard once said;  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


    by MSNY on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 1:05pm

    The point is that it's beyond the intellectual reach of their audience.  That's what they count on.    They employ the techiques of "persecution politics" as spelled out so thoroughly in Blowing Smoke, and it keeps them nicely rich and famous. 

    That we're on to them matters not.  Their audiences don't pay attention to us, anyway.  They make sure of that.


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 2:16pm

    Excellent post. It reflects my feelings on the issue of violent imagery in political speech. The Right feels that they are moe patriotic than everyone else. At the same time that they expouse patriotism, one of their heroines, Sarah Palin, gave the welcoming address to a group thatadvocates Alaskan secession. Truth be told Obama would have been rapidly thrown off the political stage if he had committed a similar act.

    The truth is that the Right does cling to it's guns when they feel intellectually challenged. The brought automatic weapons to Democratic rallies to intimidate voters. The actions are a precursor to the more violrent voter suppression that takes place in Third World countries.

    The GOP leadership is too cowardly to confront those who use violent imagery, therefoe it falls upon the rest of the citizenry to take on those who seek to intimidate.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:35am

    As long as the leadership thinks the violent imagery is going to keep the GOP in power they will let it go on. 

    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 2:08pm

    The President's Flowery Arizona Speech

    It's interesting how the corporate media and the GOP has come together to praise the president's speech. After two years of calling him a communist, a friend to terrorists, a fraud, and a liar, they've finally found a reason to praise him. But the true reason they're praising him is because, yet again, he's allowed GOP criminals off the hook. So the fact is, these people are outflanking the president at every turn.

    This is no time for flowery sentiment. This tragedy should be used to weed out a national cancer. President Obama's speech is an attempt to treat that cancer with an over-the-counter antiseptic, when what we need is radical surgery.

    The GOP is run by corporatists. These people are responsible for killing over a million people in Iraq, so they could care less about flowery speeches, or the life of one 9-year-old little girl. They consider that little gir's death merely collateral damage. So the minute this uproar subsides it will be business as usual. But President Obama doesn't seem to recognize that.  He insists on adding sugar to strychnine so it won't taste so bad going down, and then negotiating that it be administerd in civil manner, while completely forgetting that the poison is still gonna killing us in the end.

    It's beginning to look like Obama's not gonna to see the light until these people are goosestepping down Times Square - and I'm saying that as a moderate progressive. Recently elected GOP local chairman Anthony Miller  could see the writing on the wall, so he resigned - and he was in the GOP inner circle - so why can't the president see the light?

    Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama

    Wak up, Mr. President.  At this point we need a general, not a diplomat.　


    by Wattree on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:54pm

    Maybe, Wattree, but not at a memorial service.  That time will come, but that was neither the time nor the place.


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:59pm

    Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their hardcore followers will double down on the issue of violent rhetoric because that is who they are. Most Democrats, Independents and rational Republicans will agree with the  setiments of the President. Obama actually has won the conversation.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:59am

    I think this is the crux of the matter.  Will one achieve one's goal by attacking the attackers or by marginalizing the attackers.  I believe using the former strategy merely reaffirms the violence and perpetuates the culture of violence.  Of course, this denies one the satisfaction of "sticking it to 'em" which when tragedies like that in Arizona happen is something we really want to do.  And it is immediate satisfaction.  The latter strategy is more effective, but occurs over a period of time and does not deliver that immediate satisfaction.  Because it must be sustained in the face of temptation to lower oneself to the other side, it is much more difficult.  Consequently we tend not to see successful examples in history.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:31am

    Wise words, Trope.  The problem is, the other side refuses to be marginalized.  They keep big money behind them just to keep the perception going that they never will be.  Thus they never are.  Not so far, anyway.  I keep hearing how the days of violent rhetoric are dying, and that Sarah Palin is done, and next it will be Limbaugh and Beck, but I'm not holding my breath.

    They are the constant Phoenixes rising, while we're consistently the ashes.  It doesn't seem right, but there it is.  Still, I like your approach better.


    by Ramona on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:37am

    I'm not holding my breath either.  The folks like Rush will still be able to be on the airways even when they have been marginalized because there is still money to be made in even someone who has just a few followers relatively speaking.  This sometimes can give the impression that they are "larger" force then they are.  As someone pointed out, even in 2008, the one Republican who Rush hated was McCain and look who got the nomination.  He also preferred Clinton over Obama, and look who got the nomination.  And then he wanted McCain over Obama.  Palin is even less of a force.  But both will probably always have enough people who follow them to make it profitable for them to keep doing what they are doing.  The hope is that it doesn't spread throughout the body politic.  The person to keep an eye on is Bachmann.  Is she changing her tone?  Are other Republicans denouncing her if she doesn't? 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:31am

    Spot on Trope.


    by emerson on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:49am

    Latest Comments