Although blaming conservative talk show hosts for crimes committed by others is nothing new -- just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton if you don't believe me! -- this recent spate of media members accusing their colleagues on the right any time a white guy goes on a shooting spree has really gotten out of hand.
Take for example Frank Rich's recent column in the New York Times entitled "The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers."
In it, Rich defined and defended what appears to have replaced Bush Derangement Syndrome now that Barack Obama is president (h/t anonymous NB reader):
A sizable minority of Americans is irrationally fearful of the fast-moving generational, cultural and racial turnover Obama embodies — indeed, of the 21st century itself. That minority is now getting angrier in inverse relationship to his popularity with the vast majority of the country. Change can be frightening and traumatic, especially if it’s not change you can believe in.
We don’t know whether the tiny subset of domestic terrorists in this crowd is egged on by political or media demagogues — though we do tend to assume that foreign jihadists respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the words of their most fanatical leaders and polemicists. But well before the latest murderers struck — well before another “antigovernment” Obama hater went on a cop-killing rampage in Pittsburgh in April — there have been indications that this rage could spiral out of control. [...]
Conservatives have legitimate ideological beefs with Obama, rightly expressed in sharp language. But the invective in some quarters has unmistakably amped up.
Indications that this rage could spiral out of control? Such as?
And where was Rich's concern for this spiraling out of control rage when it was being directed by folks like him at the Bush administration?
Shortly after America invaded Iraq, the invective from Rich and most of his colleagues towards the White House went beyond anything seen in this nation since Watergate. The hate-filled Left saw it as viable commentary in a country that reveres free speech.
BUT, now that someone they like is in the White House, any opinion contrary to his should not only be verboten, but is dangerous to the society:
This homicide-saturated vituperation is endemic among mini-Limbaughs. Glenn Beck has dipped into O’Reilly’s Holocaust analogies to liken Obama’s policy on stem-cell research to the eugenics that led to “the final solution” and the quest for “a master race.” After James von Brunn’s rampage at the Holocaust museum, Beck rushed onto Fox News to describe the Obama-hating killer as a “lone gunman nutjob.” Yet in the same show Beck also said von Brunn was a symptom that “the pot in America is boiling,” as if Beck himself were not the boiling pot cheering the kettle on.
But hyperbole from the usual suspects in the entertainment arena of TV and radio is not the whole story. What’s startling is the spillover of this poison into the conservative political establishment. Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan G.O.P. chairman who ran for the party’s national chairmanship this year, seriously suggested in April that Republicans should stop calling Obama a socialist because “it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.” Anuzis pushed “fascism” instead, because “everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.” He didn’t seem to grasp that “fascism” is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find “bad” because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler.
So where was Rich when Democrat leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid channeled MSNBC and the liberal blogosphere with their hate-filled attacks on the previous White House?
Alas, therein lies the rub, for the very same people who felt they were doing their jobs as journalists whenever they criticized Bush and Company now view their role as defending the current administration from scrutiny by claiming conservative dissent is hazardous to our health:
This kind of rhetoric, with its pseudo-Scriptural call to action, is toxic. It is getting louder each day of the Obama presidency. No one, not even Fox News viewers, can say they weren’t warned.
Exit question: Is Obama Derangement Syndrome presently more pervasive in the media than Bush Derangement Syndrome was before Inauguration Day?
As the answer seems clearly to be "No" -- Rich's Obama Haters are far outnumbered in the media by Obama Lovers -- doesn't this make the Times columnist's concerns either ignorant or disingenuous?
After all, as Rich was a devout and outspoken member of the Bush Haters, he certainly wasn't opposed to journalists expressing "in sharp language" the "legitimate ideological beefs" they had with the previous White House.
Since the only thing that's changed is the resident, any departure from what Rich advocated before as good journalism must be ideological, and, despite how much he doth protest, have nothing to do with the safety of the citizenry.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My vote:
June 14, 2009 - 10:36 ET by contraryMy vote: disingenuous
Rich has a long history chronicled here of biased pieces - this is no different. Actually, taken his columns during the Bush years as a reference, this piece is the very definition of bias.
Noel, you ask the most pointed question - where was this piece during the Bush years condemning Rich's buddies on the left. However, I think even a more important question is how can we have serious debate, not bomb-throwing, on extremely important issues when the presenters of the facts cannot do their jobs? How can we right the ship when half the crew doesn't acknowledge the compass is broken?
"No I have the facts"
--The resident Joe Friday
Bush haters weren't violent
June 14, 2009 - 11:27 ET by jasperjavaI don't remember any left-wing Bush haters resorting to violence. I don't remember anyone going to churches to hunt conservatives or pro-life leaders. When did left-wingers kill cops to protest the Iraq War?
The fact is that armed right-wing extremist domestic terrorism is a real threat. Patchouli-scented granola-chewing peacenik hippies are not.
this is exactly what i was
June 14, 2009 - 11:41 ET by criticalthinkingthis is exactly what i was thinking
How about the 6 March 2009
June 14, 2009 - 13:46 ET by BDHow about the 6 March 2009 Bombing of the recruiting station in Times Square? Perhaps the left might not be as proficient with explosives (Witness the Weathermen Underground blowing themselves up in NYC) But theya re just as apt to attempt the violence.
The difference is that the
June 14, 2009 - 12:30 ET by MrSnugglesThe difference is that the left is far more organized, the ELF movement for example which has caused untold amounts of damage. And let us not forget about Bill Ayers and his murderous buddies. Or the burning of Sarah Palin's church, or the vandalism and bomb threats to military recruitment stations.
These "right-wing" extremists are nothing but crazies with no organized group supporting them, to say that anybody on the right is culpable is a shameless political attack.
Good point, Mr. S....that
June 14, 2009 - 13:55 ET by motherbeltGood point, Mr. S....that puts the lie to jasperjava's
The fact is that armed right-wing extremist domestic terrorism is a
real threat. Patchouli-scented granola-chewing peacenik hippies are not.
Shoulda known what was coming when he started with "The fact is....."
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
wow...
June 14, 2009 - 12:42 ET by Ascended Conservativethank you MrSnuggles for your respnose. you beat me to it! but i'd like to add that this whole "right-wing" extremism is completely bogus and an artificial construct of the left to demonize conservatives. if you actually looked at the Haulocost gunman, you'd realzie he has more in common with liberal versus conservative ideaolgy. he hated O'Rielly, Beck and Fox News. he was an anti-semite and a racist biggot. also, don't forget the recently converted radical jihadist murdering Pvt. Long. that gunman probably had more in common with the Haulocost murderer than the left would like to accept.
i don't know one TRUE conservative who is either anti-any race or religion. conservativism is all about individualism, personal responsiblitiy and liberty for all. we do not desire to seek power in order to control the lives of others. please note that i used TRUE conservativism. this does not apply to those calling themselves conservative but whose actions are contrary.
-ascended conservative
Neither true liberals nor true conservatives are racist.
June 14, 2009 - 14:37 ET by jasperjavaHow can a racist, anti-Semitic neo-Nazi be a "liberal"? Liberals are multi-culturalists who embrace diversity, remember?
Liberals, by definition, can't be racist or anti-Semitic. the moment anyone judges someone because of their race or religion, they cease to be liberal in a philosophical sense.
I agree with you that TRUE conservatives are not racist and anti-Semitic. However, there are precious few "true" conservatives left. Look at all the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Black racism that comes out of the mouths of people who call themselves "conservative' nowadays.
"Liberals, by definition,
June 14, 2009 - 14:44 ET by contrary"Liberals, by definition, can't be racist or anti-Semitic. the moment anyone judges someone because of their race or religion, they cease to be liberal in a philosophical sense."
You might want to check your party's platform on Affirmative Action..
"No I have the facts"
--The resident Joe Friday
Oh that's convenient, well
June 14, 2009 - 20:45 ET by gmaniac1Oh that's convenient, well the same can be said about us conservatives. And I see very few liberals nowdays that aren't racist so there are no liberals anymore just a bunch of left wing radical racists using your logic, for lack of a better word. Nazis were socialists, hence the National Socialist Party, as are liberals nowdays. So hence, liberals need to change their name to something else. Would you like to make any more false blanket statements? Or do you like to publicly look like an uneducated ass?
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
Do you have reading
June 14, 2009 - 13:55 ET by contraryDo you have reading comprehension problems?
"No I have the facts"
--The resident Joe Friday
I think jasper is a copy
June 14, 2009 - 20:46 ET by gmaniac1I think jasper is a copy and paste person.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
The fact is.....
June 14, 2009 - 13:57 ET by motherbeltThe fact is..... ???????
Care to elaborate, jasper?????
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
This poster obviously did
June 14, 2009 - 14:01 ET by contraryThis poster obviously did loads of research and is right now collecting all the links to post ala PopTech to convince us heathen conservatives how hopelessly stoopid we are. He/She looks to be the typical "one-hit-wonder" when it comes to posting and staying on topic.
"No I have the facts"
--The resident Joe Friday
"Patchouli-scented granola-chewing peacenik hippies"
June 14, 2009 - 14:17 ET by SickofLibsHe means like the world's most inept bombers, William Ayers & Co..
Elaborate what? I don't
June 14, 2009 - 14:44 ET by jasperjavaElaborate what? I don't remember politically-motivated violence committed by the left during the B*sh years, do you?
Whereas Obama's been President all of five months, and there are already victims of extreme right-wing violence.
Conservatives should be appalled at the racism, death threats, and violence being spewed by right-wing extremists, instead of making excuses for them or trying to project labels on them to smear their political opponents.
At the very least, liberals and conservatives should be able to agree that using violence to promote your political point of view is terrorism. We should condemn it, whether it comes from the extreme right or radical Islam or eco-fanaticism or whatever.
First, none of these
June 14, 2009 - 14:59 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsFirst, none of these murders were committed by a Conservative. None. Conservatives (unlike the left) have values and murder is not one of them. Keep in mind also people like Mussolini, Hitler, Che, etc were leftists. Now here are some leftists for you:
Remember the shoe thrower? The guys who tried to blow up Cheney? How about this inspirational play (do you think a rightwinger could get away with that using the current President?)? How about this guy? Here, do some fishing.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
jasper: I offer the
June 14, 2009 - 15:14 ET by QueenMumjasper: I offer the following for your consideration and enlightenment:
Left wing extremism
You referred to the Bush years. But I just wanted to provide some balance to the argument.
Tell me more about to whom you are referring when you speak
of racism, death threats and violence "spewed" by right-wing
extremists. Please provide examples. Are you saying that you've never
heard such things coming from left wing extremists?
Bottom line: Extremism is not the sole responsibility or method of what you refer to as "the right".
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats." - Groucho Marx
Conservatives are not only
June 14, 2009 - 20:44 ET by gmaniac1Conservatives are not only appalled at the left wing attacks on the innocent victims but they are also appalled at the fact that left wingers don't take responsibility for their own actions. We can only come together when liberals finally admit who they are and what they represent. That is a radical fascist form of government through the takeover of all private industry, personal liberties and freedoms to create a distorted view of equality, and institutional racism against so-called oppressors that no longer exist. Until then, there will be no hope. Once your side quits blowing up buildings, shooting American soldiers on our own soil, and killing innocent life in the womb, we can then come to terms with real peace.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
Of course you don't but
June 14, 2009 - 19:47 ET by gmaniac1Of course you don't but heh, let's not forget about the Islamo-fascist shooting the soldier in Arkansas in defiance of Iraq. Oh, and the left wing nut shooting the black security guard in the Holocaust museum recently. I know you're going to say he's right wing but Nazis are socialists and hate conservative Christians more than anything. So of course your warped little mind wouldn't remember anything of the sort, it would be too convenient.
So the fact that the extremist on the left are more dangerous than the extremist on the right is frightening. But that's okay because idiots like you are too stupid to see that.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
This column is written for a
June 14, 2009 - 10:41 ET by d1carterThis column is written for a subversive, traitorous publication. Should we expect anything more?
The defenders of all
June 14, 2009 - 10:43 ET by MidAmericaThe defenders of all things obama have one problem that the defenders of Bush did not have, obama must be defended as infallible. Every pronouncement and every nuance expressed by obama must be treated as gospel. To do otherwise is to risk losing the only thing obama has going for him, that he actually knows what he is doing and knows more than anyone else where to take the country. It's the same spiel you here from the press in any totalitarian country where the exaulted 'Leader' is held up as the embodiment of truth and wisdom.
Get ready for a massive assault on our 1st Amendment rights
June 14, 2009 - 10:55 ET by R D Helm...'cause its coming.
The left has every intention of silencing us by any means necessary.
LOL-NB has an "anonymous" reader?
-Dave
Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof-Herman Cain
Shut up
June 14, 2009 - 11:00 ET by casel21Andrew Klavan at
http://www.youtube.c...
brilliantly summarized the conclusion to almost all the left's arguments: Shut Up. They sieze upon every event as a premise to that conclusion. Doesn't newsbusters understand this?
Thanks for posting that video
June 14, 2009 - 11:18 ET by BlondeI'd seen it before, but it is worth a second (and third) viewing.
I hope he fails, too.
I guess Mr. Rich never heard
June 14, 2009 - 11:18 ET by flyingmonkeyI guess Mr. Rich never heard the story about Obama kicking off his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist who was willing to exterminate 25 million Americans who didn't agree with him.
flyingmonkey just logged on
June 14, 2009 - 11:44 ET by criticalthinkingflyingmonkey just logged on to www.hyperbole.com/st...
Shhh or the IRS will come
June 14, 2009 - 20:50 ET by gmaniac1Shhh or the IRS will come knocking out your door.
Yes, Ayers is such a great person for all the wonderful thoughts he has added to society. We need so many more like him except I think some demolition experts would lose their jobs if that happened, just saying.
Baby boy might have to light the match on his own next time someone disagrees with him. You know Ayers ain't getting any younger.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
jessieH The
June 14, 2009 - 11:21 ET by jessieHjessieH The govt. & the MSM are stirring a lot of hate these days. They call US everything they can think of to tear US apart. They are trying to start violence between the conservatives & the liberals. Once the violence begins, they can call for "martial law" to stop it. Once they have martial law they will change things so much, WE may never recover. Smoke & Mirrors.
Thanks to nick
June 14, 2009 - 11:24 ET by KC MulvilleOn another thread, I've been having a little back and forth with "nick" nickleby about this issue, and it's been pleasant enough. I mention it because it shows the value of real conversation. It allowed me to clarify my thoughts, and address objections to my own position. To be blunt, it forced me to put those hazy subconscious ideas into consciously-chosen words. That doesn't mean I have proved anything (nick, I'm sure, probably still disagrees with me), but it has given me a chance to establish what I believe.
My problem with this whole "blame the conservatives" meme is that I simply deny the premise. What counts as a rising wave of right-wing violence here? Answer: a couple of murders, counted over several months and over the whole United States, where the motive was political. The city of Chicago had over 500 murders last year. And after all, no one made a big deal about any of this until the abortion doctor was murdered. Now, it's a wave of "right-wing violence!" Never mind that the notorious killing of the Army recruiter had nothing to do with conservatives, nor did the Holocaust Museum whacko. It's all lumped together into a media-propelled "feeling" and "fear" that conservatives are losing their grip, and therefore all conservative criticisms should be muted.
Not all correlations are causes. Political science is a science only to the degree that you can reveal the cause of events and opinion. Right now, liberals are pointing to a couple murders and they're declaring that right-wing rhetoric caused them (either directly or in tandem). They're sure to cover their ass by saying that "not all" conservatives are bloodthirsty whackos ... gee, thanks. But then they declare it as a fact that you can't ignore the clear connection between the rise of violence and right-wing rhetoric. They're clearly correlations!
Well, if so ...
A liberal reading that list will claim that these correlations are absurd. Of course Obama didn't have any part in this!
But that's the point. If you want to mute conservative criticism, you can't rely on three murders to constitute a "rising wave" of political violence. Rush Limbaugh has been speaking for nearly twenty-five years ... by the same statistics, you could argue that Rush has limited the number of political murders over a quarter century! Stokely Carmichael and J.D. Salinger surely "inspired" more murders and suicides that that!
It's time to stick to calm, relevant facts when we have political discussions. To a conservative, blaming conservatives for a wave of violence is as logical as blaming Obama for Pittsburgh winning the Stanley Cup. Sure, there's a correlation, but it's hardly a reasonable excuse for a cause.
Now, another clueless wimp is heard from...
June 14, 2009 - 11:35 ET by ThalpyNow, another clueless wimp is heard from. Yesterday it was Krugman, today it's Frank Rich suggesting that a "sizable minority of Americans is irrationally fearful of the fast-moving generational, cultural and racial turnover Obama embodies..." No, it is not an irrational fear at all, but rather a heartfelt concern for the destruction of traditional American institutions. Many of us are sick at heart that so many of our citizens have been taken in by these flimflam thugs from Chicago. Obama and his legion are Anlinkyites to the bone who hate what they believe America was and is, and they are hell bent to see that America will never be a capitalist nation again. Rich is concerned that Obama is called a socialist. Being a socialist is the least of what Obama is. This systematic coup d'etat provided by Obama and company is totally lost on Frank Rich. He should seek other work.
Frank Rich is a fool.
NYT
June 14, 2009 - 13:16 ET by Edward CropperIf they weren't constantly quoted by conservative writers and bloggers
columnists for the NYT would have about 28 readers combined.
Do you really think anyone in middle America except political junkies or
resident liberals have a clue who Paul Krugman and Frank Rich are?
They are preaching to the choir and normal people don't know anything about
these scumbags. They actually influence no one.
You can be sure Rich loves
June 14, 2009 - 13:27 ET by bigtimerYou can be sure Rich loves this...arm in arm with his other ilk.
Spooky what's to come....it's their way or the highway....or prison.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Stay classy, Frank The
June 14, 2009 - 13:35 ET by wiwfStay classy, Frank
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Antisemitism on the Left
June 14, 2009 - 13:56 ET by slickwillie2001Came across another poll of antisemitism vs political parties: Anti-semitism and the Financial Crisis: http://bostonreview.net
Who blames the Jews for the financial crisis:
Democratics: 32%
Republicans: 18.4%
No word how many of those polled were members of Jeremiah Wright's rabble.
" now view their role as
June 14, 2009 - 15:27 ET by chessplayer" now view their role as defending the current administration from scrutiny by claiming conservative dissent is hazardous to our health:"
Thats the strategy. By claiming any criticism/dissent of The One is terrorism or fomenting terrorism, they will try to silence all differing points of view.
Unabomber, Holocaust
June 14, 2009 - 15:48 ET by George S PattonUnabomber, Holocaust musuem shooter, Private Long's murderer, none of these dirtbags were conservative. Sorry Jasper, go back and pray to the teleprompter messiah for more guidance.
Talk Radio=Hate Speech! Talk Radio=Hate Speech! Talk.....
June 14, 2009 - 16:44 ET by tomchrisThe lone pleasure of reading Frank Rich is to see what precalculated crap is being playfully floated amongst the media elite. First we had "Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican Party" now it's "Beck and O'Reilly inciting murderers." Obviously, this "Talk Radio=Hate Speech" mantra is an attempt to gin up mass hysteria against conservative voices thus arming Democrats with an urgency to install some form of the Fairness Doctrine.
It's an urgency fueled by one thing- conservative media is winning! Fox News? Number one! Rush, Sean, Laura...? High ratings! Mark Levin and Ann Coulter? Huge Bestsellers! The New York Times, MSNBC, liberal talkers...? Can you say "bail out?"
As for Frank Rich, I remember a moment last year when he mistakenly showed his cards during a New York radio interview conducted by, ironically, conservative Mark Simone. When asked about the (little covered) news that John Edwards was having an affair, Rich admitted he ignored the Presidential candidate because he frankly never liked him. You'd think it is Rich's job to give his readership a full-bodied assesement on anyone in the political arena. So what does Rich do when someone who shares his idiology does not measure up? He folds his laptop. What naked dishonesty.