Olbermann: Violence and threats have no place in democracy

Keith Olbermann has put out a special commentary about the need for politicians and media to repudiate any and all people whom try to promote violent terrorist style debate. Its actually a really good and fair interview, Of course he discusses the typical targets over politicians heads, 2nd amendment remedys, and how one politician called for the opposition party to feel scared about even leaving their home

He also apologises for something he said back in 2008 that could have been taken as a call to action.

I wonder if this will become a mindset, or if by Keith saying we need to stop the violent opposition meme, will only make some use it more (after all, Keith said it..).

Video on this link

And the text of his commentary

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently.

Left, right, middle - politicians and citizens - sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept "targeting" of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.

This morning in Arizona, this time of the ever-escalating, borderline-ecstatic invocation of violence in fact or in fantasy in our political discourse, closed. It is essential tonight not to demand revenge, but to demand justice; to insist not upon payback against those politicians and commentators who have so irresponsibly brought us to this time of domestic terrorism, but to work to change the minds of them and their supporters - or if those minds tonight are too closed, or if those minds tonight are too unmoved, or if those minds tonight are too triumphant, to make sure by peaceful means that those politicians and commentators and supporters have no further place in our system of government.

If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics - she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

If Jesse Kelly, whose campaign against Congresswoman Giffords included an event in which he encouraged his supporters to join him firing machine guns, does not repudiate this, and does not admit that even if it was solely indirectly, or solely coincidentally, it contributed to the black cloud of violence that has envellopped our politics, he must be repudiated by Arizona's Republican Party.

If Congressman Allen West, who during his successful campaign told his supporters that they should make his opponent afraid to come out of his home, does not repudiate those remarks and all other suggestions of violence and forced fear, he should be repudiated by his constituents and the Republican Congressional Caucus.

If Sharron Angle, who spoke of "Second Amendment solutions," does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada.

If the Tea Party leaders who took out of context a Jefferson quote about blood and tyranny and the tree of liberty do not understand - do not understand tonight, now what that really means, and these leaders do not tell their followers to abhor violence and all threat of violence, then those Tea Party leaders must be repudiated by the Republican Party.

If Glenn Beck, who obsesses nearly as strangely as Mr. Loughner did about gold and debt and who wistfully joked about killing Michael Moore, and Bill O'Reilly, who blithely repeated "Tiller the Killer" until the phrase was burned into the minds of his viewers, do not begin their next broadcasts with solemn apologies for ever turning to the death-fantasies and the dreams of bloodlust, for ever having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution, then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by their viewers, and by all politicians, and by sponsors, and by the networks that employ them.

And if those of us considered to be "on the left" do not re-dedicate ourselves to our vigilance to eliminate all our own suggestions of violence - how ever inadvertent they might have been then we too deserve the repudiation of the more sober and peaceful of our politicians and our viewers and our networks.

once, in a clumsy metaphor, I made such an unintended statement about the candidacy of then-Senator Clinton. It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong, then. It is even more wrong tonight. I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery, that if it can go so easily slip into the comments of one as opposed to violence as me, how easily, how pervasively, how disastrously can it slip into the already-violent or deranged mind?

For tonight we stand at one of the clichéd crossroads of American history. Even if the alleged terrorist Jared Lee Loughner was merely shooting into a political crowd because he wanted to shoot into a political crowd, even if he somehow was unaware who was in the crowd, we have nevertheless for years been building up to a moment like this.

Assume the details are coincidence. The violence is not. The rhetoric has devolved and descended, past the ugly and past the threatening and past the fantastic and into the imminently murderous.

We will not return to the 1850s, when a pro-slavery Congressman nearly beat to death an anti-slavery Senator; when an anti-slavery madman cut to death with broadswords pro-slavery advocates.

We will not return to the 1960s, when with rationalizations of an insane desire for fame, or of hatred, or of political opposition, a President was assassinated and an ultra-Conservative would-be president was paralyzed, and a leader of peace was murdered on a balcony.
We will not.

Because tonight, what Mrs. Palin, and what Mr. Kelly, and what Congressman West, and what Ms. Angle, and what Mr. Beck, and what Mr. O'Reilly, and what you and I must understand, was that the man who fired today did not fire at a Democratic Congresswoman and her supporters.

He was not just a mad-man incited by a thousand daily temptations by slightly less-mad-men to do things they would not rationally condone.

He fired today into our liberty and our rights to live and to agree or disagree in safety and in freedom from fear that our support or opposition will cost us our lives or our health or our sense of safety. The bullseye might just as well have been on Mrs. Palin, or Mr. Kelly, or you, or me. The wrong, the horror, would have been - could still be just as real and just as unacceptable.

At a time of such urgency and impact, we as Americans - conservative or liberal - should pour our hearts and souls into politics. We should not - none of us, not Gabby Giffords and not any Conservative - ever have to pour our blood. And every politician and commentator who hints otherwise, or worse still stays silent now, should have no place in our political system, and should be denied that place, not by violence, but by being shunned and ignored.

It is a simple pledge, it is to the point, and it is essential that every American politician and commentator and activist and partisan take it and take it now, I say it first, and freely:


Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans.

I like Keith, but I know he is a very divisive character. I accept he is the hannity of the progressive movement and that only a progressive mindset can appreciate his commentary pieces. In saying that, when someone is right, they are right. I think it is time the people dismiss those whom use violence as a threat to achieve political goals. The rational mindsets see the metaphores and toungue in cheek examples by politicians for what they are..just monkey banging jargon, but the less clever will see it all as a call to arms and start shooting anyone whom disagree's with their point of view.
you want to see the major flaw in a democratic republic..its when the politicians use the lesser thinking of society to achieve a political goal through violent retoric...

We have the responsibility in America to overthrow any tyrannical government. This means along the lines of if the chinese invade and create a dictatorship by force, or of the like...not if your particular party loses power for a couple years due to elections. The politicians and some media are trying to distort the meaning..slapping the face of the whole concept of American democracy.

Anyhow, just thought I would post this. Mods, feel free to toss this in wherever it belongs..either social issues or politicial madness (considering this is all about the madness in politics as of late)

Opposition to violence is not a political issue, it's a moral issue. Either you condone or you condemn violence. I don't care whether Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh said this, it needed to be said, I am glad at least someone was willing to acknowledge their past mistakes and apologize for them.

I am thinking of a current media figure whom I would really like to see making some apologies and toning down their rhetoric. I shall not name that figure but make it clear that if he/she truly supports the cause he/she is arguing for then maybe it would be wise to take the words of the great Martin Luther King, Jr.



If you want to fight back you must do it peacefully. If you want your speech to have true meaning give it strength with beautiful passion. There is no need for rhetoric, violence, or threats.

I am so sick of politics that I do not want to discuss my own political ideologies but I just wanted to say thank you for posting this because I believe that almost everything he said both true and IMPORTANT. The violent rhetoric in politics has to stop (points finger mainly at Palin for that DISGUSTING picture of 'targets'... "17 left to go!" ).

This post doesn't come from someone who is from the left or the right; this comes from a human being. I'm sick of hearing of ANYONE being hurt, no matter who they are.

That is all that I will say.

Peace and love.

I see it as the less clever will take it literally, the insane will actually do something, and that we cannot give up every pun, metaphor, and simile just because some nutjob may fly off the handle and go killing people. Crazy people will always be set off by someone and by something; the rest of us cannot walk on eggshells our entire lives because a nutjob whose always one step away from snapping anyway might decide that now is the time to act.

To follow up, though, if violence and threats have no place in democracy according to this guy, then is he against war and sanctioning places like North Korea and Iran? If, after all, violence and threats have zero place in a democracy, then I'd say that he must be against both.

Olbermann: Violence and threats have no place in democracy

he's preaching to the choir,
maybe Keith needs to direct
that at the current tyrannical
regime and maybe they should
listen. They created terrorism
and they are creating revolutionaries.
You reap what you sow unfortunately.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
I see it as the less clever will take it literally, the insane will actually do something, and that we cannot give up every pun, metaphor, and simile just because some nutjob may fly off the handle and go killing people. Crazy people will always be set off by someone and by something; the rest of us cannot walk on eggshells our entire lives because a nutjob whose always one step away from snapping anyway might decide that now is the time to act.

That is exactly right. The crazy people will read crazy things into anything. We're talking about the type of people who listen to records backwards, seeking the guidance of Satan. Maybe we should stop selling records. That's a wild example, but you know the type. Some schizophrenics believe objects speak to them. Some lunatics are inspired by movies and books. Should we stop publishing or airing movies with violence in them? Every sane person out there knows that murder and violence is wrong (except in self-defense). No politician on this planet can convince me to go kill on their behalf for the sake of politics. A crazy person on the other hand needs only to misinterpret a few words before he/she convinces THEMSELVES that their mission is to go kill.

If you look at the big picture, despite all that's been going on between the political parties in the U.S., out of about 350,000,000 only one person got up this year, and decided to spray bullets into the crowd. Some will say one is too many. I agree, but the fact that only one out of hundreds of millions of people saw this as a call to physical violence is pretty amazing.

Brilliant speech, it's excellent to see someone speaking out against this vitriolic and violent attitude which has become part of the 'norm' of politics. It has to stop, it has to stop now, and imo all those who have made such statements should be required to stand down now.

It's horrifying to see the cavalier attitude of those in the public eye, of politicians, and even the general public (including here on ATS) who show such a disregard for decency, for justice and for human life when they excitedly exhort the solution of 'the gun'.

Imo, it is this attitude which underlies the culture of gun crimes in the US. In other countries where citizens have the right to bear arms, and where gun crimes are significantly less than in US, the difference in the 'gun culture' attitude is palpabale. If citizens want to retain the right to own firearms, they must also embrace a culture of non-violence and responsible actions with regard to those guns.

Gabrielle Griffin embodied both of those - whilst supporting the second amendment, ironically, she had recently also made her thoughts clear about the growing and increasing 'gun rhetoric' in all parts of society, and the potential consequences of not restraining that kind of rhetoric.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
If you look at the big picture, despite all that's been going on between the political parties in the U.S., out of about 350,000,000 only one person got up this year,

Well, the year is only a few days old...

If we go with a year as in 365, we have

Feb 18, 2010, the day that guy flew a plane into the IRS building, upset with taxes and stuff.

A massive spike in violent crimes against muslims was reported last year (wonder why...can someone say mosque near ground zero)

as far as the LGBT community, they got this gem:

There was a 104 percent “increase in the number of incidents involving multiple offenders” and “a 72 percent increase in assault or attempted assault.” Harassment cases were up 325 percent. According to the report, the most common weapons used were bats, bricks, rocks and knives. There was an 80 percent increase in the use of sexual violence during attacks. And the report showed a 29 percent increase in the number of attacks targeting people who are transgender.

I am not going to go crawling through every story of 2010 to show the obvious. Words have consequences.

I am not saying that people need to walk on eggshells...but if you think its walking on eggshells by not putting targets on the heads of politicians, then what does that say about your mentality...

Its like "winning" an argument by saying your packing a pistol verses making a valid point. There is no place in this world for that nonsense. That is dark ages thinking. If you truely cannot understand why threats of violence and murder is not an acceptable debate point when discussing health insurance regulation, or tax codes...then perhaps the whole freedom thing isn't your cup of tea to begin with.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
If you look at the big picture, despite all that's been going on between the political parties in the U.S., out of about 350,000,000 only one person got up this year,

Well, the year is only a few days old...

If we go with a year as in 365, we have

Feb 18, 2010, the day that guy flew a plane into the IRS building, upset with taxes and stuff.

A massive spike in violent crimes against muslims was reported last year (wonder why...can someone say mosque near ground zero)
as far as the LGBT community, they got this gem:

There was a 104 percent “increase in the number of incidents involving multiple offenders” and “a 72 percent increase in assault or attempted assault.” Harassment cases were up 325 percent. According to the report, the most common weapons used were bats, bricks, rocks and knives. There was an 80 percent increase in the use of sexual violence during attacks. And the report showed a 29 percent increase in the number of attacks targeting people who are transgender.

For the past three years we've had a lot of instability when it comes to our economy. Only now that people have started to lose their jobs are they getting angry about the things that go on in Washington DC and their State Governments. Most people will start to notice something wrong only when it hits their wallets. It woke them up. Naturally you are going to see a rise in crimes against Government officials or employees, because that is where the anger is focused. The guy who ran the plane into the IRS building had beef with the IRS. Out of the thousands of people and businesses who get hit by the IRS every year, he was the only one who decided to fly a plane into their building. Again, pretty amazing considering how many angry people in the U.S. despise the IRS. It's not like he was a stable individual to begin with. Had he gotten sued by somebody for a large amount of money, maybe he would have flown his plane into their house instead. The IRS just happened to be the last straw that broke the camel's back.

As for the violence against Muslims,.... they're certainly not the only group receiving violent threats. Doesn't the U.S. receive violent threats from Muslims all the time? What about the Gay Pride Parade? Don't they receive violent threats when it's in town? How about white supremacists threatening non-whites with violence? What about the violence at the border? What about gang violence?

There are so many acts and threats of violence being committed every single day, I don't think we can keep count. To pick out one act of violence and put more importance on it than on any of the other random acts of violence happening around the country seems a bit disproportional. Every single day we've got cases in which some crazy person was inspired to commit some type of crime from something somebody said, from a movie they saw, a book they read, a song they heard, etc. I hear crazy stuff on TV all the time, yet I'm not out there killing people. You know why? Because I'm sane, and I realize that cross-hairs on a map don't mean Sarah Palin wants me to go out and literally kill her competition. When a football coach says to his team "Go out and kill em'", they don't literally go kill the other team mates, do they??? Should the coach be held responsible if one nut decides to pull out a knife and stab the other team's quarterback???

I am not going to go crawling through every story of 2010 to show the obvious. Words have consequences.

I am not saying that people need to walk on eggshells...but if you think its walking on eggshells by not putting targets on the heads of politicians, then what does that say about your mentality...

Its like "winning" an argument by saying your packing a pistol verses making a valid point. There is no place in this world for that nonsense. That is dark ages thinking. If you truely cannot understand why threats of violence and murder is not an acceptable debate point when discussing health insurance regulation, or tax codes...then perhaps the whole freedom thing isn't your cup of tea to begin with.

I'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that a picture of cross-hairs (as stupid as it is) or someone saying "We need to kill our competition" in politico speak can be blamed for murder. Palin can come to my door, beg me to kill somebody for her personally, and I still won't do it. I like Ron Paul, I like his ideology, but he can't convince me to kill people either, no matter how many times he asks. In this case Palin had no personal relationship with this guy whatsoever, and certainly didn't ask anyone to go shoot anybody. The guy acted alone and seemed to be bonkers long before he shot anybody. If it wasn't politics, it would have been something else.

Let me ask you this. Movies are watched by millions of people. Violence on TV is commonplace. Children grow up watching shoot-em-up movies from the start, and violent video games are some of the most popular games out there. We have Gangster Rap, something lots of kids love to listen to. Should we act "responsibly" and take away all these things so that nobody ever again gets another idea about anything even remotely considered "violent"? Why is it that the majority of the population can grow up around these things and never commit a crime, yet when one individual takes things too far, we feel we should take the freedom to create, watch or listen to these things from everybody? Wouldn't it make more sense to punish the individual who committed the actual crime? If 300,000,000 people can listen to a violent song and not be inspired to commit violence, why is it that those 300,000,000 then must pay with their freedom for something one individual committed?

Let me ask you this. If you have a school full of kids and one kid is allergic to peanuts, do you rid the school of all products containing peanuts, or do you teach the allergic child to stay away from peanut products? Politicians may be more careful about what they say from now on, but I assure you this isn't going to stop the crazies from doing crazy things. They're crazy!!!

I guess Mr. Olberman has joined the anti-tax movement then?

This entire country is running on threats and violence. It's the authoritarian way.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Hmmmmm, I wonder why he left out Obamas violent comments, as well as those of the peope he surrounds himself with? Political? Racial? Both? It's a shame some nutbag does something like this and we still have partisan bs on here as well as from the msm.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
he left out Obamas violent comments,

Any source, or are you just randomly typing words...

The world is a violent place with a violent past, war and punishment are two main government responsibilities that involve concepts of violence. But this is not the point Olbermann was making, the political discourse has fallen into a standard in line with a kindergarten school yard in terms of morality. Fear, lies, threats and greed have been allowed to become the order of the day as important issues are not addressed and self interest has over taken the community interest. Yes things do need to change and by standing up and not speaking in fear of reprisal but in concern for the community is a good start.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
he left out Obamas violent comments,

Any source, or are you just randomly typing words...

This is the most violent Obama quote I could find:

www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by Erica1631

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
he left out Obamas violent comments,

Any source, or are you just randomly typing words...

This is the most violent Obama quote I could find:

www.reuters.com...

Woah...kick ass.

frankly, some ass needed to get kicked, both figuratively and literally...nothing like a punch to the head to get peoples attention.

Anyhow, such words are not befitting a president, but pretty tame overall.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I am from SW Louisiana and Obama's "Kick Ass" comments were not taken as a violent threat, but a much needed response to a dire situation. I posted the "Kick Ass" response merely for humor.

I guess when Obama said not to bring a knife ot a gun fight he didn't reallly mean it, when Biden said he'd choke a Republican it was different as well....................do a little research. Both sides say stupid things inciting violence, funny how the left only mentions the right.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


...and the right only mentions the left and while we are all mired in tribal mentalities and dogmatic BS nothing changes, everyone suffers, and the status quo keeps spitting our lives out like so much chewed meat.

Right and wrong need to replace right and left or we are lost as a people.

~Heff

Obama is a wimp who never had a street fight in his life.
Good for him but it makes him a rollover for the PTB and the NWO who give him his orders that he obeys like a suppliant wimp.