U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 25, 2008 06:10 PM UTC

Grain of Truth in Limbaugh's Outrageous Blather?

  • 79 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Denver Post reports:

Rush Limbaugh says he is not calling for a riot in Denver during the Democratic National Convention – he only “dreams” of it, to the tune of “White Christmas.”

The conservative talker discussed the possibility of Mile High unrest in August on his national radio show for a second day in a row Thursday.

“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. And that’s the best damn thing (that) could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

Limbaugh’s Denver affiliate, 850 KOA, issued a statement Thursday saying its marquee talker “was not advocating violence in Denver.”

Program director Kris Olinger did not return calls for comment, but the station sent a second e-mail to media stating, “Did he go too far? Or is this just Rush being Rush?”

On Wednesday, Limbaugh had been discussing comments by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had warned of “trouble” at the convention if the nomination was wrested away from Barack Obama by superdelegates.

Local conservative talk show host and GOP activist John Andrews said he thinks he knows what Limbaugh was getting at.

“Look, nobody seriously wants violence and civil disobedience at the Denver convention,” he said. “Rush is just saying, ‘Make our day’; if, in fact, the Re-create 68 hooligans or the Al Sharpton street toughs or anybody else wants to disrupt the convention, they’re going to hurt Democrats’ chances in the fall.”

In 1968, nationally-televised violence in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention assisted, in the view of many historians, the election of Richard Nixon the following November. It’s a story that “Recreate ’68” knows well. If you ask them about how that might fit into their “strategy,” they’ll tell you they really don’t care about electing Democrats. In fact, since they regard Democrats as little or no better than Republicans, they are fine with their protests harming the party’s electability. These are not people interested in incremental change like most Americans, and there are many among them who actually hope their actions result in more elected Republicans–in the nutty hope of inspiring eventual “revolution.”

On the more reasonable end of things, there are those who worry that the demographics of Barack Obama supporters vs. Hillary Clinton supporters might indeed affect the severity of protests in Denver this August–depending on how the nomination battle plays out, either positively or negatively. This is what Limbaugh is getting at, and we think there’s some truth to it regardless of his childish motivations.

Few Democrats on either side of the presidential fight are interested in discussing this possibility, however, and the convention committee (obviously) has no plans to breathe an on-record word about it. We hear that the convention committee is downplaying the possibility of major disruption to the convention, either from anarchists or disaffected young Democrats, assuming that Denver’s “geographic isolation” (not to mention $50 million in security) will keep the mob’s size manageable.

With all that in mind, an uncomfortable (or enjoyable, depending on your affiliation) poll follows.

Could widespread rioting in Denver harm Democrat candidates in November?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

79 thoughts on “Grain of Truth in Limbaugh’s Outrageous Blather?”

    1. If it is the Ward Churchill can’t get your head out of the bong types I wouldn’t worry too much.

      However, if this turns into something racially motivated ie. the nomination being “wrested away” from Obama I would be concerned.

      I hope that cooler heads prevail anyway.

    2. to get Democrats to accept “liberal” as a dirty word, we are now hearing Democrats give in on the use of “Democrat” instead of “Democratic” party or candidates.

      Never saying “Democratic” has been a conscious effort by the right not to allow the connection of the positive word, democratic, to our party.  After all, with Bush claiming our kids are dying in Iraq to spread democracy and democracy being a GOOD thing, they looked for a way to take that away from Democrats.  

      The solution?   Small d democratic good.  Democrat Party and Democrat candidates bad; soft on terror, unpatriotic, San Francisco values, yada yada yada.

      And now they’ve got Democratic politicians and operatives, not to mention talking heads, all over the media using the term they promoted specifically to denigrate Democrats.   Repubs would never allow such a thing to happen to them, much less go along with it.  We still aren’t much good at stopping the right from taking complete control of the political vocabulary.

      This is how they became the “values” people leaving us as somehow anti-values, laid claim to the flag and supporting the troops, no matter how many times they vote against them, etc. We will always be struggling to defend and catch up until we learn how to block them and maybe stick them with a few of our own word choices.

      1. To earn the reputation of democratic, takes more than a NAME. Using the name Democratic Peoples Republic, does not make it Democratic, or a Republic governed by the people.  

        The Democratic Socialists are closer to truth in advertising.

        Now what do you call a party that advocates taking away a union members right to a secret ballot? UMMMM  Not democratic. (The Union Thug party maybe)

        What do you call a party that sets up a nominating system that does not mirror the way the general election is held, but rather gives the deciding power to party officials or political elites to keep the rank and file from nominating some 49 state loser like George McGovern or Barrack Obama?

        All are equal in the Democrat party, except some are more “super” than others. Delegates elected by the people will be diluted by appointed party hacks. A party that sets this up is called, UUMMM, not democratic.

        And by the way, unbridled democracy was the fear of the founders.  They set up a Federalist Republic.  That’s why originalists are mostly REPUBLICans.

        NEWSMAN

        1. I agree with you that the reputation of democratic does not always coencide with the name Democratic. But if you truly believe that, you should have no problem calling us the Democratic Party. It’s our name whether you think we’re democratic or not. You don’t say the “Democrat People’s Republic,” do you?  

        2. Go to today’s open thread for an excellent explanation from Steve Balboni on why the union votes are still secret. Laughing Boy was ubable to counter it; maybe you can.

        3. but the proper name of my party is the Democratic Party.   It isn’t a matter of opinion or ideology.  Calling it anything else is incorrect and we all know why Republicans pointedly choose to call it something else.  That’s my point and not one word of your post is relevant to that point.

    3. No draft.

      Cops are ready and waiting.

      No real reason to be angry with Obama or Clinton. They’re not HHH.

      Jail time in CO is not a picnic.  No ski passes.

      Dems will appease.

  2.    The reason I was opposed to Denver hosting the ’08 convention was that there will be, at a minimum, scattered demonstrations by colorful left-wing interest groups such as Al Sharpton, PETA, Cindy Sheehan, Lesbian Avengers, ACT-UP, the anti-NAFTA folks, etc.

      On top of these groups, we’re now going to have “garden-variety” political activitists (about 2,000 delegates plus alternates) taking to the street when their favored candidate loses the nomination fight, whomever she or he ends up being.

      Finally, although probably unnecessary, don’t discount the possibility that the GOP will send professional agitators to Denver to stir the cauldron.  The spirit of Donald Segretti still lives in the Republican Party.

      You can see why O.Q.D. will be spending convention week in Provincetown.

    1. similar demonstrations at the Republican Convention?  If not, why not? I’m hoping they won’t be able to drum up the numbers they are going for, especially if Obama is the candidate, as he should be.  

      Angry late middle aged and senior female Clinton supporters are a lot less likely to go wild if their candidate loses.  If Obama is tossed for HRC, the younger average age of the angry people makes it potentially much more volatile.  

    2. I think more likely and more effective will be the GOP527 hidden cameras recording the footage for future TV spots and U Tube releases.

      Once Colorado gets a good picture of the Democratic Peoples party, Republicans will benefit by contrast.

    1. I really pray that no DPD guys are hurt.  Spagnuolo really doesn’t know what he’s encouraging to happen – I’m very concerned about this.

      I know he doesn’t represent the majority of Dem folks, but he’s playing with fire.  This could turn into such an awful tragedy.

      1. Terrorism, in the modern sense,[2] is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.[3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

  4. Don’t ever forget that in 1968, kids could be drafted at nineteen and sent away to a war to be killed, but they could not vote until they were 21. Don’t ever forget that.  The 26th amendment giving 18 year olds the vote passed in 1971 and Nixon “suspended the draft,” and won a landslide victory in 1972. DON’T EVER FORGET THAT

    Prediction: If Obama loses in Indiana, he will gracefully withdraw his candidacy….

        1. in North Carolina. While it wouldn’t change the delegate count much, that, plus Indiana, et all, would set some real buyer’s remorse in motion.  But I see no sign that Obama will lose North Carolina. Regardless of Indiana, she’ll probably take Kentucky, West Virginia and a few, he should close strong in Yuppie Oregon.

          Hillary is a fighting lady, but I think her only chance is to win North Carolina and that, as Cornelius Ryan would say, is probably A Bridge Too Far.

      1. I can’t imagine a situation where Obama would drop out.  Why would he do that?  He has 10 times the money Hillary has, and is ahead in everything other than wins in big States (and of course, the ability to win in a general election mwah ah ah ah).

        1. I hear that, but in all honesty when you put Obama and McCain next to each other, it really is Kennedy vs. Nixon all over again. And I bet the general will be about as close too.

          1. More like Nixon vs. McGovern.

            Obama has so much baggage with his associations, and McCain is disliked by many of the folks that Bush-haters love to hate.

            It’s the perfect storm to set up a Republican win and a slight lurch to the left.

            1. that most of the electorate doesn’t care about such stuff. They care about who appears to be a leader. Obama, with his truly wonderful oration (the best politician since Reagan on that count) does. McCain, with his pinched little expressions and hot temper, does not.

              That’s not to say that McCain’s less qualified, but as 2000 (and 1960) shows, the people don’t always go for the person with the greater qualifications.

              1. like what you’re going to see every hour of every day coming out of Wright’s mouth courtesy of youtube.  I have to think Obama didn’t really ever think he’d get so far so quickly.

            3.    The Republican candidate was saddled with a very unpopular, endless war and an economy in toilet yet managed to win.  

                One difference:  Nixon was distrusted and unpopular; McCain is not.  

                Oh, and let’s not forget that there was a perception that McGovernites were a bunch of elitist snobs while Nixon appealed to the “silent majority” (a/k/a the Bitter Ones wearing their lapel flags, cleaning their guns and going to church).

              1. is where the ‘pub in ’72 was incumbent and the one now is not.

                There’s plenty of time for the son and grandson of Admirals to look like an elite.

        1. the primary where Democratic candidates trounced GOP in fund raising, new voters registered, and unsurpassed voter turnout?  Yeah, it has been that good.  

            1. I didn’t plan the primary.  But I look forward to November, I wonder if Schaffer will be the disgrace your last Bob was?  And McCain?  I seriously doubt it, especially if Obama gets the nod.  Care to wager on either race?  

            1. The vast majority of Democrats are decided on a candidate – be it Obama or Clinton.  You see a lot of “grief” being given out by the other side, some propaganda-type statements…

              But when all is said and done, it isn’t the conflict that some people see it as (or would like you to see it as)…  It’s not a fracturing of the party, nor an eternal hate match.  Obama says it’s good practice; Hillary says Obama can beat McCain; and I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that Clinton is a serious campaigner and a capable leader.

              So while we have our little contest, we’re gaining hundreds of thousands of voters and raising political involvement to levels not seen in this country in a long time.  For Democrats, this is a Very Good Thing™.

              1. It is not a battle for the direction of the party. It’s merely a contest to see who will be our candidate. There is a world of difference between that and say a primary between Guiliani & Huckabee.

                ½ the Dems won’t get their candidate, but they will still get their policies & priorities. That’s why it’s a tempest in a teapot.

              2. to unite the Democratic Party! Once our nominee is officially announced, there won’t be much old man McSame can do to stop us from taking the White House.  

  5. It’s not Rush Limbaugh, it’s ColoPols who says:

    On the more reasonable end of things, there are those who worry that the demographics of Barack Obama supporters vs. Hillary Clinton supporters might indeed affect the severity of protests in Denver this August–depending on how the nomination battle plays out, either positively or negatively. This is what Limbaugh is getting at, and we think there’s some truth to it regardless of his childish motivations….

    …referring to “anarchists or disaffected young Democrats…”

    This is in the context of a Denver Post article that says: “Limbaugh had been discussing comments by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had warned of ‘trouble’ at the convention if the nomination was wrested away from Barack Obama by superdelegates.”

    Time to come clean ColoPols: You are saying it’s reasonable to fear that young blacks will riot in the streets if they don’t get their way. What else could Al Sharpton possibly have meant? Defections from the Democratic Party in November? Nah, gotta mean street violence, man.

    I’m afraid your subconscious is showing.  

    1. We understand Obama attracts young people of other colors besides black. In fact, there are probably more white Obama supporters under 29 than there are black Obama supporters under 29.

      We’re afraid your “subconscious” is showing…

      1. No, you did NOT use the word “black.” You used the term “demographics.” My point was, and is, that this entire discussion, by Limbaugh, as described in the Denver Post, was in response to comments by Al Sharpton. And when Al Sharpton talks about “trouble,” what does he mean?

        Limbaugh interpreted “trouble” to mean “riots.” And Colorado Pols found a “grain of truth” in that.

        By falling back on the construction “you’re the one inserting the word ‘black,’ not us,” you make my point exactly. Sometimes it’s called speaking in code.

        1. We meant “young.” Which we said. Young. Not black, young. We did not mention anyone’s race, except to say (correctly) that there are more young white Obama supporters than there are black ones. Which undermines the accusation  you’re trying to make.

          We’re not completely sure what you’re trying to pin on us, but we’re pretty sure it’s distasteful.

          1. you elected to use on the Open Line immediately before this thread. Oh, I see, the word “black” isn’t there either.

            But if you want to pursue this, consider this line from your response: “…there are probably more white Obama supporters under 29 than there are black Obama supporters under 29.”

            Probably? As in maybe, but we don’t know for sure? Undisputed exit polls from Pennsylvania, to take the most recent example, found that among under-29 voters, Obama’s margin was 60%-40%. In Pennsylvania, 15% of the electorate is black. Therefore:

            Out of every 100 voters under age 29, 60 voted for Obama, 40 voted for Clinton. Of those 100 voters in Pennsylvania, 15 were black, and 90% of them (let’s say 14) voted for Obama.

            Therefore: Of every 100 voters under 29 who voted for Obama, 14 were black and 46 were whites.

            For the Pennsylvania electorate as a whole, 45% voted for Obama; if the electorate is 15% black, that would mean that Obama’s white supporters outnumbered his black supporters by a factor of at least 2:1. Pennsylvania was an exception insofar as the state has a relatively higher number of black voters than other states, such as Iowa, where Obama’s support was overwhelming.

            “Probably more”? Or did you mean to say “three times as many”? There’s no “probably” about it…unless one wants to cast a doubt about the “demographics” of Obama voters–and their likely reaction to an adverse outcome.

            The stream of racism in American society runs so wide and so deep that it takes effort not to wade through it and come out dry. Ignorant, downright dimwitted, quasi-Fasscists like John Andrews make it even harder, while you make his job easier by (a) publicizing his rabid ruminations about “Al Sharpton street toughs” (NB: he didn’t use the word “black” so he didn’t mean anything by this) and (b) suggesting there could be a grain of truth in there somewhere.

            Rush Limbaugh is an even more odious, poisonous voice of that stream of racism. Suggesting that there could be a “grain of truth” in anything he says…anything at all…is akin to suggesting that, well, Hitler made the trains run on time. There is NO POSSIBILITY that ANYTHING Rush Limbaugh says could have even the tiniest “grain of truth” in it. To say that there could be, while in the midst of repeating his venom, as your post did, is beyond “distasteful.”

            As for the “street violence” of 1968: There was a police riot in the streets of Chicago in 1968. Peaceful antiwar demonstrators were attacked without provocation by the police at the behest of, and with the full approval of, Mayor Richard Daley, whose own rabid personality was captured on live television inside the convention hall. Police sympathizers later tried to cast doubt on this by suggesting that the police attacks were provoked by Weathermen/SDS or the like. Subsequent examinations of those events pinned the blame, the whole blame, on the Chicago cops. The old “grain of truth” theory at work.

            1. …you know the GOP commercials (and I’m talking about the GOP 527s, McCain’s campaign won’t touch it…not will he need to) this fall will only feature the black and brown demonstrators.  

                It’s the Willie Horton rule of GOP campaign advertising!

            2. …you know the GOP commercials (and I’m talking about the GOP 527s, McCain’s campaign won’t touch it…not will he need to) this fall will only feature the black and brown demonstrators.  

                It’s the Willie Horton rule of GOP campaign advertising!

              2. …for August, or for 527s, or even for John McCain.

                McCain is already suggesting that Obama is preferred by Hamas. Translation: “Barack Hussein Obama” is secretly a Muslim. This is at least as potent as an issue as his race, or trying to pin criticism of the U.S. by Jeremiah Wright (who, incidentally is NOT running for any office) on Obama. I have personally spoken to a member of the Midwestern blue collar electorate who told me: “It’s not that I wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s black. I just wouldn’t vote for a Muslim.”

                And, of course, you are entirely right–and not just about the MSM. If there’s one black face scowling in Denver come August, he/she will be featured on every television newscast over and over and over. Even better if that face is wearing a costume that looks vaguely Islamic. And we know we can count on the blogosphere, or parts of it, for endless replays of Rush Limbaugh’s latest “dream”–as in, “I have a dream…that one day the streets will be safe”–while innocently posing as “Oh, my, how distasteful–but could there be a grain of truth here? Wasn’t there a mugging just last week in South Chicago?” Etc.  

          1.  And, I am a Obama supporter.  Hey, I wrote: DON’T EVER FORGET THAT THE KIDS WHO WERE RIOTING iN 1968 WERE BY AND LARGE UNABLE TO VOTE…AND SUBJECT TO A HORRIFIC DRAFT…

            And, you all, to a person, FORGOT that fact.

            The only remote possibility is that Obama supporters could see themselves disenfranchised by the super delegates….

            But, people with the power of the ballot, don’t riot….

            1. some place in the late 40’s is the age that you go from more likely to vote for Obama to being likely to vote for Hillary.

              Of course there are young folks who vote HRC and older folks that vote Obama–its just interesting how strong the demographic determinism is.

              I don’t forget about the draft–the lack of a draft is the reason so many can be nonchalant about a war they disagree with.

              However, I have a problem with methods that subvert your message. IMO the ’68 riots gave us Nixon. If people “recreate ’68” they give us McCain, long war and confirmation of Bush for the world.

              1. Never ending wars need a large amount of volunteers, ours is dwindling.  Sounds like a good way to bring back the draft…

                So we can recreate ’68 this year and continue the tradition in 2012.  Oh great, I can’t wait.

                1. I believe the riots brought about the passage of the 26th amendment which gave 18 year olds the right to vote…that was the first of the baby boomer binge….Nixon counted heads, got rid of the draft and won, big time, in 1972…the first year the 18 year olds got to vote….Vietnam died out because there was no more cannon fodder to feed it…we had, IMHO, thirty years of peace until Cheney, et.al. figured out you could outsource a whole lot of military work and get a war going w/o a draft…

                  I want to stress I do not condone riots…particularly the ones in Chicago which were police riots….

                  Also, the organizers who had been outside demonstrating in 1968, were inside running the demo party in 1972…that is the power of the vote..the dems lost that year…but won in 1976….  

    2. and I commented about this above.  I think it has more to do with what type of event could spark a riot and turn people to violence.

      Having Obama supporters see their candidate (the first african american presidentail candidate to go this far, ever) being screwed out of the nomination might just be the thing that would set a riot off for Obama supporters. There would be a lot of african americans who support Obama caught up in this.  I am thinking of the LA riots when I say this because then it becomes a racial issue, not your run of the mill recreate 68 issue.  Sharpton is not helping this a bit by threatening with “trouble” – playing into white fear already.  Isn’t it a little early for that, Reverend ?

      Al Sharpton should be the last one commenting about this as Obama has distanced himself from him by refusing to kiss the ring early on, which was a smart move.  I personally dislike Sharpton and am an Obama supporter.

      If I offend anyone with the comments above so be it please know I am not taking any aims to be politically correct – I am just trying to honestly discuss this issue.

      1.    So does this mean that if, by the start of balloting at the convention, HRC by some miracle picks up 75% of the remaining unpledged PLEO delegates (I refuse to call them “super-delegates” anymore) for whatever reason (e.g., some think she’s more electable, some like her cojones, some like her hair, some were promised cabinet positions, or Bill slept with some of them) and she ends up with 2,030 convention delegates on the first ballot to Obama’s 2,019, the nomination must nevertheless be given to Obama least there be rioting in the street by his supporters?

          Just wondering how this would work….

        1. if Obama had a majority of the pledged delegates and through some sort of underhanded crap Hillary took the nomination through superdelegates I don’t think that is fair or very organized to boot.  Then we’re just another Zimbabwe – throw out the popular results because we don’t like them.

          In that case you would see a lot of angry people.  Probably not rioting, just disenchanted people leaving the party.

    3. Here in Colorado, the majority of Obama’s  supporters of all ages are white.  I said that young angry Obama supporters would probably be more volatile than older female Clinton supporters.  I actually expect that Obama WILL be the candidate and that we probably won’t have serious rioting in any case.

      1. We said NOTHING about race, a fact this person seems to conveniently gloss over so he/she can lay on another coat of diatribe. John Andrews may subtly invoke race, Limbaugh openly race-baits at every opportunity. We did not, and a candid look at the facts makes the racial component of this a needless diversion.

        The “grain of truth” that induced this over the top chip-on-shoulder reaction is the fact that the Democrat(ic) party is facing a  serious crisis, which if resolved poorly could result in many disaffected Democrats on both sides. Since a large percentage of Obama’s supporters are demographically young and idealistic, their disappointment could manifest itself outside the convention in protest where Clinton supporters may not. We agree that the odds are better than even Obama will be the nominee, and we agree that will ameliorate the situation.

        We find nothing unreasonable in pointing out the possibilities, however, and the potential reasons for them. The only thing unreasonable about this is being accused of “racism” for pointing it out, especially when it’s clear that race has very little to do with the situation. Clearly intended to stifle debate not encourage it, and it harms the credibility of the accuser.

          1. I had no idea all these waits were getting posted.  I couldn’t get preview to work and never got so far as post.  I just wanted to say I never accused ColPol of injecting race.  I’m including ColPol among those who  did NOT bring up race.  Now if I can’t get this system to work this time, I give up.  

    2. …that Rush is a right dim mushbrained (drugs are bad!) pathetic attention whore of questional sexual tastes.  His listeners aren’t much better.  Um, make that followers.  

      I’ll also agree that what he said meants the definition of treason that Go Blue posted above.  

      Are you so self-involved that you would actually be actively rooting for rioting in Denver?  

      Some of us actually live here and would like to keep our rioting limited to Super Bowls and Stanley Cups.  

      Why do you hate Colorado?

       

      1. What a ridiculous question.  Of course I love my country and my state (OK even Boulder.)

        What Rush means is that the more the Democratic supporters ACT UP, the more it helps their opponents politically.

        It was the left that threatened riots “bombs going off” etc, not we passive kind harmless lovable Republicans.

        RUSH: One more little comment here about the furor that erupted in Denver the past two days over comments made by me on this program regarding potential riots in Denver during the Democrat National Convention.  There is an organization out there called Recreate ’68.  They have a website. You can go there, it’s Recreate68.org, and you can see what they’re planning. You can see their statement of “nonviolence,” which they have to put in there.  Back on March 21st, there was a quote here in the Rocky Mountain News: “Denver could face a ‘dangerous situation’ on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, war protesters said Thursday, after losing a coveted permit for Civic Center to the convention host committee.  ‘When things blow up because the police have to enforce a permit that the Democrats got, don’t blame us for that,’ said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer for the Re-create 68 Alliance.  ‘Blame the Democrats for trying to silence dissent in the city of Denver.'”

        Quote: “‘When things blow up because the police have to enforce a permit that the Democrats got, don’t blame us for that.” That’s the head honcho of Recreate ’68. “When things blow up…”  As Michelle Malkin wrote at the time, “Remember that quote: ‘When things blow up…'”  So just to clarify, for those of you in Denver — and especially the great people at KOA in Denver, our EIB affiliate — my point probably could have been better made had I said it this way: “If the Democrats and their allies such as Recreate ’68 want to engage in self-destructive behavior, we’ll take it.  It is they who protest. It is they who riot. It is they who threaten it.  It is not us; it is not me. They’re the ones.”  In fact, a bunch of anarchists are also protesting and promising the same kind of activity at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in September.

        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho…

        1. “even Boulder…” this is why you radical’s won’t win. You don’t love the state. You continually bash individuals just for living in particular parts of the state.  

          1. You are not taken seriously.

            The “OK even Boulder” addition to my all inclusive Love for Colorado was a joke, aka levity.

            I actually enjoy visiting with my friends in the peoples republic of Boulder.  And even my liberal friends shake their heads at some of the antics in Boulder.  So give me a break…..

            I am sure David from Boulder was not offended by it and knew full well my intent. You uber partisans want to take offence when none is intended. I would not get offended if you said you loved Colorado, even HD-15!!  (Doug Bruce = HD15 Representative).

            What I would more likely get from the hyper Lefty’s is “I Love Colorado, but I would Love it more if a meteor hit HD-15 and nothing was left but a smoking hole.”

            I don’t expect you to admit it, but right now the honest half of those reading this are smiling and shaking their heads yes.

            So spare me the lecture on loving Colorado.

            1. he said it and a few days later when he explained it.

              I took them to mean, in a political sense, if the anti -war (ie Democratic party supporters) want to show America what the left really is , and burn cars, break windows, and riot, that is a dream politically for the opposite side.

              Rush said in the same breath he was not advocating riots. You guys hear what you want to hear.

        2. Nothing like quoting the rantings of a hillbilly herion addict, who in the finest of Retuglican tradition, lays the blame at the feet of everyone but himself.  Fail.

          Not being an idiot like your normal dittohead, I know very well what the thinly veiled “wishing” for riots means.  

          Now, answer my first question and then tell me how you “love” Colorado.

          And, the last time I checked Denver (and Boulder for that matter) hadn’t seceded from the State.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!