Spittle-flecked blowhard threatens to sue MSNBC hosts

[Dalton]

From the Huffington Post

Conservative radio host Mark Levin is threatening to sue Chris Matthews and anyone else who he feels is accusing him of having helped foment to political violence.

The impetus for Levin's threat was a statement Matthews made about him on his Tuesday show. Matthews had cited
him and fellow right wing radio host Michael Savage as examples of incendiary media figures promoting ugly rhetoric--something that has come under scrutiny in the wake of the Arizona shootings.

"Every time you listen to them, they are furious," he said. "Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with some ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk and it never changes."

In response, Levin laid down a challenge to Matthews.

"I challenge Chris Matthews, I'll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody," Levin said, though he added that calling for the killing of terrorists didn't count.

"A hundred thousand on the table if Chris Matthews can find anywhere Mark Levin has urged the murder of people who have different political viewpoints," he said.

He then threatened to sue not only Matthews, but practically all of MSNBC's biggest hosts, if he felt they had made any allegations against him.

"I'm waiting for an allegation that is very specific against me because I'm going to sue," Levin continued. "...I'm going to drag your ass into federal court...somebody has to stand up to this. Somebody has to draw the line. Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough - test me."

Radio hosts of both stripes are known for vitriol-fueled rants, but have any gone so far as to condone murder? Is he justified in his rage against every big-name host on MSNBC, or is this just more of the same rabble-rousing conservative rhetoric we've come to know and loathe? Was Chris Matthews' comment specific enough to justify a threat of yet another frivolous lawsuit?

[Stark]

If the quotes are accurate, he's full of shit. Matthews said that right-wing hosts are angry and implied this is linked to violence, so his demand someone prove Sarah Palin said xyz is just grandstanding.

[Broomstick]

1) Nowhere in that quoted comment (and I watched the video as well) does Chris Matthews say anyone is inciting murder, or calling for murder, or mentioning murder in anyway. I'd say Levin pulled it out of his ass, but there have been some people who have accused the right of doing just that. None of them that I recall, however, were Chris Matthews.

2) I have some serious moral qualms about anyone who somehow thinks calling for the murder of terrorists is OK. Then again, I'm also anti-death penalty so by US standards I am weird.

3) Any lawsuit along the lines of what Levin is discussing is bogus. However, given the US court system even if Levin didn't win such a suit it could still wind up costing MSNBC a lot of money. He might not win, but he could cause inconvenice and possibly stifle future broadcasts daring to criticize the right.

4) I can't recall ever hearing a radio host calling for murder, but I don't listen to talk radio hardly at all so it might have happened. My reaction, though, is "provide cite" if anyone says such a thing happened.

[Losonti Tokash]

Hasn't Palin explicitly called for Julian Assange to be murdered?

[Sarevok]

It's showmanship. In America commenters in the media play the same game as the politicians. It's not about standing up for his beliefs or even winning this lawsuit. The more controversy he generates the better for him.

[Stravo]

I think there are two primary reasons why these right wing jackasses are so up in arms concerning this backlash against the angry rhetoric. One is philosophical. It plays into their greatest fears about the left and how they try to dominate and control how people think and feel much like a communist dictatorship and re-education camps. The left is leading the charge against some of their holiest of holies - gun control and their right to bitch using this tragedy as a rallying cry.

The second reason is more cynical. They know that if they have to tone things down, that if they remove the anger and resentment that they stir up so well that they will lose their base. Right now they have ridden this wave of anti-government fervor and thinly disguised racism to some electoral victories. If they have to give it up they have nothing else. What are they going to run on? Their message? You listen to the right wing message without the anger and it sounds empty. They need this so they're not going to give it up.

[Darksider]

Hasn't Palin explicitly called for Julian Assange to be murdered?

I know that many on the right have explicitly called for him to be arrested and tossed into Gitmo, but as far as I know no one has called for his outright assassination. Assange's skin is much to pale for him to be the victim of a drone attack. We save those for the dirty brownskins

[Phantasee]

You forgot about the professor at U of C, Dr Flanagan. He straight up said Assange should be killed on national Canadian television.

[Lost Soal]

Here's a few

[Patrick Degan]

I think there are two primary reasons why these right wing jackasses are so up in arms concerning this backlash against the angry rhetoric. One is philosophical. It plays into their greatest fears about the left and how they try to dominate and control how people think and feel much like a communist dictatorship and re-education camps. The left is leading the charge against some of their holiest of holies - gun control and their right to bitch using this tragedy as a rallying cry.

The second reason is more cynical. They know that if they have to tone things down, that if they remove the anger and resentment that they stir up so well that they will lose their base. Right now they have ridden this wave of anti-government fervor and thinly disguised racism to some electoral victories. If they have to give it up they have nothing else. What are they going to run on? Their message? You listen to the right wing message without the anger and it sounds empty. They need this so they're not going to give it up.

The alleged philosophical reason, however, can quite easily be folded into the cynical reason, given how the Right deliberately manufactures outrage in order to fuel the fervor the Right has translated into some degree of electoral success. Therefore, the cynical theory, I think, is the explanation in and of itself.

[Elfdart]

Levin sounds like Michael Savage (AKA The Savage Wiener) after a botched vasectomy. Last time he tried to tangle with someone and didn't have control over the microphone, he and his fluffer Sean Hannity got PWNED by Alec Baldwin.

[Molyneux]

I think it's interesting how, apparently, terrorists don't count as "people".

[Xon]

It's a technique used throught human history. Force a minority group to be classified as "non-people", which the majority will tend to allow since it doesn't directly impact them. Once this is done, people in power are then free to associate or groups with this non-human group and then via association force those who view the original group as non-human to view the new set as non-human as well.

[Raw Shark]

Hasn't Palin explicitly called for Julian Assange to be murdered?

We said terrorists didn't count! [/right wing]

[Simon_Jester]

What's really interesting is that they both implicitly claim terrorists don't count and implicitly claim the right to decide who's a terrorist.