However disturbing the level of emotion has become at McCain-Palin rallies (and it is disturbing), there’s truth to the counter charge that this has been seen from the Left also.
As I write this (and your mileage may vary), there are about 2 million google hits for “Bush terrorist“, for instance… but there are nearly 8 million for “Obama terrorist“. (If I include “Cheney terrorist“, though, the numbers even out.)
I get over 3.3 million hits for “Bush fascism“… and an almost identical 3.3 million for “Obama socialism“.
Then there are the 2.2 million hits for “capitalism conspiracy“… and the 2.3 million for “socialism conspiracy” — numbers that change radically (pun intended) when one interchanges the terms a bit: “Republicans conspiracy” = 6.2 million, and “Democrats conspiracy” = 6.7 million.
I could play with this all day long, and no doubt get the same results… all of which just goes to show that both the far right and the far left are equally nuts.
But then, I already knew that.
I'll see your anger, and match it!
Leave a Reply
Read Next
My goodness, this takes some chutzpah: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged into the culture wars Saturday in Pennsylvania, painting Sen. Barack Obama as a radical on abortion rights. She must think she’s in the mainstream or something. ::shudder::
Lots of folks are unimpressed this morning with NBC’s Tim Russert, who’s role in last night’s debate seemed to be a cross between a pit bull and a fight promoter. Digby articulates it very clearly: From tax returns to Farrakhan …
Pretty quiet, they’re saying, all along the coast tonight. Nearly 2 million people evacuated (incredible!). And now it’s the big wait… I can’t help thinking, though, that this looks a lot different from three years ago. I sure hope so. …
New Orleans’ Times-Picayune concluded its 3-part Special Report, Last Chance, on the disappearing Louisiana Coast today — a bleak, in-depth look at the hows and whys of the lost wetlands, and what has to happen if there’s any hope of …
If you could kindly point out an example of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry standing at a campaign rally while people yelled “Kill Bush” and not responding to it, it would make your point much stronger.
Even considering that there are a lot of reasons one might Google “Bush terrorist” other than thinking Bush is a terrorist, it’s also pretty silly to equate people Googling with a candidate whipping a crowd into a bloodthirsty frenzy and then watching the results, as McCain and to an even greater extend Palin have been doing.
Sure, there are people
John, I think I’d rather have you show me the example of someone yelling “Kill Obama” at those rallies.
And the point isn’t how many people plug terms into google. It’s how many hits one gets on the subject. There’s some really crazy stuff out there, and frankly, I think an awful lot of it has been written by people with a pretty tenuous grasp on the tether to earth.
What’s your argument? That there are nuts left and right? We know that. We saw plenty of lefty nuts in the Hillary v Obama primary race. My argument is that McCain Palin are appealing to racist sentiments and that Palin doesn’t realize what she’s doing. McCain ought to. Again, I said during the Hillary v Obama primary race that Hillary was appealing to racist sentiments. I called her out on it. It was widely reported that others on the left saw the coded race messages and criticized her for it. The Clinton legacy will be forever tainted by it. Last week it was widely reported and acknowledged that “Kill him” was yelled from the crowd. And that a black network camera man was told to “Sit down, boy.” None of your links, or the links from those links, points to anything comparable from Obama supporters. With that I dispute the premise of your first paragraph as it relates to the Obama McCain contest.
OK, so the people shouting “kill him” while the candidate talked about Obama were talking about somebody else?
I’m really astonished that you see no difference between anger at a candidate expressed by sitting at home Googling up a storm, or writing irate blog posts, and anger expressed as calls for blood with the opposing candidate’s tacit approval.
Joe – I listened to (and watched) the Florida rally several times. Not only could I not hear the reported “Kill Him”, but Palin was talking about Ayers when it was apparently said. I don’t doubt that it was said. I do question about whom it was said — and I should also note that it was actually a single reporter who heard it. Read More here.
And I’m sorry, but you and John are both too wrapped up in immediate current events. The radical left has long-since made a reputation for incendiary hyperbole and beyond-the-pale statements.
So yes — my point is exactly that: there are nuts on both the right and left. We’re just hearing a lot from/about those on the right at the moment.
The scary thing about the left is that some of the most frightening wackos are actually elected members of Congress. I don’t have the citations at hand, but I feel pretty confident that more than one ratsocrat congresscritter has called for trying George Bush for various alleged crimes after Obama wins in November. Who is the ratsocrat Congressfool who spent several minutes grilling the the former CEO of Lehman Brothers about how many homes he owns, as though that was somehow relevant to the financial crisis? “I’m shocked, shocked! to learn that CEOs of major American corporations are very well compensated and often have many homes!”
There’s no doubt that racism is still a strong force to be reckoned with in the United States. My criticism of McCain is that he has been far too wimpy in attacking Obama. Of course he needs to present it as a disaster for the country if his opponent is elected. Where have you guys been? McCain doesn’t need race as a basis for attacking Obama, there’s more than enough material to work with.
Enrico — as much as some commenters are clearly frustrated with me about this post, I have to tell you that I think McCain needs to tread very carefully with how he goes about what you advocate. I don’t think he recognized the depth of the passions being tapped when he started down this road, but there’s no mistaking the problem at the moment.
Although the fringey-left has plenty of incendiary rhetoric, and has had its violent times, the underlying argument from Joe regarding this moment is correct: the fringey-right heat could be stirred to violent flame.
Polimom,
I see you’ve decided to liven up an otherwise dull Sunday by poking the anthill of tin foil hat wearers. It’s interesting, and sad, to see that some of your commenters just can’t wrap their minds around (what I think is) your point: that the stridency of the extremists on both sides is increasing the noise level and helping drive the polarization in political dialog.
Instead, too many are all wrapped up in denial that the people who “have justifiable concerns, but have gone too far in expressing them”, i.e. the people who otherwise agree with them, are part of the problem. Instead, it is those “evil, narrow minded, unthinking fools” of the other side who have no good arguments for their positions and offer nothing except hatred and incendiary rhetoric” that have created the problem. “Our” extremists are only reacting to their extremists.
It is true that if candidates allow the fringes to express their nastier impulses, e.g. “traitor”, “kill him”, without slapping them down on the spot it may be taken as validation of those impulses. Good for McCain that he seems to have recognized that, though one would think it would not have taken a week for him to do so. I hope Palin figures it out soon, if she has not already.
My point, again, is that AT THIS TIME — a more dangerous and scary time because of global economic turmoil (and thank you Polimon, for understanding that that was my point) — we need calm reason. I am happy to call out the lefty fringe; I have done it often before and will do it again. Right now, that’s not where I see the problem. Further, I do not name call or delegitimize elected officials who hold views contrary to my own. Ever. I believe deeply that we need a variety of views always represented in government. I don’t want one party rule from ANY party. To say, as I do, that I think the CHOICE by Palin to use the term “terrorist” in the context of early 21st century America, rather than, for example, “extreme left-wing bomb-throwing 60s radical”, is purposefully incendiary does not name call. And does not contradict my beliefs. My comment is that I do not see an equivalence or meaningful correlation in the links cited. Both sides have the capacity and have acted historically in equally nuts ways. Right now the left’s nuts are not threatened in the same way as those on the right, so they are not acting out to the same extent. Point me to where they are and I’ll acknowledge it.
Joe — The Master left a comment over at the TMV post that seems to answer your question. In what I consider to be nearly the ultimate irony, he points to a post from Michelle Malkin — a flame-thrower in her own right — who has assembled quite a collection of examples.
I can hardly tell you how much I dislike linking her as a source for an argument of my own, but it is what it is.
Link
Well, all I know is, if i am ever elected to Congress, my first act will be to sponsor a resolution calling for zero tolerance of intolerance. I will carry the entire ratsocrat caucus with that beauty.
While the term Facism has fallen out of favor, what else do you call the combination of statist capitalism and hyper-nationalism, based on an (invented, in the case of Iraq) hysterical war-time mentality and a long standing campaign over “othering” the opposition into no just a political opposition but a fundamental enemy of the country.
I understand the (naive) desire to not confront the increasingly over tendencies toward what is a twin of 20th Century facism, to avoid dealing with the reality of it is to invite it’s triumph.
I am clearly too tired to type, but I think the sense of my point comes through.