The press had a proverbial field day back in 2008 when a few folks attending McCain/Palin rallies shouted ugly comments from the crowd.
The most famous “kill him” incident was eventually disproven by the Secret Service even though the meme had legs – it even made its way into the thoroughly false HBO telefilm “Game Change.” The media’s willingness to use an aggressive voice or two in GOP-friendly crowds to taint both the ticket and its supporters was obvious – and gleeful.
So why is the very same media silent so far over President Barack Obama’s speech yesterday which included this:
“I went to the speaker’s home town,” Obama said, referring to a trip to House Speaker John Boehner’s battleground state of Ohio, “stood under a bridge that was crumbling.”
“Let him drive on it!” somebody shouted.
“Maybe he doesn’t drive anymore,” Obama joked.
Milbank, the same scribe who started the false “kill him” meme, buries this nugget deep in his most recent column, but he certainly doesn’t castigate Obama or the president’s booster for the comment.
Let’s be clear. Obama supporters shouldn’t be tainted by a single offensive comment, and one could make the case Obama defused the hateful rhetoric with a joke.
But that wasn’t the case for the McCain/Palin ticket, so why the double standard?
We know why, of course, but it bears repeating all the same for anyone not fully convinced liberal media bias is real, pervasive and about to get much worse as the presidential campaign intensifies.
(Source: Breitbart)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
He stood under the bridge? i guess that proves what i’ve always known Obama is a troll.
A disgusting double standard
The only way there is a chance for this double standard to stop is if we keep the pressure on the lamestream media to be honest or we just turn from them in droves – which explains why the NY Slimes is suffering and no one watches CNN/NBC.
The problem is that the lamestream media worships at the alter of Barack Hussein Obama mmmm mmmmm mmmmm and the rest of the socialist liberal democrat party.
Oh come on, there’s an obvious difference here. “Let him drive on it (a crumbling old bridge)!” and “kill him!” are not comparable statements. One is a distasteful joke and the other is inciting violence.
There is a double standard, but this one is not so special.
Obama admits to standing under the same bridge that garnered the comment. Obviously, a distasteful comment, but could be interpreted as a let him drive on it (ie invite him to drive on it so that he will deny the invitation because it would fall.) Not the same per se…Also, Obama joked it off. I am not so offended by the Lamestream Media in this instance.
Just a stupid person making a fool of him or herself, not really anything to report.
Got to not have a double standard myself, call a spade a spade.
DQB
#4, since nobody ever said “kill him”, but someone definitely said “let him drive on it”, the difference swings the other way.
Oh, and you clearly have no idea what “inciting violence” means. “Kill him” is not incitement, unless “he” is present and available to be killed, and the call is intended to cause someone to actually kill him right then and there. Otherwise it’s not inciting violence, it’s just advocating violence, which is protected by the first amendment.
Milhouse,
It was not known that the “kill him” thing was fake until after the media reported on it. Had it actually been said, it would clearly been worse than “let him drive on it”.
Also, if you would look up the definition of the word incite, you would find that it simply means to encourage, urge, stir up, etc. So had “kill him” actually been said, it would have DEFINITELY been inciting violence. “Kill him” is clearly in the imperative (command form) and therefore is “inciteful” if you’ll excuse the pun. HE doesn’t have to be present on the scene at that time for this to hold true.
On the other hand, in order for it to be ADVOCATING violence, it would have had to be something like “he should be killed”, because this is not in the imperative.
And of course, as usual, 0bama turns out to have lied.
why doe people always seem to be so eager to be “melamed zchus” on obama. will there ever be any excuse for not holding him to account for his associations with the”rev wright” a known white/jew hater.? would bush have gotten a pass for such an association?(dont worry you liberals this is not a trick question- it is a rhetorical question
bem684, the legal definition of incitement to violence requires that a person must directly be encouraged to commit some act of violence; it must be the inciter’s intention that that person will immediately commit the act, and it must be reasonable to expect that he will actually do so.
If the target of the alleged incitement was not present, then it was impossible for anyone present to imminently kill him. Therefore there could be no incitement.