Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. …this video has been removed by the user.  The spin from the Palin camp is getting desperate:

    <

    p>

    Ms. Mansour said that the cross hairs, in fact, were not meant to be an allusion to guns, and agreed with her interviewer’s reference to them as “surveyors symbols.” Aides to Ms. Palin did not respond to interview requests on Sunday.

    <

    p>Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01…

    <

    p>Surveyor’s symbols???  And “Don’t retreat, reload” refers to reloading your surveying equipment???

        • He’s passionate, but not violent in his rhetoric.  His Special Comments are among my favorite parts of his show.  He connects the dots in ways that few others do.

            • It’s mocking in tone and Keith admits as much.  He has fun with it, but sticks to the facts and doesn’t use violent imagery.  I’m glad I don’t strike you as mean, because that’s not what this is.

        • ever called for people to violence if Ballotts didnt work?

          <

          p>If the ballotts dont work, bullets do.

          <

          p>And in her perspective..if conservatives(tea party) folks dont win  we need to shoot up the place.

          <

          p>I dont hear Olberman calling for that.

        • I would think that you, of all people, should be able to discern the difference between passionate disagreement (“I think you’re incompetent, ignorant, and wrong on every count”) and violent threat (“If ballots don’t work, bullets will”).

          <

          p>Please offer even one example where Mr. Olbermann or Ms. Maddow have encouraged anything comparable to a “Second Amendment solution”, have broadcast graphics with cross-hairs over their opponents, or have held “Help remove [my opponent] from office Shoot a fully-automatic M16 with [me]” rallies.

          <

          p>In my view, offering the “worst person in the world” award doesn’t come close to the disgusting standard set by the extremists we’re talking about here.

          • “Before the 2010 Massachusetts special election, Olbermann called Republican candidate Scott Brown “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, Tea Bagging supporter of violence against women, and against politicians with whom he disagrees”.[76] This was criticized by his colleague Joe Scarborough, who called the comments “reckless” and “sad”.[77] Yael T. Abouhalkah of the Kansas City Star said that Olbermann “crossed the line in a major way with his comments”.[78] Jon Stewart criticized him about this attack in his show by noting that it was “the harshest description of anyone I’ve ever heard uttered on MSNBC”, following which Olbermann apologized by noting, “I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”[79

            • I agree that the comment you cite falls squarely in the “I think you’re …” category.

              <

              p>Where does this quote encourage anybody to shoot anybody?

              <

              p>Calling somebody names is a First Amendment right. Inciting armed violence against elected officials or candidates for public office is criminal. Surely you join me in wanting to make this crucial distinction.

              • mentally unbalanced people.  Words like “target” and “crosshairs” simply won’t make your argument. Although I am not an arch conservative, I can assure you that until the left is willing to admit that it has its share of wackos (e. g. Olbermann) you will not see any regrets or repentances from the right.

                • Are you really arguing that you don’t see a difference between calling somebody a long list of really insulting adjectives and saying “If ballots don’t work, bullets will”?

                  <

                  p>We talked about Sarah Palin’s map full of targets when she put it up. We said, then, that such material incites crazies to commit violence. When somebody gets fired up over a Keith Olbermann piece and goes on a shooting rampage, feel free to come back and bust my chops.

                  <

                  p>Your attempt to conflate Keith Olbermann’s tirade (for which he promptly apologized) with Sarah Palin’s explicit call for violence (why else did she take it down hours after the tragedy?) is misguided.

                  <

                  p>Let me pose Michael Moore’s question to you:

                  If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web with crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he be sitting right now?

                  <

                  p>Indeed.

                • Probably sitting in the same place as this muslim terrorist.  Oh, I forgot, everyone in the liberal media told us continually after that massacre not to “jump to conclusions.”
                  Also, I don’t believe that Palin explicitly called for violence.  Prove your statement.
                  And, as an American citizen with the right of free speech, I have every right to conflate that miserable piece of excrement, Olbermann, with any extremist of the right.  You are just too much of an ideologue to admit that not all of the wackos are on the right.  In fact, that miserable human being, Olbermann, has probably in turn provoked a lot of the extreme speech on the right.

                • If you publish a piece calling for a “second amendment solution” that “takes out” Mr. Olbermann, I think you should be subject to prosecution — especially if some whacko shoots Mr. Olbermann through the head and kills half a dozen people including a child while shooting up a gathering in a shopping mall.

                  <

                  p>I freely admit that the left wing has its wackos. I don’t believe those left-wing wackos are nearly as committed to inciting a violent revolution as their counterparts on the right.

                  <

                  p>I agree that Mr. Olbermann incites extreme speech from the right. So what. The wackos on the left somehow restrain themselves from doing campaign videos dedicated to shooting fully-automatic M16s to “help take out” their opponent. Surely the right can do likewise.

                  <

                  p>I don’t hear ANY left-wing statements comparable “If the ballot doesn’t work, bullets will.”

                • If true, I agree that it is despicable speech.  And I am glad that you do recognize the existence of wackos on the left.  You are correct that the ones on the right are more threatening today (though back in the 60’s with groups like the Weatherman it was just the opposite).

                • I documented it here yesterday. I transcribed the quote from the video. She pulled the video sometime after 5:37p yesterday.

                  <

                  p>These were her exact words, on the record, on her own youtube video (emphasis mine):

                  And I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don’t care if this shows up on youtube, because I am convinced that the most important thing the founding fathers did to ensure my First Amendment rights was they gave me a second amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will. I never in my life thought that the day would come where I would tell individual citizens that you are responsible for being the militia that the founding fathers designed. They were very specific: you need to be prepared to fight tyranny.

                • be in tune with more people than you can imagine.  These folks may actually outnumber the activists of the left. Not everyone takes their daily communion from Daily Kos.

                • She is, however, very effective in her rhetoric.  And who is the Geena Davis lookalike standing behind her?

                • I agree that she is effective — at fomenting armed rebellion. I never challenged her effectiveness.

                  <

                  p>She is using that effectiveness to incite armed violence against duly elected government officials. She should be held accountable for it.

                  <

                  p>

                • She is stating a fact though.  The Second Amendment was instituted by the founding fathers as a check for the people on tyranny.  Do I think we are at the point where it becomes necessary to invoke that protection, no.  But the fact remains that the Second Amendment was outlined so that the citizenry may protect themselves against an oppressive government.  As I stated elsewhere today ask a Cambodian what the Khmer Rouge took the first time they came to their house.  In fact ask Sam Meas, who gives an eloquent explanation of why the right to bear arms is so important to a free people.  

                • Here is a very good unbiased article from the Christian Science Monitor on the subject.

                  <

                  p>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/J…

                  <

                  p>If you want to see what conservatives/constitutionalists mean behind the sound bites when they utter things like this. Read this with an open mind.    

                • …about the native population and European intervention, in the absence of a standing army.  I for one can’t ignore the call for a well-regulated militia.

                • Even if one accepts your characterization of Olbermann (which I think is simply wrong on the facts), he is just one guy.  Add another bombthrower on the left, say Ed Schultz, and you have two.  

                  <

                  p>The Right has Beck, Hannity, Rush, Ingraham, Savage, Boortz, Levin, O’Reilly, Medved, Coulter, and countless regional players similar to our local guys like Severin, Graham, and Carr.  

                  <

                  p>Can you honestly say with a straight face that there is an equivalence?

                • If left-wing media resonated with more people, there would undoubtedly be more Olbermann’s out there.  Most people don’t go to Daily Kos or Hunington Post for their inspiration. But you would never know that if you spent most of your time on this site.

                • What truth about Olbermann?  That he’s a “miserable piece of excrement”?  Nope, I don’t accept that.  

                  <

                  p>The left-wing media does not resonate as a form of entertainment because the information is nuanced and complex.  Yes, even Olbermann.  Compare his work to Rush’s and try to tell me that there isn’t more thought and analysis there.  

                  <

                  p>The Right’s bread and butter is anger and simpleness.  Simple things are more entertaining to most people.  And it’s not surprising given the state of education in this country.  
                  In areas with higher levels of education, right-wing entertainment and politics does not enjoy a high level of popularity. And that’s a very unsurprising correlation.  

                  <

                  p>Is Hunington Post an intentional misspelling? Some joke relating those views to the Huns?  Very clever.  You must find jokes like “Coupe Deval” absolutely hysterical.  

                • disagree with your politics are turned off by the left. And if you think that Olbermann  is “nuanced and complex” I have to question your educational background:  like those whom you attack, it appears to be minimal.
                  And who or what, pray tell, is “Coupe Deval”?

                • Just responding in kind, Edgar.  

                  <

                  p>I wonder if you’ve actually ever seen Olbermann’s show or you are just taking the Right’s view of him (that has little to do with reality).  While he does use hyperbole and coarse language, the substance of what he says is well-reasoned, well-researched, and full of critical analysis.  

                  <

                  p>Coupe Deval is Howie Carr’s nickname for the governor, who, because he uses a Cadillac, is therefore blowing all the tax dollars of hard-working, Real Americans on personal extravagances.  

                • probably because of pre-existing, fixed ideas.  I really don’t care that much for his hyperbole re the world’s “most evil people” (who all seem to be Republicans) because if he is the best that the left can do, the left will always be a soured minority.
                  Thanks for the info about “Coupe Deval”–though I sometimes listen to him, I had not heard Carr use that expression.  Lately I have become tired of his and the Big Show’s hot air so I am listening to WBZ just to get the news at supper time.

                • I think “worst” was the word you meant. Mr. Olbermann frequently offers awards to “the worst person in the world.”

                  <

                  p>It is called “satire”. Some like it, some don’t.

                • language it is called “satire.”  Tom, cut the bs; you are not talking to an impressionable Freshman in a comp class at an ivy league “school.”:):)
                  I expected a better answer from you, Tom. With such a nasty as Olbermann I am not concerned about quoting accurately.

                • Accurately quoting someone, especially someone you attack, is pretty much the starting point for any kind of serious exchange.

                  <

                  p>I guess we each expected more from each other than we’re getting. I think “worst person in the world” is fairly obvious satire. I think it is absurd to compare that with, for example, “second amendment solution.” You seem to think that “worst” and “evil” are interchangeable. You seem to feel that since you have decided that Mr. Olbermann is “nasty” that you can therefore freely misquote him. I’ll remember the latter when attempt to “quote” other figures.

                  <

                  p>You do understand, don’t you, that misquoting someone is pretty much like lying, right? It’s the sort of thing that civilized people don’t do.

                • since his words are so obnoxious. Next time it’ll be direct copy because I so want you to consider me “civilized”–though I have to say that I don’t understand how a person of your intelligence can abide this guy. As always, best wishes.

      • Gotta see the irony that she is speaking in front of a “Target” Store.

        <

        p>These are the same people who claimed rock music led to drugs and murder. The same people who claim sex education leads to more sex. Other peoples’ words influence bad behavior but when they say something and people act on it then it’s “wait, you can blame OUR words”.

  2. supporting a link between any right wing group and the deranged murderer in Arizona.  In fact reports from those that know him tend to paint him as having fringe left wing views.  Of course with the skull altar in his back yard, one could just as well say that he was influenced by The Gormogon a fictional character in the television series “Bones” that kills people who are part of the “Illuminati”.

    <

    p>The rush to judgement on this by the some in the left as being justified by a culture of hate on the right, shows that the left is just as much to blame for that supposed culture of hate.

    • All the talk about cross-hairs, bulls-eyes, 2nd amendment remedies, and ‘reloading’ and you don’t think talking about any of that has a place in the context of a shooting of a congresswoman?  Really?  Granted, describing him as right-wing is probably inaccurate (I don’t know where you’re getting this ‘left wing’ thing – got a cite?), but I’m not accusing this guy of inciting anything – I’m disturbed that the people who created this atmosphere of incitement are now incredulously aghast that someone, even a disturbed someone, took them up on their suggestion.  I’d be a lot more impressed were someone to say something along the lines of “Although our message wasn’t meant to incite violent action, it may have been misconstrued as such and we regret any contribution it may have made to this disturbed person’s decision to address his problems with his government with violence.”  I’m not expecting it anytime soon though – the playbook has been to admit no errors for quite a while now.

        • Care to give context to it?  Given that it uses “Democrats” in the third rather than first person, I want more to believe this was put out by a candidate or organ of the Democratic Party.

          • Democratic Leadership Council in 2004.  In 2009 The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had an interactive website with bulls-eyes that when clicked brought you to a page of the “targeted” Republican.  Maybe that’s why Sarah Palin didn’t see a problem with the creative, the Democrats has been using it for over a year.  I put a link directly below my first post.  

            <

            p>Here it is again with copious links.

            <

            p>http://www.verumserum.com/?p=1…

            • The DLC is a center-right organization.  It’s not liberal or progressive in any way.  It is not an organization “of the left.”

                • And it’s not appropriate for them to do it either.  Though I would say that a generic target icon is not the same as sniper rifle cross-hairs that are shaded in red when Palin’s choice wins a seat.  Both are bad, but there is a difference of degree.  

                  <

                  p>The problem is not just the map with the cross-hairs, however. It’s that map coupled with constant rhetoric about “reloading” and “second amendment remedies” that simply do not come from the left.  The equivalence is simply false.

                • …the word “target” has legitimate political meaning.  Those of us active in field politics refer to targeting candidates, targeting voters, targeting constituencies, targeting precincts, etc. all the time.  We don’t mean anything remotely violent by it.  I’m much more concerned about gun-toting at rallies and “second amendment remedies”.

      • of Democrats using targeting symbols and rhetoric in a militaristic fashion about a half a decade before Sarah Palin at this link.  

        <

        p>So no I don’t think that contributed to it.  

  3. It’s one thing to use words like “If ballots don’t work, bullets will…” which have no place in our dialogue. However, I think we are being overly sensitive about words like “target”, “aim”… and other words which are part of typical language.

    <

    p>Let’s not overreact to this tragedy with a new PC dictionary. If Gov Patrick or Goc Christie wants to “target” inner city or suburban voters, I don’t see any foul.

    <

    p>This from KOS (my emphasis added)

    <

    p>

    Who to primary? Well, I’d argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I’ve bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

    …
    Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
    Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
    Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
    Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05)
    Engel, Elliot (NY-17)
    Etheridge, Bob (NC-02)
    Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
    …

    Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.

    <

    p>This was an article about the 2010 Primaries which is completely okay as far as I’m concerned.

    • It was Von Clausewitz that said “politics is war by other means”.  

      <

      p>Militaristic words have been used in politics for a long time. In fact the word campaign is in and of itself a word that originally meant a military operation or season of war.

    • … “2nd amendment remedy”?  I don’t see a ‘soft’ interpretation of that phrase like one you may have for phrases like “target”.

      • Right beside President Obama’s remark about “bringing a knife to a gun fight…” when referring to political fights.

        <

        p>Going forward, when someone makes a remark like these, they had better have a believable and justifiable explanation otherwise they should be soundly condemned… by all!

        <

        p>However, I will not condemn more “typical” use of words like targeting, slaughter, enemy…

        • I’ve heard that phrase several times over the previous several years in many contexts, as a way of expressing to fight as strenulously (or dirty) as the opposite already is.  Heck, it’s probably based in that iconic scene from Indiana Jones.

          <

          p>”Second Amendment remedies” is a phrase I only heard once a Democrat was in the White House.

          • I think of Sean Connery’s usage in “The Untouchables”. Classic!

            <

            p>Both are bad, wrong and unacceptable… “Second Amendment remedies” is just worse.

            • One is used throughout society.  It is inelegant lexicon.

              <

              p>One is used by angry conservatives.  It is a political statement embraced by an ideological cluster in the US.

                • After all, only a few people died, so it’s not worth any real self-examination, is it?  They’re just grist for the conservative mill.

                  <

                  p>Fifty years from now, it’s the conservatives who will look back and wonder what happened to America, with no idea how it could have ever been prevented…

                • I genuinely fear that we may not have that long. Fifty years ago was 1961. “Perry Mason” was new and JFK had just been inaugurated.

Archives