Hoffa Controversy
I’m assuming most of you have heard the story by now, but just in case you haven’t…
At a Labor Day rally yesterday Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa declared that they were ‘at war’ with the Tea Party and that union members should ‘take the SOB’s out’. (context, he did say at the polls)
Now I think his language was ill advised but I’m not going to take the leap that he was actually advocating the execution of Tea Party members.
But I can’t help but look back at when conservatives have said similar kinds of things and the immediate assumption has been that they did advocate violence. I also can’t help noticing the general lack of response from the media and the left in general.
I’m not going to assume that people on the left support violence against their opponents but it does seem hypocritical to not at least question the Hoffa remarks.
21 Responses to “Hoffa Controversy”
Well… considering the Hoffa family background…
“take out” pretty much means kill.
I am sure he didn’t mean it that way, but there is no defending what he said…whatsoever.
and i can’t help noticing that you seem to have left off the beginning of the sentence that beats you over the head with the context clues that they are to be taken out “at the polls”.
but yeah. totally the same thing.
perhaps there’s a reason “the media” haven’t touched this reach on righteous indignation.
Fair point DMF, I thought I had included the polls part. I’ve added that back.
But to be fair, the incidents with conservatives sayign things like this were also clearly in a political/voting context but it didn’t seem to matter then.
i think that’s stretching it. i mean, like Leee demonstrated, i think there’s a bit of a Hoffa bias here. or Teamsters, at least. i think you see this as “threatening” if you’re already predisposed to see union leaders as “thugs”. there’s nothing inherently violent about the phrase “take them out”. what if it was preceded by a phrase about whoever “put them in”? i’m sure we’d be having the same discussion, even if that context would be even more explicitly non-violent.
guns and crosshairs, however, used in metaphorical language… they’re weapons, plain and simple. i think there’s a valid line, that this example clearly doesn’t cross.
Fair enough, we agree to somewhat disagree.
As I said before, I think his comments were ill advised but don’t think he was advocating violence.
Nor did I think the campaign ads (whether by Reps or Dems) did so.
But different views are what make debate interesting.
Without rehashing the entire debate, it suffices me to say that the criticism of rhetoric from the right was not limited to imagery such as cross-hairs, but included phrases such as “take them out” even when clearly used in the context of an election. I could go back and cite specific examples but I won’t beat a dead horse.
Furthermore, even when it was clear that violence was not the intent of that rhetoric, the criticism remained that people were being irresponsible for using language that could be misinterpreted by the mentally unstable. That criticism applies just as much to Hoffa’s comments, but I stand by what I said at the time: We can’t hold people responsible for how their comments can be misinterpreted when the interpretation is clear to rational people.
ETA: I also specifically remember criticism of such rhetoric as “dehumanizing” political opponents, thereby supposedly making it easier for people to target them for violence. I think “SOB” is a perfect example of such rhetoric, if we’re keeping score.
To be internally consistent Republicans should be treating this as no big deal, and Democrats should be upset against the tone of Hoffa’s remarks. Since the reactions are reversed, this is just more BS about how the other guy sucks. ShannonLeee, I disagree with you on this one and am defending Hoffa’s remarks.
Hoffa was not advocating killing Tea Partiers any more than Sarah Palin was advocating killing Democrats. People need to put on their Big Boy and Big Girl pants, stop acting like the lowest common denominator, and grow up.
While Hoffa does have a hot line to many Democrats, he’s not really a party official or even part of any advisory boards. How many times does Hoffa appear on CNN or MSNBC to speak his mind? I doubt he’s on air as many times as BreitBart is on Fox…
Not sure if I qualify as a Rep or Dem but just for the record I said it was not a big deal either time.
Hoffa’s running for reelection as Teamster President next fall. His opponent is a woman truck driver supported by Teamsters for a Democratic Union.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/07/10/business/doc4e14f1f1c6090033164080.txt
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/09/05/news/politics/doc4e6553d591dd8584576847.txt
http://detnews.com/article/20110906/OPINION03/109060330/1001/President-Obama-will-need-more-than-labor%E2%80%99s-applause
Three of the Detroit areas most conservative papers thought the Hoffa stump speech was “no big deal.”
Guess what crowd/party/network is claiming victimhood again!
Patrick I was referring to the general blogosphere reaction and not specifically to your post.
and “swimming with the fishes” means the first part of a triathlon.
The Fox News reporter (who’d'a thought) who’s ‘tweet’ started all this has tried to clear it up.
Mr. Edaburn, it is disappointing you neglected to include Mr. Hoffa’s full quote. Your inclusion of context does not do justice to the lengths certain news agencies are going to in order to spin this.
Also, for me it is not so much a matter of what this person said, but rather what certain “news” agencies will do in order to attack their opposing side.
I’m not in the least bit surprised, but I would like to draw TMV readers to an ongoing phenomena. ANYtime ANYone calmly, factually and logically debunks ANY ‘nutter’ position…
The ‘nutters’ “flea.” (typo intended)
Well what on earth do you do with people whom would soon see the entire nation fall before they negotiate even in the simplest of terms? Cream Pies and Rotten Tomatoes seem a bit redundant considering August 2nd, do they not?
You can smash the nation to rubble with a foreign army or sweet talk it into committing suicide with grumbling goofy false rhetoric, based in little fact, and dressed up in Halloween patriot costumes looking as stupid as their candidate’s comments.
We have to defend ourselves somehow. Granted we can’t just shoot them, but lets get on with the arrest and show trial already. Times a wasting and our country is coming apart at the seams!
SteveK, I’m not sure if I’m one of the “nutters” you are referring to, but just for the record I’ve just decided it’s a lost cause (at least in this thread) to convince people of how their bias is interfering with how they interpret different events. I appreciate all of this talk about context, and I agree with it. It’s just often that the context is ignored when the shoe is on the other foot. Even the infamous Palin map, which I’ve conceded was over-the-line, includes enough context for rational people to know that’s she’s talking about an election. DaGoat’s point notwithstanding, I think it is important to point out how political bias gets in the way of supposedly objective observation, if only in a (perhaps futile) attempt to help people see their own biases and correct for them.
adelinesdad-
I am politically biased.
When you vote, YOU are politically biased. You are supposed to be politically biased because you cannot vote for all candidates at the same time. You only get to pick one.
People call themselves “independents” to excuse their indecisive Flip-Flopping.
Furthermore, to choose a candidate of one party for president , then another party for the legislature is stupid because you have purposely chosen someone that opposes the other! What on earth do you expect to accomplish with that?
I didn’t say political bias is inherently bad. I said it is bad when it “gets in the way of supposedly objective observation.” If we’re having a discussion about what kind of rhetoric is or isn’t acceptable in political discourse, we should avoid allowing political bias to distort our view.
ETA: I call myself an independent because I can’t stomach either party and don’t accept that we must be limited to such a small set of choices.
“Furthermore, to choose a candidate of one party for president , then another party for the legislature is stupid because you have purposely chosen someone that opposes the other! What on earth do you expect to accomplish with that?”
Gridlock. A Democrat President with a Republican congress seems to be the best bet for slowing federal spending growth.