How to Discreetly Feed The Beast

[paft.livejournal.com]

Recently, Eric Cantor provided a textbook example of how the GOP has been countenancing (and therefore encouraging) extremist rhetoric while pretending not to countenance (and therefore encourage) extremist rhetoric.

Right Wing Heritage Foundation Speech 5/4/10

Audience member at Heritage Foundation: My question is – and this is something I personally don’t understand…. in light of what Obama has done to leave us vulnerable, to cut defense spending, to make us vulnerable to our outside enemies, to slight our allies. How…what would he have to do differently to be defined as a domestic enemy?”

(Laughter and applause from audience.)



Eric Cantor (smiling, after waiting for the claps to die down) Listen, let me respond very forthright to that. No one thinks that the president is a domestic enemy. (boos) It is important, it is important, it is important for us to remember, we have the freedom of discourse in this country. And the president’s policies, the administration’s priorities, in my opinion, do not reflect the common sense conservative traditions on which the greatness of this country was built…

Here, Cantor makes a statement that’s been demonstrated to be untrue in the seconds before he made it, and is again demonstrated to be untrue by the audience reaction after he makes it.

“No one thinks the president is a domestic enemy.”

No one? Someone just said he did -- and a bunch of other people just applauded him for it.

A “forthright response” would be to say, “No, the president is not a domestic enemy merely because we disagree with his policies.”

But Cantor just couldn't say that. He knew being that "forthright" might have gotten him booed off the stage by those "no ones" who've been incited by the inflammatory rhetoric the GOP has been banking and encouraging for twenty years.

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

I attended many anti war and anti-Bush rallies. I never once heard him described as a "domestic enemy." The worst I heard was that Bush's legalization of torture qualified him as a war criminal.

Nor did I hear calls for secession. Nor were liberals buying up guns. Nor did I hear anyone claim that our goal should be to "destroy conservatism" as I've heard tea partiers saying that their goal is to "destroy leftism."

Those are not minor differences.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

that's funny because I heard him equated with Hitler all the time and I've heard basically all of the things you describe
maybe because I think both political parties are batshit crazy I don't just tune it out like everybody else seems to

[paft.livejournal.com]

a: that's funny because I heard him equated with Hitler all the time...

So did I. I also heard Nixon, Clinton, etc. compared with HItler. Escalating this to "he's a domestic enemy in league with our enemies and plotting to deliberately destroying the country," however, is another thing entirely.

a: and I've heard basically all of the things you describe

Bullsh*t. Do tell where you heard calls for secession from Democrats during the Bush administration, and fill us in on liberals emptying gun store shelves. Those things did NOT happen.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

Ok, liberals don't often buy guns, but it seems that what you are insinuating is that massive amounts of conservatives are "buying up guns" and talking about secession in some sort of attempt to start ad army and start a new country. What you are doing is pulling people out of the fringes and attempting to represent the entire republican party (or even specifically the tea partiers). You are arguing that the entirety of the movement is wrong because of their methods.

You also must have missed all of the "Bush is a terrorist" stuff people wore, said, and rallied about. "Domestic enemy" is a lot more softball than "terrorist."

[paft.livejournal.com]

a: Ok, liberals don't often buy guns, but it seems that what you are insinuating is that massive amounts of conservatives are "buying up guns"

Enough were buying up guns to empty gun store shelves of guns and ammo about the time of Obama's election.

a: and talking about secession in some sort of attempt to start ad army and start a new country.

What do you think "secession" involves?

a: What you are doing is pulling people out of the fringes and attempting to represent the entire republican party (or even specifically the tea partiers).

"Out of the fringes?" The Texas governor invoked secession. And Rush Limbaugh seems to be running the Republican party.

a: You also must have missed all of the "Bush is a terrorist" stuff people wore, said, and rallied about. "Domestic enemy" is a lot more softball than "terrorist."

Not when it's accompanied by guns and threats of secession. What the tea party movement is promoting is the notion that Obama has committed a crime simply being elected and enacting legislation they dislike.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

Secession involves states or territories leaving the union. I didn't say that it didn't. What you are suggesting is that all these people who have been buying more ammo are intending to use it to start a war, and I think that is pretty ridiculous accusation, at least in terms of the masses.

I don't understand what the sales of ammunition and guns has to do with what we're talking about, anyway, unless you are suggesting that conservatives are planning on a large scale to start a war. Gun owners feared increases in taxes on ammunition or tougher gun laws, so sales when up. I do not believe anybody other than maybe a few stray crazies is stockpiling for a militia.

Now that you have admitted that you were wrong about the rhetoric by anti-Bush people (without directly admitting it, of course), you are still saying that this situation is different because some of these people are gun owners and some of these people have mentioned the idea of seceding. However, until you have evidence of these things occurring together (with the result you are insinuating), they are all just separate things you disagree with.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Nope. Bush was the Antichrist. Now Obama has taken his place on the Throne of Darkness.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

Pentagon Papers Leaker Calls Bush 'Domestic Enemy' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/4/843036/-Pentagon-Papers-Leaker-Calls-Bush-Domestic-Enemy)

[paft.livejournal.com]

So you cited one individual. I'm talking about a mob of them.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

How about if you google 'bush "domestic enemy"'?

You'll come back with a mob as well. I expect you to slap them down as furiously as you expected Eric Cantor to have done or else you'll be encouraging extremism.

[paft.livejournal.com]

The mob of responses I got were overwhelmingly about how Obama/Pelosi etc. were domestic enemies -- not Bush. And the complaints about Bush during the Bush era had to do with things like eliminating habeas corpus and legalizing torture, and were framed within the context of voting him out of office or, at worst, impeaching him. You did NOT have people waving signs like "We came unarmed THIS time" or online polls being conducted about whether there should be a military coup, secession, or a popular uprising.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Oh, please. You couldn't be more disingenuous if you tried. Come back when you are serious.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What's "disengenuous" is pretending there's no difference between people who protest their government without invoking secession and calling for the complete destruction of the opposition, and those who protest their government while buying up guns, invoking secession, and calling for the complete destruction of the opposition.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Please. Don't insult my intelligence.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I'm not. I'm talking to you as though you were reasonable enough to recognize the difference between people buying up guns and ammo and people not buying up guns and ammo.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I bought guns. I buy ammo. All the time. Last week, in fact. 3 boxes of light load shells for sporting clays. In case you haven't noticed, that is entirely legal and in fact a protected right under the Constitution. People buying guns isn't a cause for alarm. Why not go buy yourself a gun? It is your right to own one. They can be fun, useful too. You might even open your mind, expand your consciousness and see the world from a different perspective. You know... like a liberally minded person might want to do.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I heard his prosecution of the war in Iraq called (outright) treason.

Of course this was by a conservative talk show radio host who thought we should've nuked first and looked for weapons of mass destruction among the glass. The dissonance of the guy who said he voted for Bush in 2004 calling him a traitor a few months later made me just shut off the radio, and I haven't gone back.

"Nor were liberals buying up guns."

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Speak for yourself.

Re: "Nor were liberals buying up guns."

[paft.livejournal.com]

Not to the point of emptying stores of guns and ammo.

No, you are correct. That was pure GOP/NRA fearmongering at work.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Ironically, it had the net effect of controlling access to firearms far better than any restrictive legislation did: due to speculators and artificially high demand, it was difficult to find and expensive to buy most weapons and the ammo for them.

So much for being champions of gun owners rights and interests.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Remind me again, which country did Obama invade after selling us a bullshit story about them being an immanent threat?

The other thing is, the anti-Bush people are sometimes 9/11 truthers, and while I may disagree with them, it's easy to understand the "Bush = Hitler" thing if you believe 9/11 was an inside done with the purpose of instigating wars.

Kinda like the Reichstag fire that Hitler set...

[paft.livejournal.com]

tl: They made a movie about assassinating George W. Bush and cg-ed his head on.

"They" being an obscure British filmmaker who made a film depicting Bush as a martyr.

I've seen nothing to indicate that the crowds demonstrating against Bush had anything to do with making that movie.

tl: They put that movie in theatres.

In an EXTREMELY limited US release to almost universally poor reviews that included a denunciation from Hillary Clinton, who called it "despicable."

tl: I went to a anti-Bush rally, too. They had a giant paper-mached Dubya with a Hitler moustache riding a nuclear warhead. They also had a bloodied Dubya doll hanging from a noose. There were signs comparing him to Hitler "same shit, different asshole" and calling him World's #1 Terrorist everywhere.

And how many signs threatening to bring weapons or invoking guns?

tl: IMAGINE FOR JUST ONE SECOND if people pulled that shit with Obama. Seriously.

They have. And worse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: I've seen nothing to indicate that the crowds demonstrating against Bush had anything to do with making that movie.
tl: And I see nothing to indicate that people unhappy with Obama are going to stage a massive violent coup on the government.

Where have I claimed they were going to "stage a massive, violent coup?"

TL: I'll admit there's probably a few Timothy McVeigh's floating around on the fringes ...

And my goodness, who would worry about a little thing like that?

tL: but the Tea Party as a whole is not organizing to storm the White House, okay?

Didn't say they were. What I have said is that I'm concerned about another outbreak of right wing shootings and bombings like we had in the '90s. You know..."Those Tim McVeigh's hanging around the fringes."

tL ;Not any more than the wacky leftists in 2006 were planning to assassinate the president. (Even though they talked about it. A LOT. I was there, remember?)

Uh, no, they didn't talk about it. In fact, I never heard any talk like that from anti Bush demonstrators or poster so it obviously wasn't real thick on the ground.

PFT: And how many signs threatening to bring weapons or invoking guns?
tl: I think hanging Bush in effigy and/or setting him on fire were pretty effectively threatening.

And that hasn't happened to effigies of Obama -- WITH signs about guns?

tl: Who needs guns?

Apparently lots of people on the right, judging from their rhetoric about guns.

tL: The left can kill you with their bare hands!

Now you're just being plain silly. Do tell me how many cases you know of in this country in which crowds of leftist activists have "killed people with their bare hands." There have been RIGHT wing riots in which people were assaulted and in come cases even killed by the crowd, but not many left wing riots like that.

tl: I understand why Democrats are so sensitive when folks take potshots at Obama. You identify disrespect to the leaders of your movement as threatening to your security (vision of the future, etc).

No, we're a tad sensitive about inflammatory rhetoric being combined with guns and explosives, especially as regards the first black president, because we can remember the outbreak of right wing violence in the south during the '60s.