Michael Steele Dismisses Concerns About Rhetoric
wesmorgan1RNC Chairman Michael Steele
"To make those equations, examples and put that out there that way, to me is just crazy and yeah, I'm sorry, but if you're going to approach this discussion, approach it from a rational position," Steele continued. "[They're] saying, because you disagree with the president on policy, that all of the sudden we're going to make this leap into, you know, assassinations and all this other stuff. I mean, at the height of all this stuff on Bush and people complaining and protesting, and jumping up and down, you didn't have this kind of conversation."
Here's where Steele goes off the tracks. I'll readily grant his point that protesters and media talking heads routinely go over the top; furthermore, I'll stipulate that neither Steele nor the GOP is responsible for what those folks say or do. That still leaves us with the following example for consideration, from last Saturday's comments of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ):
"Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there’s almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn’t be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can’t do that right, then he has no place in any station of government, and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.”
That is not a policy disagreement. Characterizing the President as an "enemy of humanity" doing "insane things" is NOT policy disagreement. Franks is neither a protester in the streets nor a media talking head; he's an elected official serving in our government.
Now, let consider other rhetoric. From Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), we have this gem:
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.
One more example comes from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), discussing the President's speech in Cairo, which Inhofe labeled "un-American":
"I just don't know whose side he's on."
This stuff is coming from our elected officials, not some yammering yahoo on YouTube.
None of these are "policy disagreements." They are either veiled encouragement toward armed rebellion or personal attacks against the President. When you urge people to be "armed and dangerous" because we're going to "lose our country" if we don't "fight back", and blame it on the "un-American" President who is an "enemy of humanity" who shouldn't be there because he "has no place in any station of government", how is it a "leap" to suggest that a steady stream of this rhetoric might contribute to an environment of increased physical danger for the President?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (46)
It's a leap to suggest this rhetoric might contribute to an environment of increased physical danger for the President, for this reason: a hippie wandered into an antiwar rally in 2003 with a sign saying some pretty awful things about George Bush.
Why don't you understand this?
The, "Armed and dangerous" comment is obviously a metaphor.
All the tea parties, the 9/12 rally and the town hall meetings were all peaceful, even though the "rhetoric" from the left attempted to paint them all as potentially dangerous nazis and haters. Pelosi even ramped it up with her supposed fears of violence reminiscent of her 1960's California experiences. Yet, it was the left's rally in Pittsburgh last week that resulted in violence and arrests.
Gray, the left doesn't see metaphors, they only see the comedic value.
Not so. The Tampa and St. Louis town hall meetings turned violent.
No Winston, instead they actually made up a fantasy video of Bush being assassinated, but that was okay because that was like porn for you liberals. You probably watched it... didn't you? Shame on you. Does it make you feel dirty at all, knowing you supported a video that could have caused a fanatical nutcase to go off an kill Bush? I hope not, because if that same video were made today with Obama at the helm, you'd be screaming that it was the fault of Glenn Beck them damn birthers trying to stir up hate so they'll got out and kill the president, and you sir would be quite the hypocrite.
The left and our Democrat policticians are trying to blame animosity on the GOP in the context that Obama's already been assassinated. It seems to highlight many of left-favoring hour long programs that they consider "news". I guess when your side is in the majority and you have nothing else politically to blame the other side on given your overwhelming influence of power, you have to resort to extreme cases of blame like these.
How many times do you guys think you can cry wolf before everybody stops taking you seriously?
Winston, the violent ones were the ones that union thugs showed up at to incite violence. Here's one example from your link.
And let's not forget the attack on the guy by the SEIU where the MSM failed to disclose that the victim was..shudder..black.
Meanwhile, various sources called the Pittsburgh protests.... "peaceful"
how do you put it? couldn't make this stuff up?
Oh, and do you have any comment on the words of Franks or Inhofe?
Thomas Friedman:
No kidding. What needs to happen for right wingers to finally realize this rhetoric is dangerous? We've already had multiple warning signs since the election from record gun sales, lunatics with guns at political rallies, murdered census workers, murdered doctors...and on and on. Sheesh, you've even got mainstream Republican politicians calling for secession and right wing "journalists" hoping for a coup d'etat.
Steele's response to Friedman was:
Raw Story has the CNN video; you should go to about 3:45 in the video (after the discussion of the public option) to get the whole context.Breathe, Mr. Dip. You're so agitated you're not even making sense.
I think you, collectively, need to take a good long look at yourselves. You've lost two national elections (had your a$$es kicked, really). All these highly offensive efforts to delegitimize the President (using everything you threw against Clinton but adding in the racial resentment angle as well) has achieved is this: furiously angry wingnuts, and a President who's personally popular everywhere but the South.
If you want to continue insisting the popular President is an un-American enemy of humanity, be my guest. Just where do you think that road goes? "Victory"?
You really need to take a good long look at yourselves, though I doubt very much that you will. You, and I mean that collectively, are having a very public national temper tantrum. What we do with kids melting down into tantrums is put them where they can't hurt anyone.
Gray Rider, I could argue with your characterizations but the point is, you said none of the town halls were violent.
That wasn't the case. While I disagree with where you place the blame, i appreciate your correction.
(c'mon, admit it... you watched it ;o)
Winston... I'll make it even more comparable for you...
this double standard you choose to ignore, or pretend doesn't exist:
"Obama caused the earthquake in Samao. He must hate samoans. Why isn't he there?"
"how is it a "leap" to suggest that a steady stream of this rhetoric might contribute to an environment of increased physical danger for the President?"
Have you been hiding under a rock for the last eight years?
You libs need to be nice to me...you're gonna need a solid contact by a General like me after the revolution. lol...
"Why, no, I haven't"
Then to what do you attribute your new-found concern over rhetoric and the President's safety?
Gee whiz, could it be the fact that threats to Obama's life are up over 400% compared to that of the previous president?
Why, it's the escalation of said rhetoric to references to armed rebellion, "enemy of humanity", "un-American" as direct attacks against the President, instead of his policies, from sitting members of Congress. I'm talking about the insinuation that the President may actively side with our enemies, from a sitting member of Congress. Even the "no place in any station of government" is a bit much, considering that it comes from someone quite capable of pursuing the legal avenue of impeachment.
Alongside this steady stream of increasingly inflammatory rhetoric, we have reports of increased threats dating back to immediately after his election. If you consider Ronald Kessler credible, his assertion that the threats against Obama are running 400% higher than those made against Bush (which, to be sure, averaged 3000/year) is an important data point.
Again--just to be clear--I'm talking about the comments of sitting Members of Congress. There are certainly other influences on public attitudes, but Michael Steele doesn't speak for them; he does speak for the Republican Party, whose elected officials I quoted. If our elected officials are influences upon the public mindset, then it seems illogical to suggest that there is no relationship between public attitudes and the remarks of those officials.
On the other hand, a hippie DID wander into a 2003 antiwar rally with a placard that DID say some perfectly turrible things about George Bush.
Dang hippies!!
Winston said;
"All the tea parties, the 9/12 rally and the town hall meetings were all peaceful
Not so. The Tampa and St. Louis town hall meetings turned violent. "
Winston's right; the union thugs for single payer got out of hand here in St. Louis.
"We've already had multiple warning signs since the election from record gun sales, lunatics with guns at political rallies, murdered census workers"
A murdered census worker is conservatives fault? A literal twofer statement, ignorant and comical
"Gee whiz, could it be the fact that threats to Obama's life are up over 400% compared to that of the previous president?"
Any chance this statistic is skewed due to an increase in media attention to possible threats to Obama's life? I'd love to see the Secret Service's data for media reports of threats.
Wes - Are you starting to get the impression that these guys don't really care, and aren't intersted in civil dialogue? They don't care if the rhetoric of their party leaders leads to the death of their fellow Americans as long as they can't claim to have not advocated the specific act.
Anybody remember after 9/11and the democrats wanted to have a 9/11 Commission to find out how it happened and how it might have been prevented but all the Republicans were concerned about was making sure that Bush didn't get the blame for it? It is pretty much the same thing.
KwAwk;
There was a 9/11 commission and you did blame Bush for the attack. So it just goes to show your how much you can trust demwits.
There was a 9/11 Commission but only after Bush failed to prevent that (wait I see a pattern).
And nobody blamed Bush for the attacks, they blamed him for his failure to take the warnings he had received seriously enough.
Refocusing:
Again--just to be clear--I'm talking about the comments of sitting Members of Congress. There are certainly other influences on public attitudes, but Michael Steele doesn't speak for them; he does speak for the Republican Party, whose elected officials I quoted. If our elected officials are influences upon the public mindset, then it seems illogical to suggest that there is no relationship between public attitudes and the remarks of those officials.
Yup, Wes doesn't seem to care about this kind of rhetoric Leftist hero Alan Grayson now is comparing the GOP health care plan to the Holocaust and 9-11. . The left doesn't seem to care much about racist remarks against Rice and Clarence Thomas. They didn't seem to care about the rhetoric against Bush. The Tea Party folks are angels compared to the violent leftist protesters in Pittsburgh. Wes is not concerned when the President openly lied and smeared people opposing his policies in his speech! I will treat this as the standard fare of liberal hypocrisy. Again, Wes doesn't disappoint. He keeps confirming my very low standard. Good luck!
Obama seems to know how to pick the common people on the left like Van Jones, ACORN, and now this safe school czar! It doesn't take much brain to make general spinning statements like "no one is perfect", "ACORN is not completely bad", "America also make mistakes", "Hamas is bad, but Israel should have shown restraints" etc.... We just need to address the arguments you know. What is the point of showing outrage against using women/children as human shields or child sexual abuse at ACORN or the UN etc...?
"If our elected officials are influences upon the public mindset, then it seems illogical to suggest that there is no relationship between public attitudes and the remarks of those officials."
Excuse me if I have no sympathy for this argument after witnessing years of accusations of treason by Dems against the last President. They set the tone for this, and now they're just going to have to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve whining like a spoiled child.
Pretty funny, really, when you consider how casually that tosses down the Memory Hole eight years of accusations the President was a drug runner, rapist and mass murderer.
Nooshia is having a public meltdown. And there's no end in sight.
They set the tone for this, and now they're just going to have to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve whining like a spoiled child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When is Alan Greyson going to be censured for "breaking the decorum of the House". When is Van Jones close friend Obama going to condemn this rhetoric or he just let this rhetoric fester on the left? Since Pelosi is still the speaker of the House, we know how honest the left is!
Machiavelli wrote:
References, please, from sitting members of Congress making personal attacks against Bush? Note that, as I've said all along, attacking his policies or actions is no problem; I'm speaking specifically to personal attacks against the President's character.
Read the House Rules; Grayson didn't violate them. He went too far, in my opinion, by referring to the issue as a "holocaust," but characterizing the other party's positions is not a violation of the House Rules; if it were, you never would have heard the words "cut and run" from the House floor, true?LAI wrote:
Read the House Rules; Grayson didn't violate them. He went too far, in my opinion, by referring to the issue as a "holocaust," but characterizing the other party's positions is not a violation of the House Rules; if it were, you never would have heard the words "cut and run" from the House floor, true?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes, here is the rule
Avoid characterizing another Member's personal intent or motives and discussing personalities.
Comparing other members' policies as "Holocaust" is not characterizing another Member 's personal intent. This also speaks of the blatant dishonesty of the democrats. They do not care about inflaming rhetoric at all. It is hair-splitting hypocrisy.
rom sitting members of Congress making personal attacks against Bush?
As president, Obama made personal attacks against Bush all the time. Please save me of the pretention that he simply attack Bush 's policies. We can be more honest than that. BTW, using your standard, Obama didn't seem to have problems with Jeremy Wright or Van JOnes 's rhetoric at all. He even chose them for high positions in his inner circle. Just give you another example. I wouldn't worry about the Iraeli 's rhetoric/action until the left can be honest enough to worry about Hamas 's rhetoric/actions.
Machiavelli wrote:
Speaking solely in terms of Congress, I'd suggest that this was something of a milestone in the escalation of their rhetoric. When one teaches the naming of the other side "traitors" as a generic tool, that says it all.Speaking solely in terms of Congress, I'd suggest that this was something of a milestone in the escalation of their rhetoric.
---------------------------------------------------
I couldn't find the comparison of the US military to Nazi, Pol-Pot or calling the US commander "General Betray Us" in there. Do I miss sth? You worry about that more than senators calling the American military "Nazi", "pol-pot", or even "terrorizing" innocent civilians? HOw about personal attacks against Bush by members of Congress? Is this in the same league as concern about Israel while ignoring Hamas?
Even so, can you point to anything on a par with "enemy of humanity?"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/30/grayson-calls-republicans-knuckle-dragging-neanderthals/
--------------------------------
Looks like Obama doesn't seem to be concerned about the rhetoric coming from his side. His surrogates even attack Sarah Palin personally. I assume that we agree about Obama 's dishonesty then.
LAI, "other party's" is not the same as "another Member's;" that's the difference
--------------------------------------------------------
Wes, seriously. So it is OK to attack the motive of ALL Republican representatives as mass murderers? And you are OK with that?????
I love how you keep going outside what I suggest. I'm talking about sitting members of Congress making personal attacks against a sitting President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And you are OK with a sitting president making personal attacks against the former presidents and even smear his own country?
Even so, can you point to anything on a par with "enemy of humanity?"
----------------------------------------------
Obama supported infanticide while lying about and smear people who were trying to protect the surviving babies. I found that is far worse. Not even talking about siding with dictators against the poor women/children in Honduras for example. At the same time, Michelle can talk about "sacrifice" for going to Copenhagen to "lobby" for the Olympics.
I guess comparing Bush to Hitler and implying that he is the mastermind of 9/11 is normal on the left. No wonder the left is not concerned about Van Jones and all other radicals in Obama administration, and Obama himself!
"References, please, from sitting members of Congress making personal attacks against Bush? Note that, as I've said all along, attacking his policies or actions is no problem; I'm speaking specifically to personal attacks against the President's character."
Rep Maxine Waters: Bush is a "dumb-ass" and "lied" about why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan
The left embraces "do as we say, not as we do"
Machiavelli finds an example from three years ago:
I've criticized Waters in the past, and I have no problem condemning these 2006 remarks as well. Incidentally, are you really going to argue that "dumb-ass" and "liar" are on the same level as "enemy of humanity" and hints toward armed rebellion?
which refers to Keith Ellision (D-MN) and his 2007 comments. He didn't compare Bush to Hitler directly, but he certainly left the thought dangling out there as far as I'm concerned; he never should have said that. To his credit, the next day brought this:His apology should have been much stronger, but at least he acknowledged that he shouldn't have said it, and also stipulated (too late) that the fault for 9/11 lies solely with bin Laden. While we're at it, I did find that at least one of Elliison's Democratic colleagues rebuked him for his statement:LAI offered a stronger counterexample:
I think that both the initial controversy and Ellison's next-day comments illustrate my very point - Congressmen shouldn't go there. I've never supported the "Bushitler" nonsense, Waters is fringe, and I have no problem tossing their comments into the same bucket as those of Bachmann, Inhofe, and Franks. Can you say the same?