Rush Limbaugh: Screw the World! Riot in Denver!

While the Conventional Media is still consumed with remarks made by Barack Obama’s pastor criticizing America, they are virtually ignoring the comments of Rush Limbaugh that are brazenly advocating violence for political gain.

Limbaugh: “Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I’m dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968?”

Limbaugh says that he isn’t inciting riots, but merely dreaming of them. That distinction is skimpy to say the least. Is he so naive that it has not occurred to him that some portion of his 14 million listeners might be motivated to help him see his dreams come true? Of all the well-deserved criticisms that can be leveled at this ego-bloated pundi-clown, naiveté is not amongst them. He knows the impact of words. He knows his audience. He knows very well the potential consequences of actions.

Limbaugh: “Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

Is it possible to deliberately instigate violence more explicitly than that? The title of this article, “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!” was lifted verbatim from Limbaugh’s web site. That is an unambiguous directive to his listeners who are not called “dittoheads” for nothing. But Limbaugh grants himself somewhat more leeway to engage in hypocrisy. Apparently there are worse things than electing Democrats – i.e. electing John McCain.

Limbaugh: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit … rather than a Republican causing the debacle.”

That, however, hasn’t stopped McCain from pursuing Limbaugh’s favor. Just last February Politico reported that, according to Republican sources, McCain sent an emissary to bring Limbaugh into the fold.

The questions for today are: Will McCain denounce and reject Limbaugh’s repugnant and dangerous remarks? Will the media give an equal amount of airtime to Limbaugh’s lunacy as they did to Rev. Wright’s rant? Will Hell freeze over?

It would be too optimistic to entertain the notion that Limbaugh would be fired over this. He makes too much money for his greedy broadcast benefactors. But if Limbaugh doesn’t face some sort of sanction for this, then what would produce a sanction? Would he have to show up in Denver with a trunk full of Molotov cocktails? Would we need a canceled check payable to Outside Agitators, Inc. (a subsidiary of Blackwater)? If there is trouble in Denver, will there be an investigation to ascertain whether the troublemakers were Limb-bots?

There may not be answers to these questions today, but we must not stop asking them. And we must not stop prodding the press to ask as well. And we must not forget to ask them after the convention. If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.

Updated to add: More comments from Limbaugh advocating violence:

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Contact Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh’s Clear Channel-owned syndicator, and tell them that inciting violence is illegal and unacceptable.

Here’s a link to Limbaugh’s advertisers who might want to reconsider sponsoring a program that advocates violence.

You can also file a complaint with the FCC.

Advertisement:

12 thoughts on “Rush Limbaugh: Screw the World! Riot in Denver!

  1. “If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.”

    From a Recreate-68 Alliance(ReCreate68.org) Media Communiqué:

    Public parks are for the use of the public not private parties…The Democratic host committee should not even have been allowed to participate in the lottery. If they have any sense of decency, they will now relinquish their permit and allow the citizen group that took SECOND PLACE (emphasis added) in the lottery to have it.

    And in an article from that bastion of conservatism, the Rocky Mountain News:

    He (Glenn Spagnuolo, ReCreate68) followed that up with comments like, “If Denver needs to become Ground Zero in the fight to take back our rights, it will,” and the possibility that things might “blow up” when the police step in…His words, he insists are “not a threat,” just an acknowledgement. The Democrats and the city are the ones “absolutely spoiling for a fight,” by denying R68 its parade permit…”We’re going to try our HARDEST NOT TO BE VIOLENT (emphasis added),” he says, adding, “We don’t intend to provoke.” But then, “I’m not naive enough to think the police won’t react in a violent manner. That’s how they’re trained to handle conflict – through violence.

    While Limbaugh’s comment was juvenile and in poor taste, if there’s a riot in Denver I’d probably opt for holding the actual rioters responsible. My guess is they won’t be registered Republicans.

    • First of all, you’re comparing a local Denver activist group to the #1 nationally syndicated radio program?

      Secondly, the statement you cite explicitly says that violence is NOT on their agenda. It is only mentioned with respect to the prospect of it being used against them.

      That’s completely different than Limbaugh’s explicit statement that it would be: “the best damn thing could happen for this country…”

      I would oppose violence perpetrated by anyone at the Convention. And I also would want to hold the actual rioters responible. But Limbaugh’s responsibility would have to be investigated (along with others) if violence occurs.

      • Mark,

        First, I didn’t draw any comparison between ReCreate68 and Limbaugh. My point was in response to your statement: “If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.” Since, to my knowledge, Spagnoulo isn’t a dittohead, holding Limbaugh responsible for any actions by ReCreate68, Sharptonites, et al simply isn’t reasonable. To reiterate, if there is violence in Denver it won’t be as a result of Limbaugh followers taking to the streets.

        Second, Spagnoulo’s comment doesn’t rule out violence, it simply says they’ll try their best not to engage in it. You’ll pardon me for taking this with a grain of salt since one of the earliest TV news memories I have is of the 1968 Democratic convention that Spagnoulo wants to “recreate.” As I recall, the net results to the protesters were a number of busted skulls and the election of Richard Nixon. Limbaugh was simply, albeit inartfully, citing the conventional political/historical wisdom that the Chicago riots galvanized the electorate and resulted in Hubert Humphrey’s defeat. A repeat performance in Denver would have the same result in the current election cycle.

        BTW, I agree with two out of three sentences in the final paragraph of your response! Have a great weekend!

        • 1) You are comparing R-68 and Limbaugh by juxtoposing their statements. Hardly anybody (including me) has ever heard of R-68. Limbaugh is a talk radio superstar.

          2) It was the police, not the demonstrators, who instigated the violence in Chicago in 1968. And Limbaugh was not making an historical reference. He said riots would be “the best damned thing” for the country.

          3) Why don’t you agree with the last sentence in my last paragraph? You don’t believe in thorough investigations? Why do you hate justice? ;-)

        • “Limbaugh is a talk radio superstar.”

          And mega-dittos to you too! :-)

          My point went to who was a more plausible source of potential riots. Since re-creation is the sincerest form of flattery, my money is still on R-68.

          As to who instigated the Chicago violence, there’s probably more than enough blame to go around. It was after all a riot. The police, egged on my Mayor Daley (he was a Democrat, wasn’t he?) may have been overzealous. Of course, if I were getting rocks and bottles thrown at my head, I’m might have been also.

          Limbaugh’s comments were in the context of the ’68 riots, so I think he was making a historical reference. As to why he thought it would be “the best damned thing for the country”, the full quote is: “Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats — and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don’t elect Democrats!”

          Why did you assume it was the last sentence I disagreed with? I don’t hate justice; I just don’t think it would be just to attribute the responsibility for the riots (if they in fact occur) to Limbaugh UNLESS those involved were likely to act on his “instructions”. Again, I don’t think the likely suspects fall into that category.

  2. Mark,

    Since Roseanne Barr was busily involved in setting up a bus tour to Denver on Air America yesterday, does this let Rush off the hook? Of course, I’m not sure the fifty people who were listening would be able to stir up too much of a ruckus…

  3. Why don’t you liberals vote for Clinton? She is the queen of the democrats right?

    Why do you want a black Muslim named B. Hussein with terrorist links as president? Have you completely lost it?

    Do you want a race war between Americans and blacks as B. Hussein preacher has advocated?

    Do you think America has crated aids to kill blacks?

    Do you think that God should damn america as B. Hussein preacher said or that 9-11 is America fault.

    B. Hussein is linked to terrorist Bill Ayers and former PLO perative Rashid Khalidi.

    If you are a democrat, you should really vote for Clinton unless you want a 100 year war in IRAQ because Mccain will beat B. Hussein. America will never allow someone like B. Hussein as president.

    So help your party out and vote for Clinton before its too late.

  4. John, You’re either delusional or hilarious. Could it be both?
    Yes. Yes it could.

    Has it occurred to you that if you draw similar comparisons to those associated with our current president (He looked into Putin’s Heart, he loves him some Kenny Boy and Enron, he hangs out with a friend-face shooting Veep Cheney.) that you’re sounding a bit disingenuous, and maybe a tad desperate? You should get off the thinly veiled racist diatribe, too (“Blacks” vs. Americans? Hmm… I’m pretty sure most blacks born in America are also, you know, American). You sound like a moron. I say that with concern.
    Your fellow American,
    -Tim

    • …a race war between Americans and blacks…”

      Good point, Tim. I’m a little embarrassed I skipped right over that overtly racist sound bite.

  5. It’s the right wing’s most winning strategy, Mark. You simply can’t counter the massive number of idiotic statements they throw out.
    I just found this site- Cheers to NewsCorpse!

Comments are closed.