He Said It

When is inspiring not inspiring? Perhaps when it's merely suggesting, or better yet "dreaming."

Case in point, Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

For a second day in a row today, the conservative talker discussed the potential for protests and power struggles at the August convention.

"Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming, I'm dreaming of riots in Denver," he said mimicking the holiday tune.

He explained on-air: "Riots in Denver at the Democrat Convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said. "And that's the best damn thing (that) could happen for this country as far as anything I can think."

Emphasis mine. Call me crabby, I guess. I'm just not willing to accept the "not inspiring" argument. Inspiration is a slippery thing; here the speaker has made a case for why he thinks, in a direct, syllogistic statement, that "riots in Denver at the Democrat [sic, of course] Convention" would be "the best damn thing that could happen for (this) country . . . ."

What? Am I wrong? Look, the guy said it, whistled a tune, explained--pretty clearly--why riots in Denver would be so great. To say that's not inciting, okay that's close. I listened to the comment, and it wasn't delivered with the invective one would call "inciting." But to claim "not inspiring," on a radio show that reaches literally millions every day? That's just not credible.

Imagine the endless commentary, Limbaugh leading the way, if a Democrat or a popular liberal media personality called for riots at the Republican convention? Well, not called for, of course, but, you know, mentioned. "Dreamed" of, I suppose. Certainly didn't incite. Just casually dropped a plug for riots in an American city as the best thing for America. Inspired? Nah.

Yeah, I can imagine how that goes, and it isn't pretty. It'd be blasted as incendiary if not treasonous. I hope the media doesn't lose sight of that as Limbaugh continues to hedge while pushing his radical agenda, but I won't hold my breath.