My friend Richard asks a good question. Why does Rush Limbaugh get a pass on encouraging his listeners to riot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver?
“Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don’t elect Democrats,” Limbaugh said during Wednesday’s radio broadcast. He then went on to say that’s the best thing that could happen to the country.
Of course, Limbaugh tried to backpeddle.
Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh’s comments, when he later stated, “I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver.”
Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called “Operation Chaos,” the people on the far left would look bad.
“There won’t be riots at our convention,” Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. “We don’t riot. We don’t burn our cars. We don’t burn down our houses. We don’t kill our children. We don’t do half the things the American left does.”
This is typical of Limbaugh talking out of both sides of his mouth. If the proposed riots are part of his ‘Operation Chaos’ (a plan that includes having Republicans vote for Clinton to extend the race) then they are clearly inspired and instigated by his listeners as a way to make the ‘left look bad’.
As for the rest of his statement, it includes clear references to the Rodney King riots and the high level of black on black crime in our cities In other words, his listeners can light cars and homes on fire in Denver and try to blame it on outraged black people. Limbaugh has been known to peddle in overt racism before, but this is the first time I am aware of that he has combined that loathsome practice with an incitement to violence.
Richard is right, this is something the Colorado Attorney General should look into. You can contact him here. This is like a citizen’s COINTELPRO and it should not be tolerated.
Update [2008-4-25 10:36:14 by Steven D]: COLORADO REVISED STATUTE 18-9-102(3) reads:
Inciting riot. Any person who incites, urges, instructs, or signals a group of five or more persons to engage in a riot and injury to a person or damage to property results therefrom commits a class 5 felony.
heh, this rarely happens. For some bizarre reason Steven and I almost never focus on the same story. Oh well.
No worries Mate.
As for this:
“There won’t be riots at our convention,” Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. “We don’t riot. We don’t burn our cars. We don’t burn down our houses. We don’t kill our children. We don’t do half the things the American left does.”
I guess Rush forgot about Oklahoma City, the KKK, Lynching, etc.
Well, the OK City thing qualifies, but the KKK and lynching was all about burning and killing other people. That makes it okay.
No, Republicans never riot, unless of course they have a really good reason, like stealing a Presidential election.
It’s a federal offense.
Emphases mine. I think Rush will get away with this (he usually does) but I reported him anyway.
Well, that chances that the Bush DOJ would indict Rush are less than zero.
And the Colorado Attorney General is also unlikely to do so.
Funny how all the Republicans in Congress not so long ago were rushing to defend Rush for his phony soldiers comments. I bet they defend him for this as well.
The Dems should be hammering El Rushbo on this, especially Obama.
Obama is accused to being elitist and out of touch with “core Democrats” for saying they might be bitter and we’ve got Rush accusing the same group of people as child-killers and lawless hooligans. It’s new orleans all over again.
Jesus. HIT BACK ON THIS.
Agreed about “hitting back”.
WWGD? (What would Gilly do?)
Democrats are incapable of hitting back. They have been effec†ively neutered. If someone on the left says anything resembling a controversial statement the Dems all line up to condemn him or her. How quickly we forget about the MoveOn fiasco. Wasn’t there a call to censor Rush at about the same time as the MoveOn fiasco and all the Republicans lined up to defend him? And maybe a few Democrats?
And hasn’t Hillary courted Rush this election?
Dems are scared of their own message so they do not let the firebrands on their side fight.
Yes. Bill went on the Limbaugh show.
Just imagine if Rev. Wright had encouraged riots.
Do they not have any sense of dignity? Courting Rush Limbaugh and Mellon-Scaife? WTF?
It’s like the battered-wife syndrome. They have been repeatedly raped by these scoundrels and they show up at their doorsteps with flowers asking if they can be forgiven.
It’s obvious to all how far this fool can think. His reason for being is to distract your attention away from whatever the evildoers are up to.
Don’t waste your time on the clowns, watch the real show.
May I steal it? 🙂
Bless you SN. I never remember to copyright my mumblings, but I figure if it’s out there, it belongs to everybody.
It just bothers me to watch our social discourse become so filthy. It’s such a pleasure to see Barack stay out of it. We all aspire to be better and he represents the hope that we can achieve our best with cooperation rather than competition.
Riot? Why the very idea is ridiculous. Kinda like Charlie Manson’s helter skelter plan.
The ends justify the means to right-wing nuts. That’s why they support torture and un-American activities like illegal spying and detention without trial. They really believe they have to break the law and the constitution to save us all. It’s for our own good, don’t you know.
Look for this thinking to spread amongst the right-wing warrior crowd as it becomes clearer that they may lose the presidency. I will not be surprised to see Petreus and other Bush-appointed military men set the stage of openly defying a President Obama. They will say that beating the “islamofascists” is more important that our Constitution and they will do it if Obama won’t. Same with going to war with Iran. These right-wing nuts have to be defeated and the Democratic strategy of ignoring it (and even seeking their approval) is making it worse.
Open defiance of the Commander in Chief is a serious career limiting move, to say the least. Just ask Douglas MacArthur. Short of mutiny, I can’t see the armed forces taking up arms against another country in defiance of a Presidential order. Following orders is just part of their DNA. Besides, if they were capable of mutiny, it seems like the cooler heads among the military — the ones who resigned rather than be a part of Bush’s Iraq strategy — would have done so long ago.
It’s much more likely that Bush would try to order action against Iran or the “islamofascists” (whoever they happen to be this week in his fevered imagination) in the interval between the election and the swearing-in. Just one final mess, one last F-you to Obama, one last flaming bag of dog poo on the doorstep of the White House before the Idiot King leaves office.
they’re still trying to provoke a casus belli : the appointment of betreaus to replace fallon, who’s on record of as refusing to take the bait viv-a-vis iran, combined with increasing belocitty by “contract vessels and their security forces” shooting at iranian boats…you do the math.
a continuation of the “madman strategy” or cheney on the loose?
beyond the fact that such an action would be the ultimate act of treason by the administration, l wouldn’t put it past them.
and hillary doesn’t instill a lot of confidence with her “we’ll annihilate you” rhetoric.
Well, Bush is trying to change the facts on the ground to ensure his Iraq strategy is carried out through the next administration. And he’s systematically purged and politicized the military to do this. Petreus is his political nuclear weapon. Petreus just admitted he had no withdrawal plan and he may indeed make it difficult for a president-elect Obama and may not prepare for a new course in Iraq. In fact, I get the impression the Bush gang is using its control of the military to put in place every obstacle they can for an Obama withdrawal plan. And now Bush and the media are going around saying how the normal protocol is to keep Bush’s senior military personnal for a while in the new administration. Petreus and Bush’s hand-picked military men may not openly rebel against a President Obama, but they are sure going to make it difficult for Obama.
To what extent we shall see . . .. but I am not giving the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt.
And I meant to add that the Democrats effectively shot themselves in the foot by worshiping at St. Petreus’ feet. When the Democrats actually moved the Senate to censor criticism of General Petreus, it effectively made off-limits any criticism of Petreus’ motives. Petreus’ honor and integrity and motives became beyond reproach.
And now the Democrats are effectively neutered whenever they wish to protest Bush military policy, e.g. “What do you mean Petreus shouldn’t send our troops to the Iranian border? Obama doesn’t take office for one more month and Petreus is just trying to protect the troops! You calling him a traitor?”
I don’t doubt that Bush will try to do all those things and more. So if I were Obama, before I took office I would gather some military advisers around me, made up of senior staff who resigned because of Bush’s handling of the war. I think I’d also find a couple of supporters of Bush’s plan, just so I could know what those who seem to think Iraq was a good idea were thinking. Then as soon as I was able to do so I would need to start working my way around whatever obstacles he’d laid in my path. I would hope that this would not require a complete de-Bushization of the military, but it’s possible it could come to that.
I seriously doubt that this constitutes a crime. There is considerable leeway given to political speech. As there should be. Even if a few nutballs act on these words I think Rush should probably be protected. Same with Michelle Malkin making veiled threats at the NY Times or AP or whatever her target of the week is.
But it just goes to show you how screwed up the media is. The “Left” calls Petreus’ honor into question by arguing that he was lying to Congress or at least a political schill of the President. The right wing and the press went nuts about this “outrage”. It is evidently unconscionable to criticize a General in America (unless it’s Bush criticizing a General). I’m surprised the Republicans didn’t push to make çriticizing a General illegal. Yet when Rush or Michelle Malkin fantasize about killing Democrats the press chalks it up to political speech.
I don’t blame Rush for being an ill-tempered radical that has racial fantasies about negroes rioting and Dems killing each other. I blame the media and our political culture for including him in our discourse.
Ånd I especially blame the Democrats for not having the courage to stand up to this çråp.
Liberals are “burning houses and cars”, wingnuts are only inciting violence and riots.