« Obama Campaign Reached 17 Percent Of Ohio Voters By Text Or Email | Home | Union Drops Mailer Blitz Hammering McCain As "Friend Of Big Corporations" »
Palin Supporter On Obama: "Kill Him"
Multiple TPM Readers are flagging this blood-curdling moment at a Sarah Palin rally in Pennsylvania today, courtesy of the Times-Tribune:
Chris Hackett addressed the increasingly feisty crowd as they await the arrival of Gov. Palin.Each time the Republican candidate for the seat in the 10th Congressional District mentioned Barack Obama the crowd booed loudly.
One man screamed "kill him!"
No word on whether Hackett, who was -- ahem -- warming up the crowd for Palin, suggested that this isn't really considered acceptable political rhetoric.
Advertisement
Do they think this is funny now? Surely at least a small part of this man's tongue was in his cheek. Surely.
October 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction: his forked tongue
October 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you might be wrong. Very afraid.
October 14, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have started an online petition - http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Obamashield/index.html
The Petition for the Immediate Abandonment of Incendiary Rhetoric
October 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the 90s all too well to think that there was anything "tongue in cheek" about that statement. We can only hope that the Secret Service is going to investigate and prosecute this jackass.
And we can also hope that the media will bring as much scrutiny to bear on Palin and her coterie of inciters.
October 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. So wrong.
October 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point isn't the people in the crowd, or what they say, even though the McCain campaign has done an outstanding job of confusing the media about this.
The point is that no prominent Republican has responded negatively when the outrageous response occur.
Contrast their sleazy behavior with Obama's behavior from yesterday "no, no, we don't need that" in response to booing at the mention of Mccain's name.
October 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing that no Republicans have spoken out against this as they were the first to condemn Muslim leaders for not speaking out against 9-11. I am now condemning all Republican leaders
October 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really is amazing. I mean, don't the Repubs have a bad enough reputation as is? They really are going for the lowest denominator in this election. It's like they don't want to be a major party anymore.
October 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely disgusting.
October 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people are the worst our country has to offer, including their vapidly ignorant race-baiting leaders.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we at the point where the secret service will start stepping in when stuff like this happens? McCain's campaign has repeatedly shown they're willing to let statements like this stand with no action, so somebody is going to have to do something.
These hateful people were there all along, but they've now been given a voice and some encouragement to spew their bile. It only takes a few of them to incite more on-the-fence folks to grab their own pitchforks.
October 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service has already intervened - that's the only conceivable explanation for McCain backing down at rallies last week.
There's no confirmation because the Secret Service never, EVER, discusses protection matters.
As someone on this board said last week, Obama is the Secret Service's Super Bowl. They are pulling out all the stops and will not hesitate to do whatever it takes to protect him.
They are investigating the "Kill him!" shout from week before last and I'm sure they're already on this one.
And just because Palin's detail is tasked with protecting her doesn't mean they're not going to report threats to Obama or any other protectee.
October 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. I'm sure they are checking out every incident.
Any idea if the excuse "I mean 'kill him' like when salespeople say 'we're gonna kill the competition.'" would fly in this case? I don't know what level of threat they take would take incidents like this.
October 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the kind of hatred and racism they have been spewing the guy probably really meant kill him. Very frightening.
October 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think telling the squad of machine gun brandishing commandos at the airport that "the bomb" you were referring to was the in-flight movie would keep you from being indicted? Same thing.
October 14, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I know. But do you actually know this is how it's treated? When it comes to the USSS, all I know is that you don't threaten. What kind of gray area is there? Or is there any gray at all?
(sorry, I'm really curious about this and want it cut and dried)
October 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yellow Dog & Sardonic Optimist:
I wouldn't necessarily expect righteous actions by the Secret Service. If it is like all of the other government departments and agencies then it has been purged, co-opted, and corrupted by the current illegitimate and criminal regime.
Remember Obama’s first trip to Dallas as a candidate and the Secret Service mysteriously quit screening, scanning, and checking containers of those going into the venue (stadium).
It was eerily similar to the "you tube" video of the Secret Service immediately prior to JFK's assassination when they inexplicably pulled the agents off Kennedy's car. Prior to Kennedy’s open car beginning its route, they had abandoned virtually all of their standard procedures (such as closing all open windows on the route) used to ensure protection of the president.
I don't know if the current Secret Service is trustworthy, but I wouldn't count on it.
Peace,
JK
October 14, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was eerily similar to the "you tube" video of the Secret Service immediately prior to JFK's assassination when they inexplicably pulled the agents off Kennedy's car. Prior to Kennedy’s open car beginning its route, they had abandoned virtually all of their standard procedures (such as closing all open windows on the route) used to ensure protection of the president.
_____
There's been a whole load of horseshit made up by the assassination "conspiracy" cottage industry about what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63. Obviously whether such is true or not isn't important to some.
That one ISN'T true.
October 16, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
To JNagarya:
Your reply: "That one ISN'T True" to my Comment (a couple of days ago) pointing out the worrisome the similarity between the strange withdrawal of screening (of people and containers) at Obama's stadium venue in Dallas this year vs. the Secret Service agents being pulled off JFK's car seconds prior to his assassination.
The incident with JFK is obvious and on video tape: See (YouTube dot com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8.
Emery (sp??) Roberts, agent in charge is clearly seen ordering the agents off their standing platforms on JFK's car against their protests.
The Obama incident was widely reported by the networks at the time. A simple Google search would document that for you.
Why your insults and vehement denial??
Peace, JK
October 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Service has already intervened - that's the only conceivable explanation for McCain backing down at rallies last week.
_____
He backed down? Falling silent instead of repeating the incitements -- and not saying anything AGAINST that which has now taken on a life of its own, AS INTENDED -- until during the last debates says WHAT about your "conceivable explanation"?
McPalin are not Americans. The are America-heters who will say ANYTHING to advance their ambitions. ANYTHING.
And they'll weasel about it while continuing to encourage it.
Alas, they got the idea from Hillary.
October 16, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the damn secret service at these hate-fest rallies? All it would take is for them to drag one nutjob out of the crowd, and this would stop.
October 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. And these people should be investigated fully, and held in custody.
This isn't a game.
October 14, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The SS detail with Palin is looking out for threats to Palin, they aren't looking to hush up lunatics at a Palin rally who are hollering about Obama.
Now, if the righwing lunatics start hollering at Barack at one of his rallies, you will see decisive SS action in a New York second.
October 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need to re-examine their job description then. If there are threats being made in their presence, it's their job to take action. They should remove the offender from the crowd and take them to see Obama's secret service protection.
October 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crazy talk.
I mean, basically you're saying that Secret Service protective detail should be required to uncover their protectee anytime they hear a threat to another protectee.
Think about it. See the problem?
Let me make it more clear. Let's say I and two of my methed out Nazi tattoo wearing buddies want to do harm to a Secret Service protectee. We smuggle our Desert Eagles into a crowd where he's shaking hands, but we can't get a clear shot because of his Secret Service detail. If we try to distract them by having one of us shout out a threat to our target, the Secret Service will just shove his head down, swarm him and hustle him over to the bullet proof SUV and bodily toss him in.
So that won't work.
However, let's say some well intentioned person forced Secret Service protective details to deal with threats made to other Secret Service protectees that are made in their presence. Now all I have to do is have one of my accomplices shout out a threat to the protectee's opponent.
So, let be be more blunt. Do you really want Obama's detail to have to uncover him and go bust someone who shouted out a threat to Palin at his rally? Really?
October 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, why not have extra Secret Service at these rallies, since these are not isolated incidents? That way, no protectee gets uncovered.
October 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the secret service is really as inept as you seem to be implying, then I should be a lot more frightened for Barack than I already am. I hope the secret service can manage two things at the same time.
October 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This came up earlier that Secret Service should not be abbreviated in that way, lest there be a misunderstanding . . .
October 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be totally correct it should be USSS, but your point's right.
October 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, every time I see "SS", I get the wiggins.
October 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or start a riot.
October 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a federal crime to threaten the life of a president. Is it a crime to threaten the life of a presidential candidate? If so, these people should be arrested. If not, the Secret Service should be laying down the law to all the speakers at McShame-Failin rallies not to foment this kind of response.
October 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a crime to threaten anyone in such a way. As a matter of fact, one could easily call such people "domestic terrorists."
October 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I was saying above, though, saying "kill 'em" also is a figure of speech. Could someone tell me how the USSS handles things like this?
It's not like someone is actually giving a specific threat, no matter how distasteful this is. (It makes them look like a mob of loony thugs in my opinion)
October 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is certainly the most accurate and effective way to describe it.
October 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disgusting.
Dishonorable.
A National Disgrace.
McCain-Palin '08.
No need to bring your own sheets or torches, folks: we hand them out at the door!
McCain-Palin '08
Renting out political venue: $250K
Buying tv time for political ads: $750K
Selling your soul for political gain: Priceless
McCain-Palin '08
October 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they have to be dry cleaned after the event as these troglodytes get them all semen stained frothing over Caribou Barbie
October 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yuck-oh!
October 14, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selling your soul for political gain: Priceless
Actually, McCain has demonstrated amply well that doing so is pretty cheap. Look how easily he jettisoned his "straight-talk" brand for a few lousy mouth-breather votes.
October 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disgusting.
Dishonorable.
A National Disgrace.
McCain-Palin '08.
No need to bring your own sheets or torches, folks: we hand them out at the door!
McCain-Palin '08
Renting out political venue: $250K
Buying tv time for political ads: $750K
Selling your soul for political gain: Priceless
McCain-Palin '08
October 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's worst...most of the commenters on Politico.
Maybe these stories shouldn't be posted..we all know its happening.
October 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sickening. Total and complete wastes of humanity.
The most ironic part is that I'd wager that this "Kill him!" guy claims to be a Christian. He's defending the GOP, the Party of Jesus.
October 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This morning I heard NPR's "talk of the nation" open with an explanation that the nasty tone of the campaign is the fault of both candidates; that McCain's desperate attempts to depict Obama as part of a 60s terrorist organization are equivalent to Obama's responses concerning the Keating Five scandal which McCain actually participated in; and that if some of the things shouted at McCain rallies are "shocking", well, "so are some of the comments obama supporters are making about McCain's age", or something like that.
They then asked "how far is too far"?
October 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lord. Have. Mercy.
More of this false equivalency BS so the wingnuts won't be mean to them. A smear and a reminder of McSame's action are not now, nor will they ever be similar.
And the MSM are truly astonished when people say they are part of the problem.
I don't expect them to cheerlead for Obama; I can do that myself. But I expect them to get the facts straight and present them without prejudice, instead of this stupid "Oh, I said something mean about McCain; now I have to do the same for Obama" posture.
October 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCC, I'm listening to Talk of the Nation right now here in NH. I simply cannot believe these people! Did you hear the woman who claimed Obama donated "millions" to ACORN? And that ACORN indoctrinates young children to be liberals? And that Obama is not a US citizen but the Democrats are covering it up? Jesus Christ what is wrong with these people?
October 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually turned off the radio after Siegel's introduction D:
October 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's laughable to think of indoctrinating someone to be a liberal. By definition, liberals "think." Thinking is antithetical to propaganda. But since these right-wingers don't think for themselves, it's hard for them to conceive of children actually being brought up that way.
Yee, gods!
October 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Thera - I was just about to write "why don't we have more liberal indoctrination programs anyway," but you answered it.
Can't indoctrinate liberalism; only authoritarianism.
October 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
False equivalence heaven.
Unbelievable. I caught part of the show, too.
What is WRONG with this country, when all too many try to say that bringing up a known, documented, investigated financial scandal is akin to egging on a crowd to the point of shouting death threats?
Sheeesh.
October 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press keeps doing that and it's really starting to tick me off. Did you see Frum on Maddow's show last night? He was trying to equate the often sarcastic tone on her show to these violent outbursts by obvious nutjobs. How can you possibly compare the two?
There should be ZERO tolerance of this sort of thing from the media, theMcCain campaign, their surrogates, and the right-wing pundits. You combine this sort of rhetoric with economic insecurity, racism, and xenophobia and something terrible is going to happen.
October 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel was great. She pwned Frum. It was actually kinda embarrassing to watch. Frum looked like a crumpled up shell of a . . . pundit.
The age of Fox News has truly been a disaster. It's spread like a virus. "Fair and balanced" just means veering sharply away from reality.
We do NOT live in a perfectly symmetrical society. There are actual differences in philosophies and political positions that create imbalances. To portray this society in a "fair and balanced" manner is to automatically portray it falsely. It's akin to photoshopping reality. Prettifying it. Making crooked things straight, etc.
At various times in our history, various political philosophies have dominated. Typically, the dominate party and/or philosophy is guilty of more corruption, more lying, and more destruction. With exceptions. Both parties have had their time as "worst" party, etc. This changes over time. But in our history, both parties have never, ever been equal in their doings and dealings at the same point in time.
There is no equivalence or balance or symmetry in reality. The world doesn't work that way. We are always imbalanced in the most important sense. It's virtually a law of physics. At least of common sense.
October 14, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. There is such a thing as objective reality.
That you believe with all your heart and soul that the sun appears to rise in the west and set in the east doesn't make it true.
Belief never trumps fact. Rejection of that objective truth should be cause for canceling one's voting rights.
October 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain himself made that point to Dana Bash yesterday, and despite the fact that there is no evidence to support his claim, Bash just let it pass.
October 14, 2008 2:53 P