Palin Rally Incites Attendee to Shout "Kill Him!" Death Threat to Obama?

That's the problem with employing these tactics...you have to let ALL the nuts in.  Ask Kathleen Parker about the rabid mentality of some of these people.

The scarier part is "what if they feel politically empowered with a McCain victory"?  For McCain to tolerate (at best) and encourage (at worst) this element of his "base" is revolting.  He has gone from having a shortage of character to becoming one.

I agree with ABD3.  The fact that McCain hasn't been all over this, condemning it, and telling his supporters who feel this way to catch up with the century we're in, tells me loads about the man.  I don't expect Palin to address it, because she would probably put her foot in her mouth and talk about Shotgun Willie and what a funny song it is.  I expect nothing of her...ever.  But McCain should be outraged at this.  I hope someone asks him about it at the debate tonight.

I agree too.  Good comment.  If McCain had any shred of morality or decency he would address this immediately and let everyone know that this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable and demeaning to the country as a whole.  He won't though because he has no decency.  So why would anyone want this man as president of this country?

I think that you are getting it all WRONG.  When I read the transcript, it sounds like the man is saying "Kill him" about WILLIAM AYERS NOT OBAMA.  Why are you spinning this to make it sound like he is saying this about Obama?  While I don't condone this man saying to kill Bill Ayers, I think it is much more plausible that he is yelling "kill him" about Bill Ayers than Obama, especially when it is followed right after Palin mentions his bombings and targeting the Pentagon and U.S. Capital.  In case you haven't guessed, 9/11 is still fresh in many people's minds and mentioning anyone who wants to bomb our Pentagon and U.S. Capital might illicit this kind of response.  So please, don't spin things.  There are plenty of quotes on the Obama side that can be taken out of context, but do we really want to go there???

check your facts....either way....if the loon was referring to Ayers or Obama when he yelled out "KILL HIM", it's @!$%#ing frightening, dont you think???

Conservatives are one step away from being the next Brown Shirts.   They can be whipped up into such a frenzy.  It really is scary.

I think John McCain should be forced to take all campaigners (including "x-tras") back to one of his houses for a good old fashioned CIA "debreifing" after the election.

Seriously, what the hell does he expect to do with his rabid "base" on Nov. 5th?  Does he even care?

More and more he just looks like an egotistical old bigot trying to prove something to himself before he dies.  That's not meant to be mean, it's just the side he chooses to show.  I would pity him in silence if he weren't so determined to take me and my country through a cultural war for a few votes that he already had.

Stop, John.  Go home.  Maybe they'll still name a freeway after you someday.

You know, I'm a conservative and I'm not a "Brown shirt" or rabid dog.  Come on!  Can we be at least civil to each other.  We may disagree politically, but we are Americans and fellow human beings.  While I don't condone this man shouting out "kill him" to William Ayers.  I can understand the anger at someone who feels that he has a right to destroy our buildings and history that people have fought and died for just because he was some whiny hippie who didn't like the Vietnam war.  As far as I am concerned this man and William Ayers are two peas in a pod except one followed through on his hatred by bombing buildings.  It is this partisanship that is hurting us.  Let's face it, both parties are full of crap.  Both sides have screwed the American people.  There is a depression coming and there will be people who will be angry and hungry.  Let's not fan the flames by spinning things that are taken out of context and trying to make something out of them that they are not.  I can show you videos of militant Obama supporters saying "Alpha Omega" and stomping around in military gear so, there are nuts on both sides.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8 
Don't stereotype one individual to represent entire groups of people.  I won't either.

HERE HERE, CYF!!!

Lets focus on one guys remark, it is easer than the truth, about what happens next, isn’t’ it.

The last election, the media had Kerry in the lead the whole time, and he lost. Not much at risk, with two white guys.

When the media polls prove to be lies, and Obama looses his bid for president. After listening to the bias media tell the blacks that the whites are keeping them down. And the community organization groups that Ayers is involved in, start to act up.

You think the 1968 Watts Riots, and Rodney King Riots, were bad, you haven’t seen nothing yet.

When our cities go under Marshall law, and then the food shortages start, you haven’t seen nothing yet.

So if your living in Lala Land, let me be the first tell you “Wake UP”

If your aware, the stuff is about to hit the fan, let me be the first to say “DUCK”

The day of the all is well, ends this election. My prayers are with you if you still cannot see the truth of this election. And what is coming next.

Just remember only the paranoid survive. Could it be they (the paranoid) refuse to be lulled into a false sense of security.

I'm so tired of the S**t sandwich some of you keep trying to feed us. This article Lisa, is too weak. Gimme' a break.

About the "riots in the streets if Obama loses", I'm calling that out as total Bullshick. I will not be "Threatened" into voting for Obama. And you say republicans are mean.

Your a racist if you don't vote Obama

There will be riots in the streets if you don' vote Obama.

Whatever. I have news for you, it doesn't scare me. And guess what, it doesn't scare the rest of America either.

McCain/Palin 08! See not scared!

You are mistaken.

I never said vote for anyone.

I am a realist.

I have faith that all thinking Americans will vote the Republican ticket.

The bias media, will be what causes problems for our country.

Blacks have a history of behaviors, that we should guard ourselves against.

I am saying if you live in a city, and you’re not paranoid, you must be a fool…..

McCain/Palin 08

Palin/unknown 2012

Diana,

Could you please enlighten us to these specific behaviors? Let me guess, you are one those people who lock the car door when a black man walks by and holds your purse a little closer to your side. You should seek help for that, I imagine it is quite a handicap.

Diana -

My comment was not directed at you. It just reminded me of some other things "riots in the streets" that I've heard from Obama supporters. I live in a city (Jacksonville, FL) and we have every race, we are well blended here. I have lots of Friends and co -workers that are black, some support Obama, and some don't.

Blacks have a history of behaviors, that we should guard ourselves against.

I am a Bail Bond agent and I am here to to tell you that blacks are not the only ones that commit crimes and cause chaos. That's not a nice comment for you to make.

 am saying if you live in a city, and you’re not paranoid, you must be a fool…..

I live in Jacksonville, FL ( I'm not afraid :)

McCain/Palin 08

Mego 

I rest my case with the Tulsa Riots, Watts Riots and Rodney king Riots

I descend from a long line of black men on my mothers side, who started marring white women in 1720, so by 1850 they were passing as white. So don’t think your radical white empathy package impresses anyone, you are probably a bigot, trying to pass yourself off as a compassionate white person.

American Blood since 1646

Diana-533582: Blacks have a history of behaviors, that we should guard ourselves against.

That's one of the more racist remarks I've heard today. What a dishonorable shame.

Here's what we really need to guard ourselves against or it's Game over, man. Welcome to unfettered fascism...:

Diana-533582:McCain/Palin 08Palin/unknown 2012

Personally I don't think that just because Diana has African slave heritage that makes it acceptable for her to say the racist things she's saying. What a sense of self-righteous entitlement.

Also I think that you are forgetting the young vote. We aren't accounted for in the polls, since the polls use landlines to canvas. We don't have landlines, we have cell phones.

Here lies the true ignorance of the American mind set.

Anyone of African ancestry has had at one time a slave in their history. Not so, my African ancestors emigrated from Caribbean to the Colonies in 1700. Oh yah, they brought their slaves with them.

So much for the competence of the young voter.

I cant say enough about education.

Here lies another, ignorance of the American mind set.

The color of your skin matters more than your DNA. If you say anything against blacks, even if your black you're a racist person. lol

The pretentiousness to be politically correct is not a asset, its just foolish.

racist person: somebody who hates others who are not of his or her own race.

If your ancestors emigrated as African-Caribbeaners in the 1700s, I have no idea where they went where they were not oppressed peoples in slave-owning America.

Regardless, ancestry does not excuse the fact that you said "blacks have a history of behaviors that we should guard ourselves against." As well as advocating paranoia against African Americans.

Please, you complain about people being automatically racist if they don't support one way, and yet people who are politically correct are automatically "fakers"?

Funny how you assume what our heritages are. How elitist of you.

All I see here is a paranoid person using a transparent veneer of their heritage and evoking a superiority complex based in their supposed intelligence to justify their own prejudices. 

Diana,How do you think your Afro-Carribean ancestors got to the Carribean...mmm yeah, but thanks for the poor attempt at the history lesson. FYI having black ancestors doesn't really make it OK for you to go spew your ignorance. Call me any name you want to call me, and assume what you will, but at the end of the day I know who I am. Unfortunately my "radical white empathy" doesn't cover your self-loathing. I just find that pathetic.

Unfooled, well said.

vote republiKKKan

Thanks Mego :)

Diana

I find your comment to be insulting and irresponsible. You blindly promote bigotry, fear, and hatred with no thought to morality. People like you scare the hell out of me. You lumb everyone into a stereo type with no thought to the individual. A weak mind with a voter registration card is dangerous because it will remain blind to it's choices.

 The sooner people come to realize we are all 1 race "HUMAN" the better off we will all be. I served my Country and have traveled around the world. I was injured and still find ways to serve as a civilian. In my travels I found it doesn't matter if your Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Greek, Russian, Purple, or Blue. You treat people with the respect that you want them to show you. Never prejudge someone and great them as a new friend and you might learn something wonderful.

 Then I have also meet closed minded people that fall under the hateful comments you made above. They where mostly self centered hippokrits that believed they where superior to everyone else. Close minded and alone in there own misery and self loathing.

well said Tony...

The sooner people come to realize we are all 1 race "HUMAN" the better off we will all be.

I agree

Fact for all of you who don't know: the scientific community has found that there is no genetic, hereditary, or otherwise biological basis for race. It does not exist in real life. Only in our minds.

The sooner people come to realize we are all 1 race "HUMAN" the better off we will all be.

I agree

Fact for all of you who don't know: the scientific community has found and resoundingly agree that there is no genetic, hereditary, or otherwise biological basis for race. It does not exist in real life. Only in our minds.

And I believe that fact has been recognized by the United Nations ;-)

Ugh double post. Stupid internet.

Unfooled,

Your comment #2.25 is right on the money. Some time ago PBS aired a compelling program on this very subject titled RACE—The Power of an Illusion.

Here is a brief excerpt from a backgrounder written by the executive producer:

What is this thing called "race?" - a question so basic it is rarely raised. What we discovered is that most of our common assumptions about race - for instance, that the world's people can be divided biologically along racial lines - are wrong. Yet the consequences of racism are very real.

And here is an excerpt from the series' summary:

Race is a modern idea - it hasn't always been with us. In ancient times, language, religion, status, and class distinctions were more important than physical appearance. In America, a set of specific historical circumstances led to the world's first race-based slave system.

The concept of race did not originate with science. On the contrary, science emerged in the late 18th century and helped validate existing racial ideas and "prove" a natural hierarchy of groups. Throughout our history, the search for racial differences has been fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority. Even today, scientists are influenced by their social context.

We hope this series can help clear away the biological underbrush and leave starkly visible the underlying social, economic, and political conditions that disproportionately channel advantages and opportunities to white people. 

If is that last paragraph that honest people know to be true. White people have always bee—and still are—advantaged in the United States, and I'm talking skin color, not DNA. America still has a long way to go on the racial divide, and comments like those from Diana-533582 only throw gas on the fire. 

Excellent post, VisionCoast.

Wow, that rhymes!

Here, here VisionCoast!

I'm still amazed that you (Diana 5...) would even make such a statement.

"Blacks have a history of behaviors, that we should guard ourselves against."  

WOW!

In Virginia in 1716, Elizabeth Bartlett was ordered to pay 1,200 pounds of tobacco to her mistress Mary Bailey, for eloping with the mistress' Negro slave James.

Sarah Dawson was a white servant girl who endured twentyone lashes in Virginia in 1744 for having three illegitimate children by her master's servant Peter Beckett “a Negro” whom she later married.

In Lancaster County in 1703, Elizabeth Bell ran away from her master and was lashed twenty times at the county whipping post. A year later she was indentured to another master during which time she had a child by a blackman. Five years were added to her sentence.

The case of Alice Bryan. Alice confessed to bearing a "bastard Molattoe Child" by a "Negro man Called Jack." Thirty-nine lashes and an extra two years indenture was the sentence of the court. Her mulatto son Peter was bound out for 31 years and her daughter Elizabeth was enslaved for 18 years.

Who was or wasn’t a slave in early Colonial History, you know the time before America was a country.

Color-conscious American society tried to overturn stubborn customs previously practiced by earlier settlers who had lived in a time when frontier life was hard and the skin color of a helpful neighbor was irrelevant.

The new laws against people of color were not always respected by "old-time whites". In the words of one old white man, Daniel Stout of Tennessee, who, when called to testify in court in 1858 as to the race of a grandfather of a free African-American, said: "Never heard him called a Negro. People in those days said nothing about such things."

Today’s racism is the direct result of some being able to practice segregation and race only organization. While everyone sets back and ignores what black theology is all about.

It sound extremely fair to make a image of Palin and hang her in a tree, in Hollywood, as the Gays have done.

I also think it would be fair to have a organization called “The United Caucasian College Fund.”

How about some “White Entertainment Television“.

Someone prove, that the Blacks don’t practice and participate in racism!

And why is it always that opinionated white folks get to be racist?

OK, for you knob sucking, empathy giving white folk, when the Black Liberation Theologizes come for you, this brown woman will look the other way. If you don’t understand that a portion of blacks want your white ass dead, you cant be helped.

The Black Liberation Theology, teach the black man can only be free when all white men are dead…….Good Luck…..

Diana, as a real black woman I find your views extremely disheartening.  What, just because way down your distance family line there is an African American hanging from your tree you feel you have the right to speak for the black community?  Trust me, if all blacks really felt the way you clam we do, you and others like you would be the first one’s strung up.  Please stop lying to others and trying to claim to be a representative of the black community.  It’s people like you that for every block we knock down, you turn around to put another one back up.

And one more thing, if your family was black and emigrated from the Caribbean, than chances are at some point they were slaves.  Sorry, but do you actually think the islands were inhabited with blacks before the Spanish arrived? Maybe you should stop insulting everyone else’s intelligence and go get a history book.  The islands were originally inhabited by Indians (Native Americans).  Africans were brought over later to work after the Native American population was starting to dwindle down due to the dieses brought by the Europeans that the Indians weren’t immune to, and than the cruelties placed upon them in the attempt to make them assimilate into European customs and beliefs

Diana-533582,

Your comment #2.33 iterates the fact that many white Americans such as yourself either are willfully ignorant of black history in America or refuse to put themselves in the black person's position and try living as a black in mostly white America.

There are upwards of 25,000 cold cases from the civil rights era, when blacks were kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered by whites—with immunity. To this day, these cases remain unsolved. This is mostly because the whites of the local communities where these crimes happened still refuse to divulge the information they have on the perpetrators. The state making the most progress in this area, ironically, is Mississippi.

Our constitution guarantees African-Americans the right to vote, yet the Jim Crowe laws were effective in preventing the exercising of that right until 1964. Try to hail a cab as a black man. See how many cabs pass you by. Look at the disproportionate number of black men in U.S. prisons. The case for the African-American population is HUGE, yet Caucasians in the U.S. continue to refuse to acknowledge the disadvantages under which African-Americans have suffered since they were kidnapped and brought to this country as commodities to serve the agricultural economy of the South.

Try putting yourself, if you're at all able, into the shoes of a black person. Imagine it for a minute. How would you feel toward a white society that still attempts to keep you in a second-class citizenship?

Irene,

Wow, I'm so stunned by how foul this is, I can hardly express it.

And what is the matter with the people in the audience?

May not be right about this, but often think this sort of thing is a set-up by the other camp. Either that or it's simply Florida - it attracts all the nuts.

What surprises me is that when Obama made the statement about the pig and lipstick everyone thought that was intention based on the audiences reaction.

I'm wondering will the same thing be thought for all the people who cheered this message on?

tbsopinion---you make an excellent point. My guess is not one of those on this thread demanding a Palin apology were similarly calling for Obama to apologize about all those supporters at his rally who laughed at his pig/stinking fish remark vis a vis Palin and McCain.

"Kill him" is just a wee bit different than "lipstick on a pig"...doncha think! 

If not, then perhaps you need to check yourself into the local mental health care facility 'cause death is a lot more permanent that lip coloring!

Thanks OACoach, exactly what I was thinking. How do the two compare in any way?

QACoach--nope--if you're suggesting that candidates need to acknowledge and respond to every comment spewing out of the mouths of every person at every rally then obama according to your standards should have chastised his audience accordingly re: their hysterical reaction to his pig/stinking fish comment (it wasn't funny).

Actually Lisa, it was funny. In fact, it was funnier than the "Hockey Mom/Pitbull" "joke"

Mars---I'm curious--do you think it was obama's intent to be funny with that line?

@lisaed

...if you're suggesting that candidates need to acknowledge and respond to every comment spewing out of the mouths of every person at every rally...

Not at all...I'm suggesting that you...or anyone else...that equates lipstick to death needs to go through some very deep soul-searching and introspection.  This is one thing about which I can, without qualification or fear of judgement say...you are wrong.

Lisa, I don't pretend to know the intentions of others. I do assume that he knew he would get a chuckle or two.

I think my statement may have been misunderstood.

QACoach, I agree that KILL HIM is quite different than lipstick on a pig and my point was that if the right would make such a big deal about what Obama said, and justify their position that Obama needed to apologize to Palin based on the audiences response.  Then where is the apology from the McCain/Palin campaign.

I also agree with what others have stated that's its hard to assume responsibility for what the audience may say or how they may respond and it just made the lipstick thing that more ridiculous.

My overall point was to again address the double standard from the republican party.  When they do it, it can some how be justified or explained away.  But when someone else does it, its deemed wrong and they need to apologize.

Why is everone talking about a guy who yelled something in a crowd? Have we gotten this far off course? Dem's ran out of things to talk about Palin herself, so now we move on to her audience members? Dem's are desperate. Why? Because they know the polls lean so far to the left that the U.S. map is on a 45 degree angle - and they know that Obama is finally being "Palinized" about his past and it couldn't be more appropriate.

Either that or it's simply Florida - it attracts all the nuts.

Hey! I live in Florida - I'm not nuts! LOL :) Not yet anyway.

JackB: Why is everone talking about a guy who yelled something in a crowd?

What, are you deaf and blind? I hope to God it's still illegal in this country to call for the murder of someone while standing in a mob of zealots.

Here, here, VC.

What, are you deaf and blind? I hope to God it's still illegal in this country to call for the murder of someone while standing in a mob of zealots.

No, not deaf or blind - but people yell stupid things in crowds all the time. No different than someone yelling kill him at a football game so get real. If we policed every loudmouth with an errant opinion in this country you wouldn't be able to post anymore.

OK, JackB, I can only assume, based on your #3.16, that you are unable to discern the difference between competitive sports and threatening someone's life.

This incident, which occurred in Florida, was repeated at a McCain rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when a Republican extremist shouted out, "He's a terrorist!" in response to McCain's 'Who is Barack Obama' rhetoric. Just after the 'terrorist' exclamation, someone else in the crowd shouted out, "Kill him!"

McCain and Palin should be censored for not stopping immediately and telling these individuals that they had gone way too far over the line of civility. But they didn't...and we all know why. It's abominable.

And, on the international front, a man in the U.K. was shot three times for wearing an Obama T-shirt.

All of these incidents are displays of hatred, not the competitive fervor, however fierce, you'll see and hear at a football game. The distinction is obvious—a man is dead. 

And, BTW, it's still illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

'terrorist' exclamation, someone else in the crowd shouted out, "Kill him!"

And, BTW, it's still illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You're desperate VC, The reason? You know this guy was just overly caught up in the emotion of the rally - no different than when people weep and stretch their hand out to Obama - Another point is you know as well as I do, that people who claim out loud their intentions aren't a concern - assasins and potential killings are kept silent - Unless of course you intend to invade terrorists in Pakistan and announce it to the world as Obama did.

JackB: You're desperate VC, The reason? You know this guy was just overly caught up in the emotion of the rally...

"This guy"? You need to catch up. So far we've had three people spew garbage that borders on criminal and another actually pull the trigger on an Obama supporter. I doubt that's the last of it unless McCain/Palin put an end to their wretched, shameless pandering.

Jack, I'm not desperate in the least. What I am is thoroughly disgusted by extreme behavior on the part of both McCain/Palin and their extremist, hateful supporters. You, I believe, are quite naive if you really think people are somehow unable to be incited to take action on unrestrained emotions. Yelling out comments like "Kill him!" is unconscionable.

The fact that people such as yourself can so easily dismiss these events is extremely disturbing. And I believe it is Republicans who are desperate, as evidenced by the sewer tactics being employed by Mr. Nonpartisan John McCain. He's so full of crap, it's begun pouring out of his mouth and that of his running mate.

Jack, kindly tell me of another such incendiary incident at a political rally in the last 50 years. 

Prompted by some users' comments in this seed, I can't help but follow up on my earlier comments with additional information that better explains the 'how' and 'why' anyone in this country would shout for Obama's death.

The following is taken from Bill Moyers' Journal, September 12, 2008.

Bill Moyers: Indeed under the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, pretty much anything goes. There are some limits [to the First Amendment] — [Oliver Wendell] Holmes' son was the Supreme Court justice who noted in a famous opinion that you cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. That's because words have consequences and not just in politics.

On July 27, 2008, an armed 58-year-old unemployed truck driver, Jim Adkisson, walked into a Unitarian Universalist Church (UUC) in Tennessee, and opened fire on parishioners.

POLICE CHIEF STERLING OWEN: It appears that what brought [Adkisson] to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement. 

Adkisson told police: 

"...all liberals should be killed ... because they were ... ruining the country," and that he felt that "the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and...ruined every institution in America...." Adkisson set his sights on the UUC because of its liberal teachings and that if he couldn't get to the legislative liberals, he would kill those who voted for them.

One of the books police found in Adkisson's apartment was Michael Savage's "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". In it, Savage calls liberals "the enemy within our country;" "an enemy more dangerous than Hitler"; "traitors" who are "dangerous to your survival" and who "should be placed in a straightjacket". Like Adkisson, Savage accuses liberals of "[tying] the hands of our military."

 Michael Savage: "So, you're one of the sodomites. Are you a sodomite?"

Caller: "Yes, I am."

MICHAEL SAVAGE: "Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis."

MICHAEL SAVAGE on autism:

"I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. 

RICK KARR (reporter): Michael Savage isn't the only right-wing talk-radio host who launches blistering, even violent, verbal attacks on people and groups he doesn't like. Glenn Beck, for instance, fantasized about murdering a liberal filmmaker.

GLENN BECK on murdering Michael Moore:

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out of him. Is this wrong?"

MICHAEL REAGAN (son of Ronald Reagan) on 9/11 conspiracy theorists: 

"Take them out and shoot them. They are traitors to this country, and shoot them. But anybody who would do that doesn't deserve to live."

NEAL BOORTZ, right-wing radio talk show host, on Hurricane Katrina victims: 

"That wasn't the cries of the downtrodden. That's the cries of the useless, the worthless. New Orleans was a welfare city, a city of parasites, a city of people who could not, and had no desire to fend for themselves."

Media critic Rory O'Connor on right-wing talk radio:

"Here's the real problem. When you shock somebody, if you come back the next time and you apply the same stimulus, it's not shocking any longer. It's already happened. So you have to ratchet it up a little bit. So how do you cut through? How do you really shock? I think that in order to continue to outrage, you have to constantly be jacking up the pressure. And ultimately, there's gonna be some deranged person out there in that audience who's gonna say, "You know what? That's a good idea. Let me act on that."

BILL O'REILLY on the immigration crisis: 

"But do you understand what the NEW YORK TIMES wants? And the far left want? They want to break down the white, Christian male power structure which you are a part and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have."

Following the seething hatred of immigrants on the right-wing radio talk shows, Sen. Mel Martinez (R) received a threatening letter at his home. North Carolina Republican Richard Burr received a threatening call at his office, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) and others also received threats.

JIM QUINN, right-wing radio talk show host on the National Organization for Women: 

"The National Organization for Whores, they're whores for liberal politics in general, and they were whores for Bill Clinton in particular."

RICK KARR (reporter): "During this year's Democratic primaries, Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton to foster division in the Democratic Party in the hope that that would lead to violence in the streets of Denver. He called it "Operation Chaos."

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "This is about chaos, this is why it is called Operation Chaos[...]the dream end, if people say what is your exit strategy. The dream end is 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."

So now that we've endured just a smattering of the odious and vitriolic excreta that spews forth from the mouths of bigots and certifiable nut jobs, is it any wonder someone at the Palin and McCain rallies would shout for Obama's death? God help America.

Jack, kindly tell me of another such incendiary incident at a political rally in the last 50 years

The attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan. But, whattaya know? No-one announced that ahead of time did they?

Ok, you have offered up far more than I have time to read - but I am certain it's interesting stuff. Look VC, if anyone is going to commit a crime they are not going to announce it at a rally in a shouting voice. I urge you to move on and realize that this was a person caught up in an emotional fashion who went over the line but is harmless. If I am wrong, then please tell me where this person is being held, and how much his bail is set at. Yeah - that's right.

Again, this is desperation. Please find something to do with the candidates, and not their fans. Maybe you would have something of relevance if you discovered McCain or Palin were friends with a terrorist like Ayers.

Clearly, some people can't or won't see what's happening. I don't understand that.

But, before great harm is done to our society, conscientious people must rise up and speak the voice of reason. Those that can be reached will be swayed back from the extreme because they want to be normal. They need to hear that this is not normal, before it is.

Clearly, some people can't or won't see what's happening. I don't understand that.

But, before great harm is done to our society, conscientious people must rise up and speak the voice of reason. Those that can be reached will be swayed back from the extreme because they want to be normal. They need to hear that this is not normal, before it is.

You've just described the average Liberal / Democrat.

Oh, there ya go ag-in, those doggone liberals! Those wascally wabbits!

JackB,

An assassination attempt is not the same as rabble-rousing a crowd to a fervor that incites someone to shout "Kill him!" There is no more comparison between those two scenarios than there is between a football game and an incendiary political rally. How you cannot see or admit the distinction is a mystery to me. I can attribute it only to blind partisan loyalty.

Yes, I gave a lot of information in #3.20, and if you want to understand where the Republican hatred of Democrats and liberals is being fanned, I encourage you to read the comment despite its length. It's important, factual information worthy of consideration.

Please find something to do with the candidates, and not their fans. 

Here you go, Jack. Since you likely won't read #3.20 and consider the ramifications of what is happening among followers of the radical right-wing, I hope you'll take the time to read the link I just gave you (at your request).

VisionCoast, while the quotes on the surface of several of the talk show hosts appear inflammatory, I happen to listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh pretty faithfully and the quotes you site from them are completely taken out of context.  If you would take the time to listen to Glenn or Rush, you would know that they are both SATIRISTS. 

Also, Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos was not created to incite riots.  I notice that a significant number of words are left out of the quote [...] to make it appear that the first statement ties in with the second.  This is grossly negligent because the riots that Rush is talking about in the second part of the quote were riots that were being planned by a group called Recreate '68.  Had nothing to do with Operation Chaos.  Operation Chaos was a joke in response to the mainstream media, and Democrat voters finding loopholes in the voting law primaries to select the REPUBLICAN candidate.  So, Rush was encouraging people to repay in kind by registering and then voting for Hillary.  It had nothing to do with encouraging people to riot.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8710.html

http://recreate68.com/?page_id=37

I really get tired of these liberal groups willfully and knowingly misquoting and taking particularly Glenn and Rush out of context when they don't even listen to the show.  Now as for Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage or some of the others you list, I don't listen to them so I can't comment.  I don't particularly like them so choose not to listen.  Imagine that.

Check your facts,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constrained comment.

The quotes I posted are directly from the audio taken from all the programs cited.

Regarding Rush Limbaugh, as usual, he lifts his leg on people who do not share his opinion, and he does so in the most insulting and inflammatory fashion he can come up with. I understand what Re-Create 68 was about and so does Rush Limbaugh. His problem is he doesn't want dissenters to engage in civil disobedience and, therefore, airs his venomous "satirization" of what these people are trying to accomplish. When you have a government that has done what this one has in the last eight years, mass public dissension is a natural consequence of people who expect to be free in a country such as ours.

I've watched Glenn Beck. I can't stand his juvenile theatrics, but beyond that, I find him to be a shallow, eager wannabe. Kind of like a Limbaugh prodigy who isn't up to the challenge.

Perhaps you can dismiss this "Hate Radio" as satire, but I cannot so easily blow it off as such. It is rabble-rousing at its worst, as we've seen at the recent McCain/Palin rallies. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are some of the best at satirizing both the right- and left-wing, but they never incite people to hatred. There's a significant difference between the two styles, and the Savage-Limbaugh-Beck-Boortz-Reagan-Quinn versions can go straight to Hades.

Below is the thought-provoking close to the Bill Moyers Journal I cited. This, to me, is the civil and moral judgment on the talk-radio content that is regularly spewed across our airwaves.

The First Amendment guarantees their free speech as it does mine. Government shouldn't be the arbiter of what the Bill of Rights leaves to one's own sense of fair play. Watching that report, however, I was reminded of a story from folk lore about the tribal elder telling his grandson about the battle the old man was waging within himself. He said, "My son it is between two wolves. One is an evil wolf: anger, envy, sorrow, greed, self-pity, guilt, resentment, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The other is the good wolf: joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, generosity, truth, compassion and faith." The boy took this in for a few minutes and then asked, "Which wolf won?" His grandfather answered, "The one I feed." So, too, America's public life. The wolf that wins is the wolf we feed. Media provides the fodder.

Bill Moyers is one of the few thoughtfull journalists remaining in America today.  It is sad how our media has become as polarized as our politicians.  Whatever happened to objectivity? It has been discarded for thinly veiled but far more palatable opinion.  Objectivity has become confused with liberalism and uncomfortable truths are dismissed entirely.  There is no change in sight for this disturbing trend.  So many of us, busy in our daily lives, are fed subjective soundbites that act as a Pavlovian stimulus for millions of ravenous dogs.  The great experiment (our democracy) is thus reduced to an ugly laboratory experiment.

non-partisan,

I couldn't articulate any better the truths you put forth. We have largely lost our Fourth Estate, the only reliable mechanism that stood between the citizen and his government. It is a great demise that has left media open to all manner of propaganda and time-filling non-nutritious byproducts of news. 

While learning what's really happening around us has become more difficult than simply getting comfortable and turning on our TVs, it still can be done via the web. The new problems lie in precisely what you said: loss of objectivity, loss of ability to face truth and the Pavlovian response to "news" that reinforces our preconceived notions.

Great post, non-partisan. Thank you.

Non-Partisan and VisionCoast,

I wrote my latest article to stress the point that often the things that are being presented by the media are really being staged for us and with the given importance of this election I wanted to share some new information regarding McCain/Palin events.  Please come and read and share your insight.

• http://maggiecat.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/12/1988687-mccain-paid-town-hall-participants

Thanks for your posts.

MaggieCat

MaggieCat,

I wish I had something better to say, but I am not the least bit surprised to learn that McCain used a paid plant to help him whip up his audience. I'm not surprised because John McCain lies directly to the American voter: Obama said Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood." Obama never said that. McCain and Palin's rhetoric allowed his supporters to fire up their hatred to the melting point, at least until it received so much press and appears to be backfiring on him.

I've known for quite some time that all of our politicians have hired advertising agency-like professionals to market and promote themselves and their talking points. It's as disingenuous as advertising itself, and that's coming from someone who used to work as a copywriter for an ad agency. My mistake was in expecting better from my country's politicians. Apparently, it's every dog for himself. Stay on the porch if you can't make the run.

This race is different in that the Republican side is pulling out every stop and leaving civility and deliberative discourse far behind in their eagerness to take the White House. These are dark days for our country.

I appreciate your efforts to inform the public on the dirty, sneaky tactics being used by McCain. Keep up the good work.

VisionCoast, I actually agree that the media is very biased.  I'm glad you can see that as well.  The problem that I see is that the mainstream media has a completely liberal agenda.  They are no longer trying to hide it.  The reason that I listen to Rush and Glenn Beck is because they report the other side of the story.  Bill Moyers, though soft spoken, is also extremely liberal and is not an objective journalist.  My wish would be that there would be a journalist out there who is OBJECTIVE.  Who reports the TRUTH rather than their version of it and lets the viewer or reader fill in the blanks or decide what their opinion is.  The mainstream media today is extremely lazy.  They use bloggers and soundbites as their sources of information rather than doing the investigative leg work to really flesh out a story.  There are no Walter Cronkites or Edward R. Murrows anymore.  Sadly, it's just a bunch of hacks trying to sway people to their point of view.

If the media was doing their job, then Rush and Glenn and many of the radio talk shows would not have nearly as many followers because the American people would not feel that they are getting only one side of the story.  Between the mainstream media and Rush and Glenn is the truth.  I prefer to hear both sides and make up my own mind as to which story fits in with the facts as I read them.  This is definitely the year journalism died.

Check your facts,

You and I are not far apart in our opinions of media, but I do disagree with you on Bill Moyers. While he is definitely more of a progressive than an everyday Republican would ever be, he is excellent at letting his guests speak fully on the matters at hand, and he asks thoughtful, probing questions. 

I hear all the time from diehard Republicans how "left" PBS programming is. I disagree. I think the problem for diehard Repubs is that they don't like to hear anything, nothing! that puts their Party or their president in a bad light. I've watched many PBS programs that let me see what's wrong all around the field, not just on the Republican side of matters. And that's the story I want—the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

What angers and disturbs me about right-wing talk radio is that their so-called satire is not amusing in the least. It doesn't evoke laughter...it evokes hatred. And when satire isn't funny, it's not satire anymore. It's Nazi-like brainwashing, and 8 million people a day are tuning in. 

VisionCoast, not to belabor the point, but I wholly disagree about right-wing talk radio.  It's not "Nazi-like brainwashing".  I resent that description.  The radio talk show hosts are very clear about their opinions and points-of-view which are conservative.  They are honest and upfront about their beliefs and you can view them through that prism.  They frequently castigate the Republican party when it gets away from core conservative principles. 

This is more than I can say about the main stream media who attempt to hide their point of view and are clearly deceiving the American people.  I would much rather have someone come out and state their beliefs rather than be cowards and claim to be journalists when they are far from it and are a disgrace to true journalism. 

Just a little FYI, Glenn Beck was talking about the economy and warning that we were headed for some difficult times a la the Depression TWO YEARS AGO!  Where was the mainstream media?????  If he knew it was coming, why didn't they?  And if they did know, why didn't they warn people????  Glenn recommended reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes (history of the Great Depression) and I must say that he has been rather prophetic about what he said was going to happen and what has happened.  So, when the stock market began to fall apart, I wasn't surprised.  Is he wrong about some things, yep and guess what, he has the humility to admit when he's been wrong.  Does anyone else in the mainstream media do that?  If you've never listened to Rush or Glenn then how can you judge?  Listen to them for about three weeks and then make up your own mind.  I don't always agree with them, and neither do most people that listen to them.  There are people who disagree with them who they give airtime to.  Does the mainstream media do that? 

My contention again is that they are the balance that the mainstream media is missing.  They report the stories and give people information that the mainstream media isn't touching.  They play a vital role and the majority of people who listen to them are intelligent enough to make up their own minds, unlike the masses who listen to the drivel and puff pieces coming out of the mainstream media.

PBS is OK, but for a PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE that the American tax payer contributes to, they should offer more than one point of view, a liberal point of view.  I've seen Moyers and Frontline and even their nightly news program, but you have to understand that there is an agenda there and take it with a grain of salt.  They have the people that they are beholden to and will report the facts based on their opinion as well.  I know all too well how they try to edit and distort documentaries to fit their ideas.  I've read interviews with three different documentary writers who were told to edit and change their work in order to omit or add to fit the powers that be's agenda. 

I am fine with hearing both side of the issue.  The problem comes in when you have diehard Democrats and Republicans who are so beholden to their party, that they are unwilling to see the facts that are staring them in the face.  I think most Conservatives are fine to hear another point of view.  I am.  I just don't like journalists who pretend to have integrity and claim to report both sides and yet distort the truth or omit it to fit their own personal agenda.  I appreciate honesty.  If someone is honest with me, then I can listen objectively to their opinion and take it or leave it according to my own personal convictions and the facts at hand.  I am always willing to change my mind when new facts are brought forward.  I have no huge commitment to the Republican party and I am currently very angry with Pres. Bush and what he and the Treasury and Congress have done to our country.

Check your facts,

You and I may simply have to agree to disagree.

I don't care how "conservative, honest and up front" right-wing talk-radio shock jocks may appear to be to you because anyone who says what I quoted in #3.20 is not fit to be on the air. I hope Glenn Beck did apologize. His so-called satire on killing Michael Moore is wholly unacceptable. I've watched Glenn Beck and I've been forced to hear Rush Limbaugh because of a coworker's predilection for such vitriolic opinion. The last time I listened to Limbaugh was when I heard his personal, on-air description of welfare recipients. I won't repeat what he said (you can image well enough), but it was the last straw for me. The man is repugnant...and how ironic that he ended up as a drug addict. What goes around...

Your contention that right-wing talk-radio is "the balance that the mainstream media is missing" is misguided, in my opinion. Just because you don't like the mainstream doesn't mean you have to gravitate to the outer reaches of the savage. Your comment reminds me of when Fox News aired the Central Park wilding of many years ago full and unedited. Women being taunted, stripped of their clothing and assaulted in Central Park...and Fox News aired the amateur videos of the crime. Do you suppose they did that to be balanced? Or do you think it was about ratings...because, after all, isn't it a blast to see women naked and held under the power of a bunch of twisted men? "Fair and balanced"...sure, on the Planet Perverted.

When I watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, I can laugh when they make fun of Obama or Biden or anyone who is a politician of my liking. They make it funny without denigrating their subjects. The same cannot be said for right-wing talk-radio.

As far as PBS having a left-wing agenda, again, this is a charge I often hear from conservatives, but they do so, as you have, without any proof of their allegations. If PBS is working from an agenda, so are all the rest, including Fox and the talk-radio shock jocks (obviously). I will always choose the more intelligent, deeply probing than the alternative.

Would you be satisfied with Walter Cronkite?

Check Your Facts:

If you think we've got a liberal slant in the "main stream media" then let's fix it instead of replacing it with competiing polarized partisan talking heads.  Our goal should be to restore trust in the media and not to discredit it.  But I must say that much of this perceived "liberal slant" in the media is just a reaction to the fact that, "the truth sometimes hurts". 

Consider coverage of the Iraq war.  Somehow millions of Americans convinced themselves that the majority of war coverage should be happy news.  My friend, wars are nothing if they are not destructive... I've seen that first hand.  So, when we heard stories about the destructive nature of this war, many of us cringed and lashed out at a "liberal media".    How absurd! It is objectivity that we should be seeking from the media, not "tell us what we wanna hear".   Yes, American soldiers did good things, but the good in war will always defer to the human toll that wars invariably cost.  This is an objective truth, not a liberal slant.

One last point:

Mentioning Glenn Beck in the same paragraph as Bill Moyers distresses me.  Beck's career started with Disc Jockeying and, after becoming a Mormon, he did some Christian radio.  He has zero journalistic credentials. Moyers started out as a beat reporter and worked his way up to a distinguished and remarkable career. I won't elaborate on the specifics in the interst of brevity but do your own research if you desire more evidence. As for Beck's realiziation that the economy is on the downturn, well:  It was no great revelation.  From Enron to Tyco, outsourcing to unemployment: the economy has been a rally cry in myriad stump speeches and politcal columns since 2004.  In short:  Glenn Beck is not even a poor man's Bill Moyers.

Ohhhh.... one more point.  It is a pleasure to disagree with you. 

VisionCoast, thanks for the civil discussion.  We will agree to disagree.  As for Michael Moore, can't stand the guy.  He is a second-rate documentary film maker and the only reason he got any recognition is because Hollywood loves to reward mediocrity as long as it fits their political agenda.

non-partisan, I would love to have a respect for the media, but when you have individuals like Keith Obermann saying he "gets a tingle up his leg" when he hears Obama speak, then you know you are not dealing with a professional journalist.  It's not that the "truth hurts", it's that they come up with their own brand of the truth.  They spin the truth rather than report the FACTS.  I would love to have straight facts and then I can make up my own mind.

Let's take political scandals for instance.  On every news network, you hear about the Republican from Alaska Ted Stevens.  You hear about his financial scandal.  Now, have you heard about Democrat Tim Mahoney from Florida?  He campaigned on Family Values and is charged with bribing his aide to keep quiet about an affair.  Nancy Pelosi has called for an investigation.  I haven't heard this on NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.  Why is that?  Why is no one doing a story on this?  Because it might hurt Democrat chances in the election?  Because Florida is a key state in the Presidential election?  Hmmmm.   

As far as the war is concerned, when we had heavy casualties or when policies or debate about funding was going on, the war was mentioned frequently in the media.  As the violence subsided after the surge, the war is hardly mentioned anymore.  Why is that?  Isn't it important to cover all aspects?  Why only report on the war when there are heavy casualties or debates about funding?  Here are some statistics:

"During the first 10 weeks of 2007, Iraq accounted for 23 percent of the newshole fornetwork TV news. In 2008, it plummeted to 3 percent during that period. On cable networks it fell from 24 percent to 1 percent, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. " http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4515

Chart with the same statistics.  http://www.journalism.org/node/10345   

The media reports what it wants us to deem as important.  The media claims we are "war-weary".  In actuality, without casualties or infighting in Congress, the media doesn't want to report on our soldiers.  Doesn't fit their bottom line or their agenda.  That's pretty sick if you ask me.  We are asking our young men and women to die for us and we can't give them a minute on the nightly news because they aren't "important enough". 

Glenn Beck has never claimed to be a journalist.  He has always said that he is "a radio clown".  My contention is that no one in the mainstream media was talking about the stock market 2 years ago.  No one said that we were headed for a downturn on a gigantic scale.  They may have mentioned recession, but that was in passing.  I didn't see one well-thought out report from NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS.

Glenn Beck interview with Peter Schiff August 18, 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nacIvVYQp8

Please read this interview of David Walker-comptroller general of the U.S. of America.  This guy is non-partisan and he tells us what no one is telling us about the debt.  Note this interview was given in Jan. 2008:  http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4595/

Could give you plenty more examples, but thought this would suffice.  Why was no one talking about this???? And if you read the article with David Walker, they're still not talking about it! 

Let me ask you this, have you heard one really hard hitting report on the murders of U.S. citizens taking place on the Mexican boarder or the false imprisonment of Campion and Ramos?  Google it. 

Again, our media is beholden to special interest groups just like our government.  They report only what they want you to hear.  They are getting to be as propagandist as the media in Fascist Germany and Stalin's Russia it's just that for now we still have a little thing called Freedom of Speech which allows Glenn who is not beholden to anyone to share what his perspective is.  But, look for that to change when Democrats come to power.  They will try to silence his voice along with other right-wing radio talk show hosts with a little something called "Fairness Doctrine".  Mark my words, the left will try to silence them any way they can.  Why???  What is so harmful about allowing another point of view especially when as I have proved they do the job that the "media" doesn't do.   

What the right wing extremists don't like about the new 'slant' in the 'left wing' media, is that we're laughing at them. And that means we're not afraid of the them.

They've overplayed the fear card, and like the financial world, the fear market is collapsing.

Irene, Irene, I don't know why I bother.  Cute little statements backed up by no FACTS. I'd laugh, but the mainstream media is already such a joke that it's not funny anymore. 

ok, Check your facts, you did say in earlier posts,

"If you would take the time to listen to Glenn or Rush, you would know that they are both SATIRISTS."

"Glenn Beck has never claimed to be a journalist.  He has always said that he is "a radio clown"

If you can finally hear the left wing giggling, it's because the iron grip of the right wing on the media is slipping. There is no 'left wing media' it's been all right wing all the time........ until recently.

Irene, you miss the argument entirely.  The "mainstream media" IF they were professional journalists should be UNBIASED.  That means that they should report FACTS with no regard to how they personally feel.  They should be committed to the truth even when it doesn't fit in with their personal agenda.  They should not be leaning to the "right" or the "left".  My problem is that the "mainstream media" tries to pass themselves off as journalists when they are no more than party hacks.  Listen to their language objectively and you will see the careful manipulation. Perhaps you don't understand the term "mainstream media".  Let me define it for you: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, FOX, New York Times.  FOX tends to lean to the right, but the other stations and especially the NYT are very "left" leaning. 

Rush and Glenn are commentators they do not claim to be journalists and so shouldn't be held to the same standard.  They make fun and point out the follies and obvious bias of the "mainstream media" and VERY OFTEN report the stories that the "mainstream media" ignores which need to be available to the American people.  Because of the bias of the "media", you have to be able to have an alternate point of view so that people can judge for themselves what the FACTS are.  I do not take the "mainstream media's" word for anything, nor do I believe that Rush and Glenn are infallible, I ACTUALLY THINK FOR MYSELF.  Imagine that.  My argument is that a true journalist should be good enough that you never can tell which party they are affiliated with.  No one in the media comes across to me as unbiased and I am obviously not alone.

You can giggle all you want, but you will soon be weeping when Freedom of Speech is taken away and all you are left with is propaganda.  Farewell comrade.

Here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your plea to the MSM to be objective is very idealistic, but it is impossible for the media to be absolutely objective.

There is no licensing requirement for objectivity in media, no oaths. And from the looks of the first amendment, the founding fathers wanted it that way.

There is no history of media objectivity in the history of the world. It is probably not philosophically possible for human beings to be 'objective' given that they only have the one brain to filter the information with.

If it were not for 'media bias' in journalism it is doubtful that the American Revolution would have gotten off the ground.

The history of the two party system in the United States is inextricably tied to journalism, the competing parties needed newspapers to communicate their ideas.

I can see the 'bias' you are talking about, it doesn't bother me that much, as long as all the biases are free to speak, I lean left so I'm flexible. I don't have a huge psychological need to be 'right.'

Your posts incidentally, are totally biased with every caricature about Libruls that is the meat of the propaganda from the right from time immemorial.

The left poses a commie threat? Give me a break, this country is moving so far to the right "we the people" is sounding like a communist manifesto.

Here on the left, we worry about the dead certainty the right wing feels about their bias, and just how far are they willing to go to press their 'conviction' on all the people who don't agree with them?

History is not so good on the right wing gone wild.

Irene, I don't know what country you're living in, but the U.S. it is clearly moving to the left.  The latest bailout is proof positive that we are headed down the path of the New Deal again.   
Let me try again so that you can understand what I'm talking about.  CODE OF ETHICS from the SOCIETY of PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS.  I don't care who is right.  I JUST WANT THE TRUTH.  NOT SOMEONE's HALF COCKED VERSION OF IT. I've highlighted the ones that "journalists" especially on the news networks should pay particular attention to.  It's too bad you can't throw the bums in journalism out like you can congressmen or most would be out of a job right now.  http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp "Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.



Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of
writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of
the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months
of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the
American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi
wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996."

Lisa-

My guess is their hatred comes from fear which has manifested itself in their ignorance. When people are afraid, it is easy to create this idea of "us" against "them"  or "good" vs. "evil".  Think about how a society prepares itself for war. Thus, you can imagine it is a powerful political tool.

Megan

Very true, Mego. It is very much a wartime mentality. But the problem is that its becoming a civil war within America! It seems to me that this shift began to manifest itself more prominently after 9/11. I remember the days immediately after when the entire country suddenly pulled together, rallying around the heroes who ran to save others, as well as around the families who had lost loved ones. It was a very moving time, and I remember feeling so proud of my country at that point because of that outpouring. It was a symbol of all that is great about our country.

But, soon after, the tides turned. Fear, paranoia, a thirst for revenge, and any hint of dissension being interpreted as anti-American (aka, siding with the terrorists). Maybe, like you said, this is the hallmark of a wartime mentality, but it seems as though we've managed to turn it back on each other.

I hope our next leader can be someone who binds us back together to the country we were those few days after the disasters of 9/11, and who can remind us that our efforts must be constructive and not destructive.

Lisa,

This divisive mentality to which you refer has been building for generations.  While the country did momentairly come together right after 9/11 it was only momoments before both parties began using it for political gain.  This election cycle will do nothing to bring the country back together as the issues that divide are not being addressed.

Obama can not reach out to the conservatives as his record shows that he pushes conservatives away.  McCain will not either as the hard core left wing will not except anything but an Obama win.  So, we'll be right where we are now. 

There is a divisive thought process at play.  The two party system benifits from the general Americans chosing one side or the other and is further complicated by those groups who only care about one or very few issues.  Until Americans decide to show with action that the country is more important than any party or single issue we will never come back together.  I'm a realist and I see nothing that indicates people will put aside thier differences after the election.  i.e. This election is more bitter than Bush v Gore and you saw what happened after that election. 

Lisa and Liam, I totally agree with both your posts. What upsets me most about politics is that the people who ruin civility MOST for Americans are not the people running for office, it's the people who WORK for them. If you think about it, most of these people are either trying to climb the political ladder themselves, or they have some NEED for the candidate they are working for. Mix with that some people who refuse to let some issues go (for Republicans that issue is usually wanting to do away with something like abortion and for Democrats that issue is usually wanting to move towards some type of socialism) and you have a recipe for disaster. The sad thing is, probably less than 10% of Americans are actually THAT extreme in their views. We may hate abortion, for example, but know it is a necessary evil. We may really want equality, but understand that there has to be a certain level of capitalism to survive. However, the fact that we have a party system means having to stand on one extreme or the other, which is truly unfair to so many Americans (like myself) who can see both sides of the picture.

The extreme conservative fanatics (which I've seen on this board) and the extreme liberal fanatics (which I've seen on this board) are going to have no problems voting. You could tell them that John McCain murdered his wife and that Barack Obama blew up the White House, but they'd have some explanation as to why they are the Savior of the World. It's the rational people who are going to have the hardest time voting Nov. 4 because we see an extreme amount of flaws in both candidates platforms. People who don't see those flaws are who scare me the most.

That kind of fear comes when a white man is threatened by a black man..especially running for the most powerful office we know. 

This kind of public speaking does remind me of those meetings..held insecret..with, you know..sheets...very scary..very... 

Comeon,

Nicely said. 

Southerwoman,

REALLY!  You have to immediately refer to the KKK, is your experience so narrow that you think everything is black and white.  You think everyone who doesn't support Obama is a racist? Is that it?  What are you referring to?

I don't believe that was her intent.  But I do think you have to look at the (predominate) racial make-up of the people attending, supporting and cheering these meetings on.

The problem is: looking at this footage comes to close to looking like a clan meeting and if that wasn't the McCain campaign's intent, then they should have tried to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

This footage (whether you consider yourself or others a racist or not) came to close for my comfort and just proves that hatred is alive and well and we all live with it.

Please....Palin is the master of the underhand tactics,  a pro at delivering nastiness with a smile, and the snotty but subtle putdowns.  Remember her calling Jill Biden a school teacher?  That's akin to calling Palin a state employee.  That was a putdown.  She knew exactly what she was doing and the response she would get.  If that wasn't her intent, AND THAT'S A BIG IF, then she should put out a statement denoucing that kind of garbage.  Haven't heard anything from the Palin or McCain camp.   

Well, they aren't going to repeat the long and well discredited canard that Obama is a Muslim.  Instead, Palin will cutely repeat his middle name to be sure that those who haven't heard the truth will remember to stick to their prejudices.

It would be as though someone referred to Palin as that corrupt Alaskan governor who claims to be a tax cutter in a state with no income or sales taxes that gets the bulk of its funding from the federal government and that kept the funding for the "bridge to nowhere" even after the plan was rejected.

Oh, I forgot. That is neither discredited nor a canard. Sorry.

My guess is their hatred comes from fear which has manifested itself in their ignorance. When people are afraid, it is easy to create this idea of "us" against "them" or "good" vs. "evil".

Which is interesting, considering a lot of modern stories these type of people are actually the bad guys. Look at the Sith from star wars. Uses fear. He's kind of a real life Count Dooku.

Some salient points here:

1. The Uniformed Policeman who introduced Sarah Palin should be at the very least disciplined by his Commanding Officer for injecting his private disdain for Barack Obama while in the uniform of an officer of the law. 

2. As a Policeman, he should have carried out his duty and arrested the person or persons who shouted out those vile threats. 

3. Policemen of Florida........is this the way you wish to be represented? And can we expect this type of misconduct on voting day?  Or maybe you would think it better to redeem your image NOW!

3. Policemen of Florida........is this the way you wish to be represented? And can we expect this type of misconduct on voting day?  Or maybe you would think it better to redeem your image NOW!

Are you serious?

It's called upholding the LAW! You know that teeensy little thing called the First Amendment.That Amendment protects the U.S Citizens from being hauled off to jail for speaking. (This is America, not China) Protesting is allowed under our constitution. But I guess you would have that man's rights ignored - do you even know, for sure, that he was talking about Obama? 

It's called upholding the LAW! You know that teeensy little thing called the First Amendment.That Amendment protects the U.S Citizens from being hauled off to jail for speaking. (This is America, not China) Protesting is allowed under our constitution. But I guess you would have that man's rights ignored - do you even know, for sure, that he was talking about Obama?

If he was speaking of Obama, he was violating a law.

LMAO!

Dreama:  (This is America, not China) Protesting is allowed under our constitution.

Don't let your naiveté and idealism get the better of you, Dreama. I, too, used to be an idealist.

Another Newsviner had a friend hauled off to jail and locked up for making disparaging remarks about GWB. This country has lost the meat of its First Amendment with the fascist regime under which we're now existing.

Fegie it appears that the policeman (sheriff) who introduced Obama as Barack Hussein Obama will be facing prosecution for violating the Hatch Act and campaigning while in uniform.

Justice!

TJG - That's awesome! Do you have a link to that info? You should post it.

Lee sheriff under federal investigation for stumping in uniform

In my own county, no less. What a nice, shiny black eye we have now.

Dreama,
 If you can't differenciate between PROTESTING and INCITING  through innuendo to maim or kill, then there are serious gaps in your education.
Thank you TheJonesGirl and VisionCoast,
Thank goodness some action is being taken about Sheriff Mike Scott of Lee County, Florida. Check out his webbsite and read the lame statement he wrote in regard to his despicable conduct. He also writes about himself on the main page as "courageous" and that he has "integrity."  I think "coward" is more apt. 

Lisa in CA - I saw that clip of that guy in a policeman's uniform introducing Sarah Palin who made a point of saying "Barack Hussein Obama!"

Why should anyone be asamed of or upset about the man's name?

What kind of prejudice causes you to react that way?

Talk to his parents if you have issues with them exercising their right to choose when naming their baby, fetus or mass of tissue (depending on your other prejudices)

Lisa,

That sheriff is now under investigation -- state and federal- for doing that while in uniform. That is a BIG no no. But this is Florida, and the part of the state that happend is well, and I will be nice, one of the lesser enlightened areas of the state.

It would not surprise me if he is a card carrying member of the KKK or if he isn't he would not stop the KKK from stepping inside his county...either way, it's racist.

TheJonesGirl - it appears that the policeman (sheriff) who introduced Obama as Barack Hussein Obama will be facing prosecution for violating the Hatch Act and campaigning while in uniform.

Are you aware that Obama is campaigning while on the public payroll as well?

Are you suggesting that Obama is a partisan and is acting illegally and not representing all the citizens in his state while campaigning?

Are you aware that Obama is wearing his regular uniform while campaigning and engaging in partisan political rallies?

Or are you just so prejudiced that it is OK for him and not other elected officials to exercise their right to choose and engage in the right to free speech?

Why should anyone be asamed of or upset about the man's name?

I'm not really sure! I could give about as much of crap about Barack Hussein Obama's middle name as I could about John Sidney McCain's.

What kind of prejudice causes you to react that way?

React what way?

Talk to his parents if you have issues with them exercising their right to choose when naming their baby, fetus or mass of tissue (depending on your other prejudices)

Uh, no I'm cool with it, plus both of his parents are no longer living, so that's not an option. I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here, but I'm at a loss.

Here's my point. Barack Obama doesn't generally refer to himself as Barack Hussein Obama, not because he's ashamed of it, but just because most people don't include their full name when they refer to themselves (same as John McCain). So when certain folks make a point of using his full name, do you think it's just an attempt at being overly thorough or is it that they are trying to "out" his muslim-sounding middle name? The clip of the guy I'm talking about didn't sound like he was trying to give Barack Obama extra respect by using his entire name, it sounded more like the latter to me.

My question is why are people making such a big deal about Barack's middle name? Why aren't people being like, John Sidney McCain...CLEARLY he's AUSTRALIAN!!!

Lisa,

You crack me up.

Lisa in CA - Barack Obama doesn't generally refer to himself as Barack Hussein Obama

I suspect the entire government does. It is most likely on all legal documents and his driver license if he has one. It appears to be his actual legal name, intentionally chosen by his parents

not because he's ashamed of it, but just because most people don't include their full name when they refer to themselves (same as John McCain).

He wasn't the one making the reference in question, it was someone else

So when certain folks make a point of using his full name,

"Certain" folks? Isn't that what has been trumpeted as a "code" word"?

do you think it's just an attempt at being overly thorough or is it that they are trying to "out" his muslim-sounding middle name?

I see the whole issue as just so much hissing and spitting and overly sensitive reaction

Clearly, If Obama had or has any concerns about the name his parents gave him, he could have changed it years ago. The fact that he hasn't tells me that he doesn't mind and has no objection to his name.... any part of it

Why are you concerned that his decision to keep the Hussein part identifies him as "Muslim" sounding, while you seem to have no problem with "Barack which is a well know Jewish name"?

There are even Obama supporters who have begun using his middle name, Hussein, to identify themselves in their "Facebook" profiles. Are all them them supposedly hate filled racist bigots as well?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/us/politics/29hussein.html

You should really chill out and worry about something that actually amounts to something, and stop trying to claim Barack Hussein Obama should be ashamed of his name

Alan,I'm cold-chillin' over here. I'm sorry if somehow it appeared otherwise. Also, please stop trying to convince me that i really secretly think Barack should be ashamed of his name - I really don't know where you're getting that from. I thought I said pretty clearly that I don't. Again, I apologize for being vague.

I suspect the entire government does. It is most likely on all legal documents and his driver license if he has one. It appears to be his actual legal name, intentionally chosen by his parents

OK, let me clarify what I meant when I said that Barack Obama doesn't generally refer to himself using his entire full name. We can agree that he doesn't right, aside from what is written in legal documents? His ads are all followed with, "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message." I don't think he chooses to leave out his middle name because he's ashamed of it, but generally people refer to themselves just using their first and last name. For example, my full name is Lisa Beth Smith (made up last name). But when I introduce myself to people, I usually say, "Hi, I'm Lisa" or "I'm Lisa Smith." And when people find out that my full name is actually Lisa Beth Smith, they don't start being like, "Hey Lisa Beth Smith, how's it going?" You see what I'm saying?

He wasn't the one making the reference in question, it was someone else

True. You're totally confusing me.

"Certain" folks? Isn't that what has been trumpeted as a "code" word"?

I don't speak in code. By saying "certain", I meant a select few, not all, and by "folks", I meant folks.

Why are you concerned that his decision to keep the Hussein part identifies him as "Muslim" sounding, while you seem to have no problem with "Barack which is a well know Jewish name"?

I think I'm not sure what we're talking about here. I'm not sure how we started talking about Obama's decision to keep his middle name. I don't remember saying that he should drop it. It's not his middle name that is the problem. There are people in this country who believe that Barack Obama is a muslim or an arab. And sometimes those folks will invoke his middle name as proof of such, because I guess they think it sounds muslim.

There are even Obama supporters who have begun using his middle name, Hussein, to identify themselves in their "Facebook" profiles. Are all them them supposedly hate filled racist bigots as well?

The only people who I think should be considered racist are those that sustain over-generalized prejudices towards people of other races, because of their race or origin. Whether a person demonstrates that by using Barack's middle name in a sarcastic way or some other fashion, I don't agree with the sentiment behind it.

Lisa,

After reading the discourse between you and Alan, I think this is some feigned attempt at he being clever. I know you pride yourself in trying to remain civil and engage in intelligent debate, but unfortunately not everyone is blessed with your integrity.

Megan

The whole issue of using Obama's full name is a tempest in a teacupWhat I increasingly discern from the vast majority who express upset, anger and  hate because Obama's full name was used is their underlying racial and religious prejudiceThey express it by accusing others, or "certain" folks of being ready willing and able to discriminate against Obama because they fear that those others, those "certain" folks are somehow poisoned by the use of Hussein but somehow they aren'tThe problem is, in hundreds of posts here on Newsvine, the prejudice, anger, and hate filled rhetoric comes from the supposedly enlightened diversity loving so-called Obama supporters who are incited to the point that so many are clearly obsessed by and reacting with the real danger of loss of emotional balance simply by hearing or reading Obama's middle name

http://computersplus99.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/11/1985838-hussein-clubs-barack-obama-supporters?threadId=385920&cmt=3433621#c3433621

Here is one example of a group of people intentionally using Hussein publically and boldly. Why not attack them as well?

What I increasingly discern from the vast majority who express upset, anger and  hate because Obama's full name was used is their underlying racial and religious prejudice

Really? Because I generally discern that people think it is ridiculous that his name is being used as a tool against him when he had no control over his name in the first place. You mentioned earlier he could have had his name changed. Of course, he could have, but why should he? Just so people don't make fun of him?

They express it by accusing others, or "certain" folks of being ready willing and able to discriminate against Obama because they fear that those others, those "certain" folks are somehow poisoned by the use of Hussein but somehow they aren't

First off, correct me if I am wrong (and it could just be a misinterpretation because I am reading what you say and not hearing, so I am not being sarcastic in stating) but you seem to view Hussein as something bad or to be "poisoned" by. Playing off my first statement, I think you are discussing two different issues. In one instance, a group of people are using Senator Obama's middle name against him. They aren't referring to him as Mr. Senator, Mr. Obama, or even Barack Hussein Obama II. They are referring to him as barack HUSSEIN obama said with such great contempt as to make one suspicious of their motive. Your link only proves my point. If those kids can be accused of anything it is being reactionary, but most likely they are just making fun of the ridiculousness of the people who choose to emphasize Mr. Obama's middle name. Be honest with yourself. How often do you emphasize Mr. McCain's middle name?

The problem is, in hundreds of posts here on Newsvine, the prejudice, anger, and hate filled rhetoric comes from the supposedly enlightened diversity loving so-called Obama supporters who are incited to the point that so many are clearly obsessed by and reacting with the real danger of loss of emotional balance simply by hearing or reading Obama's middle name

I hate to bust your self-righteous bubble but that animosity comes from both sides of the political fence. By making sweeping generalizations like yours, you fall into the same trap. I urge you to reread through this post, and I think you fill find what I say to be true.

The problem with disingenuous defenses of using Obama's middle name Is that it is not what Barack Obama prefers to be called. Most people do not prefer to be referred to by all their names.

It is rude.

Here are the rules of etiquette for making introductions:

1. Always determine the order of precedence.  
2. Say the most distinguished person's first and last name or title and last name, first.  Use appropriate names.
3. Choose appropriate introductions:
  Formal: "May I present...?"
  Business or social: "May I introduce...?" or "I would like to introduce...", 
  Casual: "This is...", which may appear unsophisticated.
4. Always stand for introductions. It shows respect.
5. If you forget someone's name, admit it, apologize and ask for the correct pronounciation.
6. Introduce yourself, when necessary.
7. Introduce and address people by their preferential name.

Mego and Irene, thanks for the back-up, this thread is a trying one.

Alan, I'm going to address this issue one more time before I exit stage left from this discussion as it seems to be leading us nowhere.

What I increasingly discern from the vast majority who express upset, anger and  hate because Obama's full name was used is their underlying racial and religious prejudice

I think what you're referring to here is "white guilt." While I will admit that this can be the culprit of some misguided and reactionary behaviors, please recognize that this is not where this entire argument is coming from.

They express it by accusing others, or "certain" folks of being ready willing and able to discriminate against Obama because they fear that those others,

Ok, I get it. You didn't like my word choice there. I thought I clarified my use of the phrase "certain folks" above, but in case you neglected to read it, I'll clarify again. By saying "certain" I meant NOT ALL. Because I do not believe that ALL FOLKS who invoke Obama's middle name are doing so from a place of prejudice and hate. That's what I've been trying to say here.

those "certain" folks are somehow poisoned by the use of Hussein but somehow they aren't

This sounds like you're saying that I think that when someone says "Hussein" no matter who they are, they will somehow become poisoned? His middle name is not a plague!

The problem is, in hundreds of posts here on Newsvine, the prejudice, anger, and hate filled rhetoric

Hundreds. But not ALL. One person does not speak for everybody. You need to check your assumptions at the door, my friend.

comes from the supposedly enlightened diversity loving so-called Obama supporters who are incited to the point that so many are clearly obsessed by and reacting with the real danger of loss of emotional balance simply by hearing or reading Obama's middle name

Nope, sorry. I can't and I will not speak for all "supposedly enlightened diversity loving so-called Obama supporters", but what I am saying is it is not THE WORD that is the issue. It is the sentiment behind its USAGE. Every word in the English language can be made to mean an infinite number of things, depending on the context and the person's intentions behind saying it. For example, there's a big difference between when I answer the lady behind the counter when she asks me which bagel I would like by saying, "That one" and when one presidential candidate refers to his formidable and human opponent as "That One." Same phrase, very different intentions. 

The thesis of your statements seems to tell me that you believe that every time someone utters the name Barack Hussein Obama, there is NO DIFFERENCE in intentions and NO VARIANCE in the level of racism, prejudice and hate. The link you posted there shows people who are invoking Obama's full name out of support and respect and in protest to those who use it for the opposite reason. So no, I will not be attacking them, because their intentions are quite different than the man in uniform who introduced Sarah Palin to a riled up crowd last week.

Amir Taheri March 5, 2008

The word in question is "Hussein," Obama's middle name and the name of his Kenyan Muslim father. Obama has accepted the apologies as if using his father's name was, indeed, an insult. Why? Well, "Hussein" supposedly has a negative resonance with many Americans, reminding them of Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi dictator. The fact that the name Hussein means "most benign" or "very beautiful" in Arabic isn't enough to persuade Obama and his pr gurus to treat it more kindly. (Hussein is also one of the most popular names for Muslims, especially Shiites.) Obama's problems shouldn't end there. "Barack" is also Arabic, from "barakah," meaning "blessing." "Obama," meanwhile, is a word in Swahili - a language based on Arabic that serves as the lingua franca of East Africa; it refers to members of his father's tribe who converted to Islam. In other words, "Barack Hussein Obama" is a perfectly common identifier for someone with an ethnic East African Muslim background.

Nevertheless, Obama insists that, while his father and paternal grandfather were both Muslims, he himself was never one in any way.

In Islam, of course, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically regarded as Muslim. But Obama is hardly obliged to abide by what Muslims may or may not think of his religious status. As a citizen of a free and democratic state, he can cross from one faith to anther or have no faith at all without losing any of his rights. What's troubling about Obama's approach to the mini-storm stirred by his political enemies over his name is what may look like an attempt at obfuscation. He has behaved as if he did have a family secret, and as if the name Hussein was something to be ashamed of - or, worse still, as if a Muslim background is somehow a handicap for an American politician in ways that Christian, Jewish, Mormon or any other faith is not. That, of course, is hurtful to Muslims - a majority of whom reject the anti-American diatribes of the radical and violent minority.

alanwillingham: Are you aware that Obama is campaigning while on the public payroll as well? 

Do you understand the difference between campaigning and endorsing? 

The Hatch Act:

Prohibited Activities

Covered state and local employees may not-

• be candidates for public office in a partisan election
• use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
• directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate

VisionCoast - Do you understand the difference between campaigning and endorsing?

The activity you highlighted has to do with elections and nominations, not freedom of speech or speech making

Elections are where citizens are voting

Nominations are where citizens are choosing a representative

Speeches are where citizens express their First Amendment protected opinions

alanwillingham: The activity you highlighted has to do with elections...

Precisely. Can you read and successfully interpret #2 of prohibited activities under the Hatch Act? State and local employees are not permitted to use official authority, e.g., publicly addressing a chosen candidate's supporters while in uniform, to influence the results of an election, i.e., the 2008 presidential election.

It's obvious that Sheriff Mike Scott was stumping for McCain while in uniform. Everyone here in Lee County understands what Scott did. And so does the federal government. That's why he's under investigation.

From the Naples Daily News:

The Hatch Act of 1939 regulates how certain government employees use their official authority in their private lives. Guglielmi said the Sheriff’s Office would fall under the law’s provision if it receives federal funding, a near certainty.

Scott potentially used his “official authority” to influence the outcome of an election, Guglielmi said. He could also face penalties for wearing his uniform or even driving his cruiser to the event.

Ok, seriously.  Things like that hurt Obamas chances of winning.

Yes, Republicans are really easy to make fun of, but keep it to a minimum until AFTER the election, OK?

The statement "at least when they're not wearing their hooded robes that is." is really uncalled for. In one breath your disgusted with racism and how it affects Palins supporters and in the next your spewing hate from your own posts. I can assure you if someone supports Palin they have their reasons and that is definitely no case for you to start calling them racists. It's those little comments that incite the same hate your appalled at.

um you are supporting Palin who is supporting racism and hate.   I am amazed every time I see it.  Palin supporters ask the boards to subscribe to a standard of integrity that they do not expect from Palin.   It is Palin and McCain that have set the low standards.  To me that should be all an intelligent voter needs to know.

Also earlier at the Palin rally where a supporter yelled, "Kill him,"  another supporter called the soundman, who is African American, a racial epithet and told him to, "sit down, boy"

What happened at that rally was not an isolated incident.

Today, after misquoting an Obama statement about the military, a man in the crowd yelled, "Treason"

Yesterday at a McCain rally, McCain asked the crowd "who is Barack Obama?"and someone yelled "terrorist." 

At a rally set up by McCain to watch the VP debates, supporters booed Gwen Ifil, the moderator, and laughed when Joe Biden got choked up recalling the death of his wife and daughter.  

"It's getting ugly out there," says ABC reporter Jake Tapper.

I can't post links, see article "Obama Hatred at McCain-Palin Rallies", at Huffington Post for links to verify my outrageous claims.  also includes video.

I don't know, I thought the crowd chanting in Berlin was reminiscent of the Nuremburg rally.

It's easy to try to paint your political opponents as some sort of rise of the new third reich but when people see that nonsense you lose any chance of persuading them to your point of view.

True.  Let's not forget the Obama Youth videos now getting widespread coverage.  Much like a youth movement in Berlin many years ago.

Well, I can think of another example of a crowd of some 250,000 people chanting together in solidarity: The March on Washington, 1963.

Waynester, an enthusiastic crowd cheering on a speaker isn't necessarily scary. It all depends on what the speaker is saying, and encouraging them to do. What Obama did in Berlin was to encourage his audience to remember the American ideals of freedom and democracy, and to believe that America can act on them. It takes some doing to sell that idea to anyone outside the U.S. these days, but he succeeded.

Now consider this: Osama bin Laden certainly does not want to see the United States led by someone whom the rest of the world admires. What do you think he wants to happen in November?

LOL@7.3

And no offense, but every time I see the words "angry white man" I can't help but you're only anti-Obama because he's black. 

trex--my guess is that osama would like to see the guy win whose name rhymes with his---no seriously---just a hunch but I'd bet osama would probably like to see the guy in office who says it's ok to meet with nations like Iran without precondition. America----this election is beginning to remind me not of 1980...but 1976. Beware.

And no offense, but every time I see the words "angry white man" I can't help but you're only anti-Obama because he's black. 

Now why would you think that?  Because I'm white?  Does every white man who is not voting for Barry make that choice because Barry is black?  By making that statement you have insinuated that I must vote for Barry BECAUSE he's black and I'm white.  Otherwise, I appear to be a racist for not supporting him.  Why?  Why can I not state my race?  What if my name was AngryBlackMan?  Or AngryJewMan?  Or AngryMuslimMan?  If I were AngryBlackMan voting FOR Obama, does that mean I'm racist against McCain?  If not, then why is an AngryWhiteMan voting for McCain mean I'm racist against Obama?  WHY can I not state my race?

If you want to know where the name comes from, read this:

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

I dare you to read it.  You might just find some of it applies to you.

To answer your questions in order:

Yeah, that's the point Angry(insert race)Man iplies a racist tone.  Should we all state our races, should I change my name to WhiteKingMarty?  Do we really need to use our race to define ourselves?  Why can't you be just an angry man?  Your trying to draw attention to the fact that you are, in fact, white.  If there was an angryblackman or angryjew I'd think they are racist too.  If you have any validity in your arguement for being angry, you shouldn't need to point out your race.  If I got pissed and started yelling at my hispanic wife's family that I'm an angry white man, they'd probably feel as if I had a racial bias. 

Lisaed, that's really naive. Do you really think Osama bin Laden wants American leaders to go to the negotiating table, to reach out to the Muslim world, to present themselves as reasonable humans rather than a deadly menace to all Muslims? Of course not. How could he whip up rage against us then? He needs a two-dimensional caricature of a monster to scare people with -- exactly the same way that Bush, Cheney, and now McCain and Palin have used him.

trex ---oh, I see --so you think Osama is ascared of Obama? Of the 2 presidential candidates---which do you think is perceived to be the greater friend of islam?

If you have any validity in your arguement for being angry, you shouldn't need to point out your race. 

I take it you didn't read the article.  Too bad.  On the other hand, if I want to state my race, that's my perogetive.  If you want to call me a racist for it, then prove it.  And no, I'm not voting for Obama.  And it has nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his being a socialist/marxist

Lisaed,

Well since neither is Muslim and both support Israel, Barak Obama is for unilateral strikes in Pakistan and McCain wants the Iraq war to continue indefinitely, in theory neither should be considered a "friend of Islam".  FYI we have freedom of religion in this country, and as well seperation of church and state so as to cover anything you may or may not be insinuating.

Separation of church and state? I thought so too, maybe John McCain, not so much.

From the NY Times, 9/29/2008

"Senator John McCain said in an interview posted on the Internet today that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation and that his faith is probably of better spiritual guidance than that of a Muslim candidate for president."

"The interview was conducted by beliefnet, a Web site that writes extensively about religious issues of virtually every denomination."

"Mr. McCain said in the interview that he agreed with the results of a poll that showed that a majority of Americans believe the Constitution establishes a Christian nation."  

“I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation,” 

To see the video clips of that portion of the interview, see youtube video titled, "McCain: America Established as a Christian Nation"   youtube ID# 9izhjnaLa3M

To see more of the video and transcripts see beliefnet.com, search McCain.

That is frightening...

Actually, our founding fathers were deists, rather than conventional Christians.  They did NOT believe in a god that intervenes in our lives in any way.  Their only deistic belief was in a greater power that did creation and then left the world alone.  That's hardly a ringing endorsement of McCain's historical view, or, for that matter, the view held by many Americans.  The fact that a view is popular does not make it accurate.

I so love the fact that many of them, like  Jefferson and Adams, were members or identified themselves as being believers in the church in which I was raised ;-)

It's one that so many reactionaries describe as a pack of "Secular Humanists!!"

For which I'm proud.

Say Mego

Show me the link where McCain says he wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Or is that just your own (invalid) assumption?

I'm sorry "100 years", but it is generally put in the context of "success" which is relative. Here is an article of from CNN where he defends his statement. Here is him defending himself on Meet the Press. His website says this about his policy on Iraq.

This is the definition of indefinite:

Adjective

• S: (adj) indefinite (vague or not clearly defined or stated) "must you be so indefinite?"; "amorphous blots of color having vague and indefinite edges"; "he would not answer so indefinite a proposal"
• S: (adj) indefinite (not decided or not known) "were indefinite about their plans"; "plans are indefinite"

So, would you like to show me a link where he gives a time line of withdrawl, there by making it a "definite" plan?

Well doggonit, Crashlanding! She's doesn't need to read those papers, when she can just read her Starbucks mocha coffee cup!

It occurred to to me while in the shower today, that if Obama can be linked to Ayers' terrorism then the Bush family can be linked to the Bin Ladens through the Carlyle group right? 

<sarcasm> Oh come on now, Crash, you're thinking in the paaast!!! This election is about America's FUTURE! </sarcasm>

If we are linking people to terrorists and criminals:

Has anybody noticed that many of McCain's closest associates are war criminals?  After January 20, 2009, I predict that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the other WH neocons, will not leave the United States unless it is to territory from which they are guaranteed freedom from arrest and/or extradition under international law.  You see, the rest of the world has a thing about crimes against humanity and the waging of an aggressive war.

BTW, the fact that Bush and Co. sought and received retroactive immunity from Congress for any war crimes (funny that they saw any need for such protection), that will only serve them within United States territory.

I encourage anyone else who is inclined to call up that sheriff's office, there in Lee County, FL. His name is Mike Scott and he prevented locals protesting outside the rally. I did. Sounded like they were up to their eyeballs in outraged citizens' calls.
Wahoo, sheriff.

Christianity for someone like Palin, or Bush for that matter, is not about faith or following the Bible.   It's all about winning.   If Judaism was the prominent religion in America, they'd call themselves Jews.   And if America were a nation of atheists, they'd renounce any faith.   

The only thing people like that really worship is power - and money.

They wear the label of Christian to win votes and try to convince people that no matter what they do, or how dirty they are, or how badly they screw things up - it's okay because they're "Christians" and "God" is on their side. 

The worst part is that so many real, good Christians believe them! 

You are exactly right, I just can't comprehend how people can be so blind?

Maureen,

I can say the same thing about Obama as you just presented against Palin.  Obama went to a church that advocates racial supremecy.  How is Obama any different based on your logic?

TWEET!  Gonna have to throw the bull@!$%# flag on this one.  Obama's church does not and did not advocate racial supremacy!  It advocated standing up for yourself and taking control of your life.  What the Pastors are preaching is in no way saying that Blacks are superior, just that Blacks need to do better.  A big difference.

Tweet!, Gonna have call BS right back at you.  I have friends you have gone to that church and they all agree with my assessement.  Wright is a cancer that has infected that whole church.  If they want to advocate what you are referring to it will take time and action to reverse Wright's leadership.

LIAMD -

If you want to get into a debate about what types of things are being said at churches that the candidates are going to, then Sarah Palin herself would have some skeletons in the closet. It's not Jeremiah Wright who is running for president, so give me one iota of proof that Barack Obama himself has advocated racial supremacy.

If the honorable thing to do is to walk out of church when the pastor expresses opinions that you find repugnant, then we can only assume that Palin does not object to blatant anti-Semitism or witch-hunting.

The part of the church that was broadcast in the media is one side of "OBAMA Church" and as usual things can be taken out of context, look at  "Palin" Church just as radical. Let look at the candidates, let not judge them by there association but rather by there records, there truthful evident record....not the slimy twists to deceive the American People. So you cannot just take a clip and make a judgement. Do your won research, check the facts....

Don't vote because i say so a certain way, vote because you have done your research and are satisfied in the truth as found out by you not as told by your friends, the media, the politicians.

Lisa in CA, and Turbo

20years under him.  If you don't think that demonstrates he shares the same beliefs as Wright then you'll dismiss any negative about Obama. AND AGAIN PALIN IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, McCain IS, PLAIN vs OBAMA IS AN IRRELEVANT DEBATE.

I have not researched Palin's church affiliations and the pastors beliefs, but I have on Wright.  Since Obama has no record, his associations are one of the FEW things we have to judge his character and decision making ability on.

Palin is running for President-if-McCain-dies. Take a good look at him. What do you really think his actuarial chances are for the next four years?

Since his mom is in her 90's it pretty damn good. As good as Obama's chances.

LIAMD - and the fact of the matter is we know more about McCain's medical history than we do Obama's.

His mother isn't running for President.   Haven't you noticed in all these years how quickly a sitting president ages?   

Since his mom is in her 90's it pretty damn good. As good as Obama's chances.

I'm not sure, but I don't think his mom has Stage 3 Melanoma. Perhaps this is why McCain will not release his medical records.

How do we know Obama's drug use won't cause him to die early????????????

LIAMD---and look how young obama's mother died from cancer----think there could be some family predisposition? People who claim unfairly that McCain is tool old should think about this.

Unfortunately NOT!

OK, there was nothing Palin could have done that would have made you people happy.  She took the high road and did not enable him that wasn't good enough for you. If she would have said anything to him you would have twisted that as well.  Get over it, she can't control the hate in some peoples hearts.  What are you saying about the democrats who won't vote for him, you call them traitors, bigots, etc.  I've seen that all over the vine.

Every petty issue you bring up the other side can do the same. Stick to issues and not petty garbage and we'll all be better off.

LIAMD

WHAT HIGH ROAD?

palin started the conversation she poured the gasoline on the flames and she stood back winking as the crowd ignited...

You get over it... this is a fight waged by the right we want to talk issues your side wants to talk trash!

I am sick and tired of repubs throwing mud and then hiding their hands...

If palin wants to throw punches like a man she better learn to duck.

Palin  is the one with the husband who is a member of a group that wants to secede from the United States...where does that rank on the terrorist scale?

Simmons,

Thanks for proving my point.

LIAMD,

Palin couldn't find the high road with a state-of-the-art GPS unit. She can, however, build the road to nowhere.

LIAMD: Stick to issues and not petty garbage and we'll all be better off.

Wow, did you really write that? You don't think Palin bringing up Ayers and Wright is "petty garbage"? We'd love to stick to the issues and so would Obama, but McCain and Co. won't allow him to ignore the petty garbage they keep regurgitating.

Speaking of petty, I'd love to see Obama look McCain square in the eye on national television and challenge him with his charge that Obama is unpatriotic. McCain's campaign would die right on the spot.

Vision

You might need corrective lenses.  Ayers is not pettry as it speaks to Obama's lack of character. 

LIAMD,Please tell me what you know about Bill Ayers. Specifically and sourced.

If you can show me that Obama's relationship with Ayers bespeaks a candidate who wants to harm America and its citizens, I won't mention Charles Keating, agreed?

Re: LIAMD... Another McCain supporter who can't answer pointed questions. This is getting so monotonous....

Good point!

Palin thinks she is above the law.

Palin is enciting people to murder their opponent

Is that the only way they think they can win?

Im a independent voter in Florida.

How do you think the McCain plan to cut $1.3 trillion out of Medicare to finance his $5,000 health care tax credit for the rest of us is going to play in your state?

Last night I heard Obama was up by 9-12% now in Florida... without taking McCain's new plan into consideration.

I was for Obama because I thought he would have the intellect to call on the right advisors to help us out of this mess.

That being said, McCain, who I supported and voted for when he ran versus Bush, may have won my vote if he could have come up with a coherent plan.

As soon as he put Palin on the ticket, he lost my vote and Obama solidified my vote. If he would have gone with an Olympia Snow or even Tom Ridge he would have still had a shot at it.

Palin proved McCain is still GOP business as usual and party over country

Noel I also live in Florida it seems to me the state is really split ! Just saw a poll  within 2 points of each other . That is close

Dan - you seem very troubled is everything o.k with you i am new to this site so it is very surprising some of the comments i view

politicalcenter

 I am reporting this headline, which continues the abusive headlines promoted by Obama supporters

You do that and report the hate mongering that palin and mccain are spreading too while you are at it..

Are you kidding me... A death threat and you are reporting abusive of a headline...

Un@!$%#ingbelieveable!!!!

So, all you can do is report the headline? That's bull@!$%# man.  I'm @!$%#ing tired of this @!$%#. Why don't you man the @!$%# up.  @!$%#ing pathetic.

Articles cannot end up with changed headlines.

Cite the part in the CoH that says this.

Is that the best you can do, PC? Try to distract?

Don't worry about PC, he will write an inaccurate inflammatory article to get back atcha soon enough. :)

I am reporting this headline, which continues the abusive headlines promoted by Obama supporters. 

Too funny, PC.  The idea of you, the king of inaccurate and inflammatory headlines, reporting a headline.  Too funny.  By the way, there is nothing wrong with changing headlines of seeded stories on Newsvine.  It happens all the time.

Articles cannot end up with changed headlines.  That is improper and in my view a violation of the copyright laws.  This is just my opinion, not a legal opinion.

Right.  And guess what your biased opinion counts for?  Zilch!  Show us the part of the user agreement where it says you can't change the wording of a headline when you seed an article.  Show us the caselaw that says this is in violation of Copyright law.  You can't, because it is just your ill-considered opinion and nothing more.

Too funny, PC...the king of inaccurate and inflammatory headlines, reporting a headline.

Now if that was a headline, nobody but nobody would complain about it being inaccurate.

Well...almost nobody.

PC, I am reporting it as well.  The notion that the shouter was talking about Obama is conjecture at best.  I think he was talking about killing the terrorist Ayers.  I have a hard time condemning that notion.

You are aware doing such a thing would make you a terrorist yourself, right?

PC, I am reporting it as well.  The notion that the shouter was talking about Obama is conjecture at best. 

Hence the question mark in the headline.  How is asking a reasonable question (under the circumstances) inaccurate?

That is improper and in my view a violation of the copyright laws.  This is just my opinion, not a legal opinion.

PolticalCenter:

It's a good thing you said it's not a "legal opinion" because your post shows just how little you know about copyright laws.  Lisa did not post the article in its entirety and claim it under her own byline (that would have been a violation of the author's copyright).   She posted an excerpt with a clear link to the original article (with its original title) readily available to all.  

Short of adding a bibliography, which is unnecessary when you're only citing one article, she has done everything legally required to protect the original author's copyright. 

Furthermore, as was stated before, changing the headline is not against the COH or user agreement as far as I can tell (and I have read them), and is a common practice on Newsvine for articles of all types.    

If you don't like the rules on Newsvine, no one is twisting your arm to keep you here.

I think he was talking about killing the terrorist Ayers.  I have a hard time condemning that notion.

AWM:

Ayers actions and affiliations back in the 60's and early 70's were certainly criminal in some respects, but then again, it is clear that his behavior was based on his personal morality and belief that America was wrong to be involved in Vietnam, and wrong in the ways we were carrying out that campaign (which, to some extent, history has proven was true).   

I don't agree with his methods, nor would I ever condone violence against anyone.   I will say, however, that he has certainly done much to redeem himself in the decades since - which many who share your sentiments seem to ignore as irrelevant.   I do believe people can change, and I think that Mr. Ayers has changed in some fundamental ways.   I also admire the fact that he had the courage of his convictions - even as I disapprove of the methods he used back then. 

At least he did "walk the walk" - and still does.

Obviously, this is where you and I differ.  You apparently do condone violence (according to your own statement above), so long as it is against someone you don't like.   How, exactly, does this make you any different than Ayers, or any other terrorist?     It doesn't matter if you aren't the one committing the violence - condoning it is enough.

So I ask that you please enlighten me on how it is that you can justify supporting the idea of murdering someone for holding ideas you find disagreeable.   Is that the kind of America you want to live in?    Doesn't that also mean that any one of us "liberals" who disagree with you would have the same right to take you out of the equation? 

Do you see how absurd and downright ignorant your statement is yet? 

Do you see how absurd and downright ignorant your statement is yet?

Uhm, no.  The man is a terrorist.  He has acknowledged his role in a bombing campaign of terror.  A campaign just like Timothy McVey, and the 9/11 hijackers.  Just like the Cole bombing.  Just like the embasy bombing in Kenya.  Just like the first world trade center bombing.  Just like the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon.  He has used an ideology of terror to advance his radical agenda, and that is how I justify that this man should have been tried, and if convicted, suffer the same fate as McVey.

 I will say, however, that he has certainly done much to redeem himself in the decades since - which many who share your sentiments seem to ignore as irrelevant. 

It's irrelivent becasue he has still pushed his agenda of radicalism.  He has done nothing to redeem himself.

Obviously, this is where you and I differ.  You apparently do condone violence (according to your own statement above), so long as it is against someone you don't like.   

News flash for you.  We are at war with terrorism.  He is a terrorist.  If it means keeping my family safe, I will do what ever is necessary to prevent that terrorism from harming them, or any other American, including you.

How, exactly, does this make you any different than Ayers, or any other terrorist?     It doesn't matter if you aren't the one committing the violence - condoning it is enough.

Because I'm not condoning or commiting violence to push an agenda, like he did.  Big diference between the violence of terrorism, and the violence of fighting terrorism.

It's irrelivent becasue he has still pushed his agenda of radicalism. 

Please explain what you mean instead of using inflammatory buzzwords.  What agenda?  What is so radical about it?  

News flash for you.  We are at war with terrorism.  He is a terrorist.

News flash for you, we are at war with human beings.  You are a human being.  Does that make you evil?  You certainly paint with broad brush strokes. 

We are at war with religious extremists in another country.  Neither Ayers or Obama have anything to do with them, no matter how politically-expedient it is for you to try to link the two.

Big diference between the violence of terrorism, and the violence of fighting terrorism.

Depends on which side you are on, I guess.  Our founding fathers would have been considered terrorists by the English Monarchy.  We kindly refer to them as heroes.

Dirk, you took the words right out of my keyboard.   ;-)  

Thanks. 

Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases.

copyright.gov go to the copyright FAQ page to verify.

Please explain what you mean instead of using inflammatory buzzwords.  What agenda?  What is so radical about it?

From here:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.

“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

And their rehabilitation in establishment circles, even in Hyde Park, has its limits.

Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.
“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him.

This woman is inciting people into a hateful frenzy and shouting that someone needs to be killed, and you want to quibble with headlines???

Wrong, one person shouted out, again that is one person. Not a crowd, not a few, not a couple, 1.
Your comment suggests that Sarah Palin was shouting that someone needed to be killed.
Your comment suggests that a whole crowd of people where worked up into a frenzy and screaming hate and kill. Who is stretching the truth here? Besides that you don't seem to want to answer this question but I will as it again.  Do you know that he was talking about Obama? Here is another question I wish you would answer. Do you know if she even heard the guy?

Palin deliberately incited—and got—the response she was sent out to get. And, in response to the "one person...not a crowd, not a few, not a couple: Hate is viral among opponents. 

Dreama: Do you know that he was talking about Obama?

The person in the crowd shouted, "Kill him!" Who else would the "him" be but Obama? Biden?McCain? C'mon, get real.

"Dreama"..... that individual is being sought by the Secret Service, sugar.

:-D

The person in the crowd shouted, "Kill him!" Who else would the "him" be but Obama? Biden?McCain? C'mon, get real.

Maybe he was talking about Ayers. As far as Sarah Palin inducing hate, I find that far fetched. She was talking about a friendship of Obama to an unrepentant terrorist. Umm. It's true. She said it shows bad judgement. umm. I have to agree. I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

She can not control the actions of others no more than you can. And you never answered the question. Do you know if she even heard the man?

As far as I know she has been giving this same speech for days in several different cities, you get one dumb ass, and suddenly Sarah Palin is spewing hate speeches?         (Mountain out of a mole hill ) Did you listen to the speech?

Dreama"..... that individual is being sought by the Secret Service, sugar.

I guess we'll see if he gets arrested then.  (Doubtful)

Except for the whole "friendship" part.

I realize that Palin cannot control the actions of her supporters, but the real issue is that they have not said anything about it!

If someone made those kinds of remarks, like "kill him" or chanting "hussein" over and over, or "he's a terrorist", or harrassing a black man with slurs, at my campaign -- I sure as hell would immediately say, I do not condone those kinds of actions or comments.

The fact that they have not come out against this is disturbing. The anger and negativity apparent in these rallies scare me, but moreso that the campaign is revelling in it and using it to their advantage, unapologetically.

Well, and especially since this has now become a discussion on the national stage. McCain has to be aware of the fact that people are worried about this. It seems it would be appropriate for him to say, look...KILLING is not the answer!! But, I don't know...maybe he thinks it is?

Dreama: Maybe he [the Palin supporter shouting "Kill him!"] was talking about Ayers.

Is this delusion brain chemistry or self-induced? I guess all the monkey innuendo and the plush monkey that showed up in the hands of a Palin supporter is about Ayers, too, right? You've just lost all credibility.

Dreama: As far as Sarah Palin inducing hate, I find that far fetched.

Congratulations! You're just the kind of voter Palin wants, one who can't discern recognize facade.

Dreama:  I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

That's because no one is shouting death threats toward your chosen candidate.

Dreama: She can not [sic] control the actions of others no more than you can.

Well, if Palin can't control her own supporters, I sure don't want her in control of my country.

Dreama: Do you know if she even heard the man?

If she didn't know it at the moment of the first occurrence, she surely knew about it later that night, just like I did. It took McCain and Palin almost a week to address this with McCain supporters, and it was John McCain who did it, not Palin.

Dreama:  you get one dumb ass, and suddenly Sarah Palin is spewing hate speeches?

Aw jeez, it's more than one now, isn't it? Palin induced the response she wanted—fire. That's her job in the McCain campaign.

Dreama: I guess we'll see if he gets arrested then.  (Doubtful)

Doubtful, yes, but only because the only evidence is video, with no names, no addresses, no driver's licenses. Fellow McCain supporters, even if they know who these individuals are, will not divulge any information.

Doing so at a rally with Secret Service agents is, at least should be, suicidal.

Those guys are quietly investigating, I am sure.