Rush Limbaugh killed some church goers in Tennessee last July. That is the message from a Newsday.com columnist for a local New York newspaper chain. Now, I've listened to Rush Limbaugh many times. Because of my schedule, I cannot listen every day, so certainly I have not heard every word the man has ever uttered, but I am sure that you won't be able to find a time when he told people to go out and kill liberals. Neither have I ever heard Sean Hannity advocate murder. Michael Savage.... well, I haven't heard it but I almost wouldn't be surprised, almost. Still, even Savage is smart enough not to do so I am sure. Regardless of a complete lack of such incitement to murder made by these "right-wing Shock jocks," as she puts it, Jenna Kern-Rugile is sure that the killings of the members of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville last July is the fault of Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage.
Her premise is that the "rhetoric of extreme right pundits" such as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly "might" have caused shooter Jim D. Adkisson, 58, to gather up his guns and perpetrate a murder spree on July 27 at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville.
Might the shooter have heard talk-show host Rush Limbaugh say that "liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces" and "the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats" and that riots at the Democratic Convention would be "the best damn thing that can happen to this country."
Kern-Rugile also wonder "might the shooter" have listened to Hannity. She also notes that the killer had some conservative books in his home.
Some proof she has there.
First of all, calling O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity "right-wing Shock jocks" is absurd. The woman's obscene rhetoric is itself beginning to make the lie to her claim of being an objective commentator on the subject. Worse, it seems to me this sort of loose theorizing is as much an example of hate as what she claims comes from her targets on talk radio.
But, even her example of Limbaugh's words are a far cry from advocating murder. For that matter, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, all frame their discussions in the political arena, none of them saying that people should do anything other than vote the right way.
Even Savage, renown for saying "liberalism is a mental disorder," has never to my knowledge advocated violence. In fact, if he truly believes that liberals have a mental disorder the solution to that is medical help, not execution! Help, not death. the compassion of wanting to help the sick hardly seems to be a basis for a killing spree.
Without question the passions of political discussion should be tempered with common sense. The sort of emotions that inspire deep seated hatred needs to be carefully watched so that they don't rise to the surface and cause something like the spree in Tennessee. But, regardless of that we will see people of dubious mental balance act on their mental disorders no matter the influence.
But, here is the main problem with Kern-Rugile's piece. She doesn't seem to realize that the "hate" she so decries is infused in her side of the ideological aisle, as well. Apparently, Kern-Rugile has ignored the hate displayed by leftists on such sites as DailyKos, Huffington Post and the Democratic Underground. On any given day one can see the sort of hatred that could easily be turned to violence displayed on those sites. And the hate on such sites isn't the only manifestation of the sort of behavior that "might" cause marginally stable Democrats to under take killing sprees -- if we are to accept Jenna Kern-Rugile's concept, of course.
Recently, for instance, Cafe Press had to cancel a T-Shirt offering that featured the map of Red/Blue America on it with the words "Kill Republicans" emblazoned over it. (Cafe Press is an on-line company where users can sign up to sell their own T-Shirt designs) Early in August of 2005, Michelle Malkin reported on graffiti in New York City that proclaimed "I kill Republicans."
And then we can cite the efforts of legitimate Democrat supporting organizations for inciting hatred that might lead to violence. Just last October, when the SCHIP bill was being debated, the AFL-CIO ran a campaign that told its followers that a Bush veto of the SCHIP bill would hurt children. On the AFL-CIOs discussion of the health bill, one of the commenters on the page claimed that Republicans wanted to "kill children." Union member David Hulburt of CWA local 9410 wondered of Bush "How many children will your veto kill each day."
Using Kern-Rugile's logic, would it be surprising to find that such a person as Hurlburt might turn to murder to stop people from "killing children"? It would fit in quite easily with her assumptions, wouldn't it?
Obviously Kern-Rugile did not think her position through to its logical conclusion, that all high political passions could lead to violence. But, then, all human thoughts can be taken to such extremes. It doesn't have to be political. And that simple fact makes her whole point rather void of any legitimacy. After all, how many Jim D. Adkissons has there been since the rise of talk radio in the last 20 years? Looks like a grand total of one, to me!
(Photo of Limbaugh: Lighthouse Patriot Journal)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh, for crying out
August 14, 2008 - 06:41 ET by motherbeltOh, for crying out loud!
Liberals can say outright that conservatives should be dead, because that's, you know, a "fact."
Like Bill Maher saying "I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact."
It's a fact because Maher said so.
Expect the "liberal-hating" angle to get more attention now that this story is out. It won't surprise me for this angle to be played up, by the same media that religiously ignored the fact that the Unabomber had Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" in his possession.
Mental illness
August 14, 2008 - 07:34 ET by dronetekThese people are masters of projecting their tactics and hate on to other people. In their minds, anything they do is justified.
How does this "reporter" miss all the merchndise out there advocating Bush's assasination and constant hate speech towards the right from left wing blogs?
Absolutley...
August 14, 2008 - 07:36 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe few instances of hate from the left I reported is a drop in the bucket of what is out there.
if the guy's premise is
August 14, 2008 - 10:41 ET by TruthMongerif the guy's premise is true just think how much death and destruction Hollywood causes every day
the guy needs to talk to Rob Reiner
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
I think that the Una Bomber had Spotted Al Gore's book
August 14, 2008 - 08:12 ET by mikejin his possession when they arrested him or at least he had it in his hideaway. Funny I don't remember wacky environmentalists being blamed for those strings of murders and bombings.
AM I THE ONLY ONE???
August 14, 2008 - 08:24 ET by danybhoyI can't count how many times I have seen a news story about a death caused by a drunk driver who had been slapped on the wrist several times for the same offence, or some idiot violent sex offender who gets busted again after he has done this before, & the judge or the D.A. never get the kind of treatment Rush just got this time, or the blame for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Very selective outrage, if you axe me.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Ironically, just yesterday,
August 14, 2008 - 08:37 ET by ksennishIronically, just yesterday, I was on my favorite place of debate, Newsvine.com, arguing about this very topic. Apparently a democrat in Arkansas was shot, so I thought I would check out what hate filled rants against republicans were being posted there.
Sure enough, I wasn't disappointed. Half the messages were attacks that once again, it was people like Limbaugh and Hannity that caused such a shooting. I guess the stories clear statement of "The motives were unknown" is equivalent in the average liberal posters mind to "the motives were clearly unwarranted hate for a compassionate and caring liberal by a evil war-mongering republican out for blood based on what evil commentators urge them to do."
People actually said that Rush would provoke such an attack in someone who might be slightly mentally unstable.
I wish I was a liberal. Then I would be blessed with the magical ability to pull loads of crap out of thin air.
i was listening to moonbat
August 14, 2008 - 10:45 ET by TruthMongeri was listening to moonbat talk radio yesterday morning - a national personality - mentioned this story and then repeated several times "gee, I wonder what Limbaugh was talking about yesterday" "what did Limbaugh say to push this guy over the edge"
moonbat talk radio drives most of this putrid DKOS shit every day
GD pondscum bastards
at least there will be a reckoning:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Hit Man
August 14, 2008 - 08:39 ET by kilrodDo you suppose Rush put out the "hit" on the head of the dims who was murdered in Ark.yesterday??!!
I wonder why the msm has'nt given us more detail on this murder?? Is it possible that something is there that would make the dims look bad??
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Do they ever?
August 14, 2008 - 08:46 ET by Hippopaulimus"Obviously Kern-Rugile did not think her position through to its logical conclusion,..."
Liberal thought process in a nutshell...is anyone here surprised?
White - does not mean racist
Heterosexual - does not mean homophobic
Male - does not mean sexist
If conservative talk radio
August 14, 2008 - 08:52 ET by Ruths husband BenIf conservative talk radio is the cause of the attack on a Moonbat Church what is the cause of the frequent attacks on Christian churches? Air America?
“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Antonin Scalia
I suspect the author of
August 14, 2008 - 08:54 ET by Free ThinkerI suspect the author of this trash opinion "journalism" has never listened to Rush Limbaugh other than maybe a few out of context sound bites probably provided by some leftist hate group like media matters. For anyone who has ever listened to the Rush Limbaugh show on a regular basis comments like these are just ignored because they don't even resemble reality.
I could make just as strong an argument as this one that because the killer had a tv in his home he must have watched NBC and decided the world was going to end because of global warming so he decided to go out with a bang.
EXTREME?
August 14, 2008 - 09:13 ET by DelsaYou've Got to be Kidding?
This world is more turned around everyday.
We (the sane oness) are in BIG TROUBLE!
Unconscionable
August 14, 2008 - 09:38 ET by dscottThis is a disgusting shameless politicization of a personal tragedy. Assigning a poliltical motive to a lone individual who clearly was in mental distress is beyond outrageous. Do the libs have any sense of decorum?? Then to put it in a national paper! Shame on You! Shame on YOU NYT!
Hopefully this will accelerate the stock price drop trend of the NYT so their reprehensible organization will be out of business by this time next year and personally it's not soon enough. And you people have the nerve to look down your nose at the National Enquirer???? Your standards of crap journalism require you to get on a 12 foot step ladder just to look at the NE's feet.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
"Were they ashamed when
August 14, 2008 - 12:02 ET by bradbenj5952"Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 8:12
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Apparently, I misidentified
August 14, 2008 - 13:12 ET by dscottApparently, I misidentified the parent company of Newsday, it's the Tribune Cos not NYT. The factuality of the sentiment hasn't changed though just broadening the number of crap journalism employed by MSM propaganda outlets being identified.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
The hyphenated last name is
August 14, 2008 - 09:39 ET by mattmThe hyphenated last name is a dead giveaway....we're dealing with a half-wit.
Wrong on Many Levels
August 14, 2008 - 09:42 ET by SmartypantsTripe like this is wrong on so many levels that it is a serious waste of time to even take them semi-seriously. Of course, anyone who spends any amount of time listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and the others knows that, not only is violence not advocated, the hosts are actually far more respectful of liberal viewpoints than what they are given credit for by the media. Hannity and Limbaugh in particular regularly put opposing callers on the air; Rush is overly respectful of these people, unless they become disrespectful--even then, I am amazed at how he holds his patience and tries to talk them through his points. These guys do not advocate any level of violence in even the most remote sense. Calling what they do "hate speech" is a talking point the left uses because it does not know how to counter their arguments on an intellectual level.
With that said, though, let's assume for the sake of argument that something one of these guys said did drive someone to commit a crime. Can that even be construed as their fault? What is the proposed solution that is suggested--silence Limbaugh, Hannity and others because someone might take what they say to the extreme and haul off and kill someone? Can freedom of speech really be regulated in this manner? Hollywood has produced endless movies portraying brutal, grisly violence and murders--and this practice is endorsed by the left as a "freedom of speech" issue. Others have gotten away with openly suggesting that it would be great if President Bush were assassinated, the media yawned. Recently, a guy strangled his girlfriend to death after watching the movie "Natural Born Killers" (multiple times) with liberal Woody Harrelson. The guy stated that the movie influenced his actions and he didn't know why. Does anyone believe Hollywood will even think about not producing movies of this nature? Will liberal columnists write articles admonishing Hollywood for the tone of its movies?
Obviously, the root problem here has nothing to do with violence per se. Any pundit at any time could utter something that an unbalanced person can use as an excuse to commit violence. Attempting to hold media personalities accountable for the actions of their entire audience, which numbers in the tens of millions, is absurd. No, this is all about political ideology and that's it. Left wing nutjobs (remember the unabomber?) who commit crimes are quickly dismissed. Related coverage of the media takes a distinctive apolitical slant in these instances. The criminal is treated as a sick individual and the incident is considered an isolated occurrence; no wider interpretation than that is provided. If, however, some sick individual commits a crime from an ostensibly right wing position, than it is a much larger issue. Clearly, this is the result of right wing "hate speech". Broad conclusions are drawn about conservatives in general and we get suggestions of the need for some kind of broad-based corrective action (be it gun control or silencing someone's voice).
If you read the op/ed in
August 14, 2008 - 16:13 ET by JasonCIf you read the op/ed in question, you will note that the author goes out of her way to express her opposition to censoring those pundits or even trying in some way to assign blame to them.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Say what?
August 14, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Indiana JoeShe gives lip-service to being anti-censorship, then advocates a boycott to force these shows off the air. That's a plain attempt at censorship. Also, she clearly considers right-wing talk radio to be "hate-speech," and clearly blames it for the actions of Adkisson.
What other point is there to even writing the piece?
Indiana, long time no
August 14, 2008 - 18:54 ET by JasonCIndiana, long time no see.
A boycott is not censorship. Bill O'Reilly, one of the subjects of this essay, calls for boycotts several times a year of things he finds offensive. Try telling him that that equals censorship.
those of us who reject the rhetoric of extreme right pundits can still
speak out and try to put pressure on the corporations that air their
shows and the advertisers who sponsor them. Censorship, no. Exercising
our free speech and spending our dollars in sync with our values,
absolutely.
I should not have to explain to a conservative the legitimacy of voting with one's wallet and speech. If she had called for the government to shut down those pundits, I'd concede you have a point. But she does not.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Hey ho Jason,
August 14, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Indiana JoeI give her credit for enough intelligence to realize that a call for government censorship would not only be futile, but indefensible. We don't have gov't censorship, and calling for it would just make her look like a whack-job.
But her boycott is the closest thing to actual censorship she can hope to achieve, and is entirely defensible, as you point out. There's nothing wrong with it, but it is a call for censorship, basically. What else is this boycott, but market-driven censorship?
I was merely addressing your statement that she went "out of her way" to avoid calling for censorship. A rose by any other name, and all that. And I notice you didn't bother to deny that she pretty much implicitly blames Rush, et al, for the shooting. That comes across pretty clearly in the piece, to me at any rate.
I did that here,
August 14, 2008 - 19:44 ET by JasonCI did that here, actually.
Unfortunately for Bozell and others who want to frame this issue as "She blames those pundits for those killings", her essay is substantially more complex and nuanced than that.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
"Complex and nuanced?"
August 14, 2008 - 19:59 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, you used that phrase twice now, there and here. I read the article. Completely. It's not that long, I wouldn't call it an "essay."
Rebut all you want, it doesn't take much literacy to read the blame implied. If she didn't think there was a connection, why call for a boycott? Why write the "essay" at all?
I won't be able to play anymore tonight, gotta go.
Ciao
I agree IJ - it's very clear that she is blaming them
August 14, 2008 - 20:09 ET by Dee BunkI don't see how anyone could read it any other way.
I just reread my original
August 14, 2008 - 20:11 ET by JasonCI just reread my original post, to which I linked you, and do not see my usage of either word. Not sure where you're getting that.
There is no length requirement for a piece of writing to be classified as an essay, so long as it has a thesis and supporting arguments, but I will change my terminology to "op/ed" if it pleases the court.
I certainly don't deny that she is drawing a connection between the killings and those pundits - and justifiably so, given the circumstances - but to say she is blaming them for it seems extreme to me. Analagously, I think it was perfectly legitimate for people to offer critique and analysis of the fact that the Columbine killers listened to Marilyn Manson and were enamored with Natural Born Killers, but I would draw the line at saying it was the fault of MM and Oliver Stone; certainly no more than it was the fault of the gun manufacturer.
And I must reiterate that saying she will not patronize the programs of people that she finds hateful (and in the case of Savage, at least, I fully agree) is not in the same ballpark as censorship. To claim otherwise is highly disingenuous, and if you want to argue that she is essentially, subtextually, calling for censorship, it will require a stronger reading than I see being presented here, by you or anybody else.
At any rate, thanks for your comments, and good night.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
On another subject...
August 14, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Indiana JoeWhat's with the tag-line? Is that you, or did you leave off the attribution?
I only ask because, in my experience, the vegetarian is more likely to have contempt for (and feelings of superiority over) the omnivore than vice-versa.
You're surely right about
August 14, 2008 - 20:12 ET by JasonCYou're surely right about that, but "a man whose appetite for tofu is enhanced by his contempt for omnivore's" doesn't have the same ring. And as a dedicated meat-eater, I don't have a stake (pun intended) in this.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
That's a good one
August 14, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Dee BunkJason especially for a liberal ; ) (and I'm not being sarcastic - I mean it!)
Splitting Hairs
August 14, 2008 - 21:48 ET by SmartypantsThe author has effectively blamed conservative pundits for something which cannot remotely be attributed to them, the actions of someone they did not know and could never know. She does so out of ignorance, because she obviously has never listened to Limbaugh, Hannity or anyone of that nature. She is essentially using a template in her head of what conservatives are and what they represent and she is filling in the blanks as to what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity actually discuss on their shows. This false accusation results in essentially a de facto form of censorship, as she is trying to blame something on these guys, which is completely unfair, to effectively undermine their credibility. It doesn't matter that she says she does not favor censorship. I'm sure some rapists tell their victims they aren't going to hurt them, but that really is a matter of interpretation, isn't it? It is patently ridiculous to say that someone committed a crime because they listened to Rush Limaugh, and then suggest that Limbaugh should be dealt with in some fashion as a result. Limbaugh did not directly or indirectly tell anyone to go out and commit murder. Someone might get depressed watching the news, and then go off and kill themselves. Would it then be appropriate for national pundits to suggest some kind of retribution against the newscasters?
I am surprised it was not blamed on Bush....
August 14, 2008 - 10:39 ET by JTPI had read the killer was recently laid off or fired. Seems like a perfect oppurtunity to blame the economy and in turn apply BDS to this case.
On another note.. I have another dent in my flat screen after catching olberdork's rant last night about a guy in NY? that overstayed his visa and died in jail. O's comment with the usual grimace and near tear charade was that he died in George Bushes America because of GWB immigration policies. Is there no shame with this DNCTV ahole?
"I need more cowbell!" SNL
I'm going bald, and I blame
August 14, 2008 - 11:02 ET by wiwfI'm going bald, and I blame keith LOLbermann
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
I've got wrinkles; let's
August 14, 2008 - 18:23 ET by bretzysdudeI've got wrinkles; let's kill Chris Matthews.
I'm confused. Shouldn't
August 14, 2008 - 11:21 ET by seanrobinsI'm confused. Shouldn't it be the Libs who are advocating the killing of those dangerously unstable minded churchgoers?
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Is there a doctor in the house?
August 14, 2008 - 12:03 ET by pocomocoKern-Rugile is in immediate need of mental intervention.
Michael Savage and yellow journalisim
August 14, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Solrac7Warner,
Why did you take the oppurtunity to savage Michael Savage in your first paragraph "Michael Savage.... well, I haven't heard it but I almost wouldn't be surprised, almost"? This is the method that the main stream media uses knowing that readers usually scan the first paragraph and then move on to the rest of the story if they are interested. You know that!
It would have been much better if you had facts rather than suppositions. I have never heard Dr. Savage allude to murdering liberal opponents. I listen to Savage often as I believe he is the strongest proponent of saving our country, traditions, language, etc. than the other mouth pieces for the republican party with the exception of Bill O'Rielly. Sure, he hyperbolic at times, but manages to succinctly get his point across. Your article would have been much more interesting without the inuendo
If you
August 14, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Warner Todd HustonIf you must know it's because I think he is a faker. I don't believe a word he says and feel his is a made up, schtick-like personality. n fact, I think he is NOT good for our side at all. I just do not believe Michael Weiner at all.
(That is my personal opinion and does not represent the NewsBusters staff, by the way. I have never had a discussion about the Savage show with any NewsBusters employee.)
AMEN!
August 14, 2008 - 14:50 ET by JTPSavage does a great
August 14, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Carl KolchakSavage does a great impression of Rush. I always crack up whenever he does his Rush impression. He used to refer to Rush as Rush Bimbo.
I have to admit I don't listen to Rush, or have any desire to listen to his show, but I don't recall any of the left wing MSM blaming anyone for any of the other attacks we've had in this country on anyone else. Whenever someone says they question music, tv or entertainment and say that it can be harmful, the MSM's reaction is tell people to turn it off or not listen. The MSM would probably be delighted if Rush or Savage weren't on the radio anymore, because those 2 don't worship Gore and Company.
WTH, I agree. Savage is
August 14, 2008 - 16:11 ET by JasonCWTH, I agree. Savage is either a great actor who's laughing all the way to the bank or a pure and simple sociopath. I can't think of a comparable figure on the left and would not welcome one by any means. Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity, infuriating as I often find them, at least come across as sincere and somewhat respectable.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
I've heard enough of Savage
August 14, 2008 - 16:08 ET by balboaI've heard enough of Savage to know he's a very angry man. His hyperbole gets in the same of the succinct quality you mentioned, IMO. He's a ranter and a raver. Not at all like Spock.
My head is splitting
August 14, 2008 - 14:00 ET by ArtisteArrrgghhh!! The nitwittery of these people makes my head want to split. Do none of them have even half a brain or sensibility?
No, the real question is
August 14, 2008 - 14:42 ET by dscottNo, the real question is how much for fools do they take the American public??? These MSMers aren't nitwits or brainless or senseless, they view the public as nitwits, brainless and senseless which accounts for their condescending atitude toward the public. In their enlightened opinion, we the public are toooo stuuuupid to know better and thus we need guidance lest we make the wrong choices.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Even if we forget about the liberal "Shock Jocks" like Franken
August 14, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Dee BunkMaher, Stewart, Letterman, Olberman or the thousands of kooky things Hollywood says there is still no comparison to murderous thugs using their words as inspiration.
The Islamo fascist terrorists have actually stated liberal talking points. The DC snipers were inspired by The Nation of Islam and the Liberal Luis Farrakhan. The guy who shot and killed students at NIU was a left winger. Why don't the media blame these liberal shock jocks, Hollywood stars and even liberal politicians who make outrageous comments that demonize Republicans?
Exactly my point in my
August 14, 2008 - 21:51 ET by SmartypantsExactly my point in my earlier post. History is filled with left wing nutjobs who have committed violence in the name of their cause, and we rarely see these sweeping generalizations in those cases. We're told to treat those as isolated incidents.
What!
August 14, 2008 - 18:07 ET by NorthCoasterThis premise is a real bunch of B. S.. I listen as often as possible and occassionally Rush is over the top but in all the years I've listened I've never heard him incite murder or mayhem!