Yes, Republicans Fantasize About Murdering Democratic Icons

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:06


In the remarkable outpouring of ugly bigotry, a lot of people have finally woken up to the real nature of the Republican Party as a group of sadistic criminally minded yet competently organized citizens.  It's important to realize that what is being put on display isn't just racism against Obama, it's a full-on orgy of revulsion towards of anyone who believes in non-authoritarian ideas like equality for women, multiculturalism, or economic justice for all.  I happened upon a slew of right-wing email forwards today; the below picture is from a right-wing email titled 'Rudy Giuliani's Push To Save America...'

Rudy Giuliani's Push To Save America...

You might think that this can be excused as just a joke, but that would be foolish.  Republicans constantly fantasize about murdering prominent liberals, not just Hillary Clinton but Supreme Court Justices.  Their fantasies carry them into ritualized Birth of a Nation-style erotic fear-mongering about black men and white women.  This video has over 2M views, and conservatives are emailing it to each other and saying that it is Obama's preacher.

On the flip is an email forward about Obama that ends with the line "The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!"

Matt Stoller :: Yes, Republicans Fantasize About Murdering Democratic Icons
Who is Barack Obama?  Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scarey to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.  We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.

Who is Barack Obama?  Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?

When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.  Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

This can only be offset by a different electorate, and Obama is starting to create it.  I ran into a proud non-voter today who told me how much he dislikes politics.  He was a young father and a painter, and while he used to be interested in politics, he just thinks that his vote doesn't matter.  Instead of paying attention to politics, he wants to work hard, "make a little money", and take care of his family.  And what does he believe in?  He hates war, he thinks McCain is awful for wanting to stay in Iraq, and likes Obama.  And he doesn't believe in voting.  My guess is that he is going to be a voter in the next few years, probably because the country will continue to polarize and politics will continue to become more and more relevant to our lives and access to the system will level out.

But this relevance is going to come because the racism and ugliness of the right will fully flower, and we'll descend into a very dangerous period in American history.  It is not smart to think that Republicans share our values or that this is a group with whom we ought to work with on anything but extremely limited coalitions.  These may be ignorant and mean, but they are organized people that are quite competent at hating and bringing along others for the ride.  And they are honeycombed into important parts of the business world (like the cable industry) and all over the security industry.

These people like their non-lethal and their lethal weapons, and they want to use them on our leaders.  And probably, if it comes to it, on us.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
the nazi's (4.00 / 2)
have returned and they now reside in america, one may be your neighbor, fellow worker, or friend, don't let the familiar exterior fool you, they are evil to the core through and through, and not to be confused with a democratic practicing citizen.

There sure is a large group on the right that loves totalitarism (4.00 / 1)
and not since yesterday, but for several years now. Googling for a Goebbels qote, I was surprised to find one of my own comments to a story by Matthew Yglesisas:

"Today, some republicans think it's safe to voice openly fascist opinions (I don't see any major difference between the philosophy of Stalin (no man, no problem) and Goebbels (der Mann muß weg - this guy has to vanish))."
http://yglesias.typepad.com/ma...

This is from April 2005! And nothing seems to have changed for the better. Imho the dangeros mindset of the extreme right should get much more attention. Matt Stoller is doing a good job exposing it here, while in hindsight Matt Yglesias' article from 2005 downplayed the scale of the problem. It's more necessary now than ever not to engage in false tolerance and deliberate ignorance, but to make a public case against the hatemongerers and their murderous, inhuman mindset. This shouldn't be allowed to spread, or this will trn into very real violence soon. No pasaran!


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry Matt, but I disagree with you here (4.00 / 3)
I think you are demonizing an entire party due to the actions of a few.

I know quite a few Republicans (both of my brothers and my father most immediately) and none of them are "Republicans [that] constantly fantasize about murdering prominent liberals."

I think this post is an example of leftist demonization of the other side.  Exactly what we have been accusing them of doing.  

Without doubt, McCain, Palin and their "cronies" have been stirring up hatred and vitriol against not just Obama or liberals, but Democrats in general (i.e. that guy in Wisconsin with his "socialist" and "hooligans" comments); their actions are reprehensible.  I think McCain's actions today demonstrate that they are starting to realize they have gone too far.

But this is going too far in coming from us.

Yes these ridiculous emails are being forwarded, and yes they are disgusting, but that doesn't mean "the Republican Party [is] a group of sadistic criminally minded yet competently organized citizens."  It means there are a group of radical and loopy "dead-enders" (to borrow a Cheney-ism) that can't deal with reality.

I'm afraid this post has little to do with reality in my opinion.  Perhaps it should be a viral email instead...

Now I await the vitriol and anger of my own side in response... friendly fire, so to speak.


I think you are right to a (4.00 / 4)
degree.  

But right now the McCain campaign is playing with fire. Even with that guy from Wisconsin, the crowd was cheering loudly in support.

I think if Obama is elected the Clinton years are going to seem tame. It is likely there will be an increase in hate groups, esp if the economy continues to sink. And the possibility of violence will likely increase(there was already an unhinged gunman that killed a Democrat in Arkansas).

Yes, every side and individual needs to be careful in their rhetoric they use. But the right has been using eliminationist rhetoric http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2... for a while and it is dangerous.....  


[ Parent ]
I agree with Kos who posted on this yesterday (4.00 / 3)
The Republican Party that tolerates and encourages hatred and criminality must be crushed. These are the "southern strategy" chickens finally coming home to roost as a result of the Obama candidacy.

I believe there are some more wholesome branches of the Party that have not fully withered away, but they are close to dead. (don't expect to love their beliefs, however) I hope that a McCain/Palin defeat will enable the rebirth of the Republican Party--as a democracy loving organization.

Although that is a lot to hope for.  


[ Parent ]
You can't deny (4.00 / 5)
that a large group of republicans really has such fantasies, and thinks that the idea of killing Democrats is a big fun. You can see the evidence every day at right wing blogs. OK, maybe the story should have explicitly stated that there not all republicans are in that hateful group, but the general point is correct and it's necessary to generate awareness of this. The inhuman mindset of the extreme right is dangerous, and if republican politicians tolerate this, they create an atmosphere in their party that makes assasinations possible. This is a serious issue.

[ Parent ]
alffy: Don't know where you are, (4.00 / 7)
but here in Texas, even in liberal oasis Austin, there are plenty who would welcome the murder of prominent liberals.  Friends, co-workers, family -- all seem to feel that it's OK to send me those emails, or tell me those offensive jokes.

People I know who will admit to being Republicans all seem to be what years ago we would have called the most extreme right-wingers.

I think that Reagan made it respectable to be a mean-spirited, racist bigot, and growing up in these last three decades have mainstreamed those values in a generation or two.  As Matt said, they are sprinkled throughout society where they can do great harm.  


[ Parent ]
Impecise language (4.00 / 5)
My experience tells me there are a lot of people out there with these beliefs, and many of them in positions of considerable influence or authority.

But you're also right. I think the more accurate way to put is is that the Republican Party has most of these people as its constituents. There are loads of decent republicans and conservatives, but there also a lot of well organized eliminationist, authoritarian, post-modern brownshirts out there, and as the temperature rises they're more and more on display.

To a large extent the GOP represents these people. It's not to say all (or any) congress members are like this, but many of them are beholden, if not even sympathetic to such views.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
Exactly! The GOP has been taken over by those thugs. (0.00 / 0)
And instead of nitpicking that liberals should point out at every turn that there still are some honest conservatives left, those honest conservatives should better concentrate on taking their party back. That should the important goal right now! Stopping liberals from rightly pointing out the atrocities not only is impossible, it also isn't helpful in fighting the extremists that drive the Republican party into the abyss. The best way to correct the horrible image of the GOP now is for conservatives to get rid of all the crooks that ruined it. Period.

[ Parent ]
word (0.00 / 0)
Who wants a one-party state? Not me. Get honest conservatives out there agitating for personal liberty, more local authority, transparency in government, championing (real) entrepreneurialism and playing the necessary role of skeptic about new programs. We need that.

Not going to happen as long as the heart of their political coalition is convinced that corrupt union bosses want to teach their daughter about sex so she can get knocked up by an illegal immagrant and get a forced abortion, all of which they'll be powerless to stop -- not to mention being left defenseless when the Al Qaeda sleeper cells activate -- because the UN took away everyone's guns.


Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
I agree completely, alffy (4.00 / 2)
It's known that whenever you belong to a group, people tend to see the "other" group as more homogeneous than our group.  This is even more pronounced when the groups are strongly polarized.  So this makes it easy to take the actions of a few radical members (even if there really are more violently radical Republicans than Democrats) and assume the entire group is like this.  They aren't.  Nor can we say that a "large" group of Republicans are, because we don't have the data to say that.  

This is the danger of using anecdotes as evidence (I'm a psych professor, so you'll have to forgive my geeky meta here.)  As we're inclined to see the outgroup as homogeneous, we can take any anecdote we'd like and set that up as the prototypical member of the group, or even a necessary feature of the group.  Psychologists have names for these processes, and each name has the word "bias" in it, because they are fundamentally incorrect.  For every anecdote of a murderous Republican, I can pull one of a peaceful Republican, and we get nowhere.

That said, I also agree with many of the replies to alffy's post.  I do think that there is far more of violent rhetoric on the right, just that it is incorrect to extend that characteristic to the entire group.  When we do, we set a really low bar of refutation; if we claim they are all like that, all the Republicans have to do is show us a few counterexamples, and we've been proven wrong.  Plus, they can mock our poor logic to boot.

If we stick to more realistic claims (e.g., the right has a problem with violent rhetoric and their leaders condone the behavior), we'll get further than if we set up easily refuted straw men.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for putting my rudimentary thinking into more precise language (0.00 / 0)
I am not in disagreement with many of the posts following mine.  In fact, I tried to express that I agree that much of this behavior is reprehensible and I am mortified by what I am seeing from some on the right.

I just took exception with Matt's presentation that the Republican party as a whole is this way.  Well, I believe that was the implication if it wasn't an outright presentation.

I think your post and Josh Koenig's, above, are more accurate.  I think there are undoubted elements of the Republican party that are this despicable, but they are merely elements, not the whole.

Unfortunately, those elements are the most visible right now.


[ Parent ]
hmm (4.00 / 1)
I think McCain's actions today demonstrate that they are starting to realize they have gone too far.

You can be generous to McCain if you want, but I don't see any evidence behind this kind interpretation of his actions.

The tactic wasn't working and McCain was losing even more ground in polling, so he stopped it.  That's the most likely explanation given what we have seen from Mccain.


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, Dan, but I disagree (0.00 / 0)
To ascribe McCain's behavior yesterday to mere tactics I think misses the point of the behavior.

If it was merely tactics driven due to a determination that the vitriol was not working I believe we would have seen an across the board change.  The inciting rhetoric would have disappeared first and the reproachfulness of the candidate would only been seen afterwards, most likely as a rebuttal to their own supporters so they could change the topic to their new tactics.

Instead, I believe we saw a McCain struggling with himself.  In the videos, it almost appeared to me he wanted to continue inciting the supporters but has come to realize what gets air play is not the "reason" for the "anger" (the connections to Ayers, the "vague" and "unknown" background) but the outbursts themselves.  Insofar as this is a tactic I agree with you.

But I also think McCain has heard from many within his own party that have encouraged him to reel in the vitriol and reprehensible behavior (or at least I assume he has been hearing what I have and reading what I have been reading).  I think this may have the effect of him trying to walk a fine line between his forceful rhetoric and keeping the crowds from boiling over into mobs.  And he's not very good at it so far.

In this regard I don't believe his behavior was merely tactical, but that he is starting to realize his earlier behavior, unrestrained and vitriolic, was just going too far.


[ Parent ]
A typology of Republicans is in order. (0.00 / 0)
The kind Paul Rosenberg might do.

Offhand, I would say there's five or so major types of Republicans, one of which is a truly violent, fearful, authoritarian person of the kind Matt is talking about.  There's also the mild-mannered money-oriented person who just doesn't care much about society beyond his own front door, and that is a significant chunk of the Republican party and certainly not one that harbors violent fantasies.  There's also a lot of mainstream evangelicals that are highly religious (not just because they like the tribal aspect, but actually spiritual) and they would not countenance violence, certainly not mob-type violence (they might countenance a Dept of Virtue with an Iran-style Vice Squad, but that's not a mob).  There's the Cult of Masculinity guys, and they are willing to be violent because they think of politics as a necessary war.  Point is, while a very significant portion (30%?) of the GOP base is incredibly violent, not anywhere near all of it is.  It's important to make only the appropriate distinctions, but I think this is one.  Falsely imagining all of the GOP to be this way means one fails to accurately see the world, and all of the successful ways to act within it.


[ Parent ]
Krugman makes the same point, but even stronger! (4.00 / 1)
What it came down to was that a significant fraction of the American population, backed by a lot of money and political influence, simply does not consider government by liberals (even very moderate liberals) legitimate.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

Hell, indeed! This can't be ignored: There is a strong group of right wing extremists that won't see ANY Democratic president as legitimate. And this mindset isn't only behind the total lack of respect for democracy that shows in illegal maniplations of the election process, it paves the way for violence against Democratic politicans and liberals in general. It's the irrational hate that paved the way for the murders of JFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Bobby Kennedy. And it's alive and well, as the recent examples show us. Not only this, it has creeped into the culture of the GOP and bilt a powerful foothold there. So, don't underestimate this, this is a real danger for democracy, it can change the politics of the nation, like it happened in Israel with the killing of Rabin, and it requires all real democrats to stand up against it and make a stand against the hatemongerers. No false tolerance, no appeasement! Promoting violence is a crime, and it has to be stopped before it becomes domestic terrorism a la Timothy McVie. Don't forget Oklahoma!


the hood's come off (4.00 / 1)
Tom Feeney R-FL comparing Acorn to the KKK on Fox: "This is destructive to democracy," he told Fox News Friday. "I believe Acorn has violated more Americans' civil rights to have their vote counted than any group since the KKK. It's an outrage." As a Republican he would have intimate knowledge of the KKK and the Nazis who populate the Repubics Party, but where does he get his knowledge of Acorn? oh Fox, I get it.

Tom Feeney is a CRIMINAL (4.00 / 1)
they are investigating him here in Florida

he will eventually go down


[ Parent ]
Micheal Barone disagrees (0.00 / 0)
"The Coming Obama Thugocracy"

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Barf!


Compare those to this: (0.00 / 0)
Look at what some Dem did to Palin's Gov Mansion in Jeneau

PRICELESS

http://mudflats.files.wordpres...



Christopher Buckley (0.00 / 0)
said a lot the same when he endorsed Obama

My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call "the bleeding obvious": namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She's not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin "a cancer on the Republican Party."

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that's quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen's mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There's Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, "You know, I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks." Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don't have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he's no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...


I think we need to take a step back as well (4.00 / 2)
I'm sure that people who follow foreign policy are aware of outfits like MEMRI that translate the most violent and nasty rhetoric from Arab and Muslim media sources.  It's not exactly difficult to find a lot of hateful, anti-Semitic swill in those media outlets, and we've probably all heard of the pervasive rumor in Islamic countries about how "the Jews were warned to stay home on 9/11," which "proves" that the Mossad was responsible for the attacks.  This belief is probably far more pervasive in many Middle Eastern countries than the belief among Republicans in this country that Obama is a radical Muslim, a terrorist, etc (and there are clearly a lot of Republicans who believe that).

Now, the neo-cons and the LGF who use MEMRI translations do so with a specific agenda: all Muslims support terror, all Arabs want to kill Jews, there'll never be peace with them, we can't negotiate with them, so we have to invade Iraq, bomb bomb bomb Iran, etc.  On the other side, we know the reality: if you tar everyone in those countries with that brush, nothing good comes out of it.  

I'm sure we all agree that political leaders, journalists, and media outlets in Islamic countries who stoke those fires and help spread whackjob anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are being horribly irresponsible.  But it doesn't mean that they're all bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill us, and if we start believing that, things are only going to get worse.

So while we need to continue documenting the violent incitement of Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., and while we need to be particularly careful when that crap starts coming out of the mouths of the GOP's presidential and vice presidential candidates, I don't think it helps us to assume that the entire Republican party is responsible for the worst of this stuff.


By tolerating this shit, every republican is responsible! (4.00 / 1)
Really, the share of republicans speaking out against these atrocities seems to be miniscule. Saying that the GOP in general is responsible for this shit is not much of an exaggeration. There sure are some righteous conservatives (some of those already abandoned ship), but the vast majority doesn't say anything against this hatemongering. They own the pigsty, and imho there is nothing wrong in calling them to clean it up.

[ Parent ]
Yes, their leaders have been very irresponsible (4.00 / 1)
And of course they need to clean it up.  No argument from me there.  

But I do think we need to be careful not to paint everyone on the other side with too broad a brush.  As per my analogy, I'm talking about the difference between calling on Arab and Muslim leaders to stop inciting hate, on the one hand, and assuming that all Arabs and Muslims support terror, on the other hand.


[ Parent ]
Ok,that's a tactical proposal (0.00 / 0)
but, however, pls notice that I, as a German citizen, see this a bit differently. Nobody ever gave my people the benefit of a doubt. If the shit hits the fan, people will start asking you, why you have been part of the fan. No doubt about it.

(I edited this for 15 minutes. If there are still errors  in it it, this is because of the German/Hungarian European partnership. I already had to tilt three Palinkas this afternoon.)


[ Parent ]
I too find this kind of conversation disorienting. (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans legalized torture. They made jokes about the people who drowned in New Orleans.

When people say we shouldn't talk bad about them because "some of them aren't like that" and "it makes us just as bad" I really have no way of understanding what they are saying. And yes it does make me think about your country, and what happened there.  

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Snopes (4.00 / 1)
In the email it says, "We checked this out on snopes.com and it checks out". Of course it doesn't check out, and Snopes even includes a reference to that very quote saying that whoever wrote that must have banked on people not checking for themselves, because Snopes says that the polemic is false.

When you're dealing with people who are that lazy, and that determined to believe what they want to believe, it's difficult to figure out how to counter their ignorant determination to believe lies and to pass lies on.

Reading that email has helped explain to me what I've seen on videos of people waiting in line to attend a McCain/Palin hate rally. They spout those lies verbatim. Well, sort of 'verbatim'. They usually get all tied in knots when the guy with the microphone asks them to please elaborate or be specific.

Here is the link to Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...


agree with Matt - and it doesn't have to be "all Republicans" (0.00 / 0)
I think the thing that people are missing is that it doesn't need to be all Republicans who feel this way.  The fact that it's a significant number (more than just a very few fringe types), and something that's encouraged by leaders and brought about by things inherent in ideology (e.g. if you're not with us you're against us, anyone against the war or questioning Bush is unpatriotic and un-American, etc.) makes the fact that the great majority of Republicans are decent people irrelevant.

I think it's ironic that the "Muslims as terrorists" meme was brought up by both Matt and the comment by Haggai, because I think it's a very appropriate comparison.  A lot of liberal apologists for Islam like to point out that the vast majority of Muslims don't support terrorism.  But there is nevertheless a great deal of justification for it in religion and tradition (as there is for similar nasty things in Christianity), and that makes it inherently bad.  90% of Muslims, Christians, and Republicans alike are decent people because they are human and ignore the idiotic parts of ideology, but those parts end up attracting the nutcases and being tolerated to a greater or lesser degree by the others.


I've had the same training as "Oly" (4.00 / 1)
and while I agree in principle, and I've argued for this very point in other posts, what has to be borne in mind is that THE leader of the GOP in this election cycle chose for his running mate a cheerleader for just his vicious violent element. Palin is of this group, she understands them, and she agitates in order to get just this effect, and THAT is something the entire party MUST deal with.

Want examples? Check out the article in Salon yesterday on the Alaskan Independence Party and Palin's role in it, they're not shy about putting her name forward as a supporter. Defending McCain on the basis of this being a minority is being proven to be disingenuous by the events of every day now.

Do we need to avoid bias? Yes, and Obama is doing a good job with this so far. Do we need to run the faces of the American public in this hate speech and the violence and violent rhetoric that accompanies it? Hell Yes!







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search