Limbaugh Calls Tech Shooter a Liberal

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 08:11 AM

In his April 19th radio show, Rush Limbaugh referred to the ideology of the Virginia Tech shooter as liberal, and then acknowledged he would be attacked for it.

Limbaugh asked his listeners a rhetorical question:

"If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was?"

He then followed up by saying that Cho, the 23-year-old Korean resident and Virginia Tech student that went on a killing rampage one week ago, killing 32 and wounding dozens, was "turned to liberalism somewhere."

Limbaugh claimed he was not bashing the left, but simply stating a fact. His contention is that when someone has hard feelings against the rich and the privileged, they must in turn be liberal.

This may or may not be the case, but one thing seems very clear: The comparison between liberal and progressive thinkers and murderous rampaging killers with clear psychological backgrounds indicating a problem is a red herring of the highest order.

Limbaugh also acknowledged that he would be attacked for his comments, blaming the left for inventing the tactic (hat-tip: The Raw Story):

These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred. These are the people that invented this kind of tactic, if you will ...

It seems somewhat ironic that someone who has been iconic for exactly that tactic since Reagan was president would pin the blame for it on the other side, as if a political attack stratagem could somehow be linked to one specific side or the other. He claims, mind you, that the tactic was created in the '90s, when the left would "link him to any violent act".

The remark, while insensitive, will find traction with a large segment of the center and right wings of American politics. It appears that both political parties as well as the pro-gun lobby are seizing on the shootings at Virginia Tech to score political points in a debate they seem to be having all alone, screaming into mirrors.

Alarmingly enough, this is the type of comment that becomes canon all too quickly in our society. Before you know it, "Cho was a liberal" will be so ingrained in public thought that even if it was not true, it will become so in the minds of many.

Was Cho a liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? Who knows? The point here is that he was a madman who killed 32 innocent people.

Honestly, Mr. Limbaugh. Let's keep our eye on the ball, shall we?


The one thing I've noticed about Limbaugh is: he doesn't have to invent the situations created by Leftists in order to mock them; as Air America, among a vanishingly small number of others, is forced to do.

The rightwing is compared to nazis and fascists by those on the Left, but when a someone who hates the rich is associated with those who hate the rich . . . the 'liberals'???

You get your nappies all in a bunch!

It isn't any kind of stretch of the imagination to suppose that Cho was a Leftist, another 'liberal' who promotes hatred for the rich. The Unibomber hated the 'rich' and big business/science, and acted on his hatred . . . as did Cho.

However, anyone who isn't a Democrat is obviously forbidden to practice their freedom of speech -- at least without having some whining Leftist ready to muckrake and revile them for doing so.

Meanwhile, just look down the front page and notice that some 'liberal' has done another 'hate' thread attacking the evil rich; those who have forced you and everyone else to "lose the race!"

Don't you just hate those evil rich, those spoiled rotten, silver-spooned, university educated, rightwing fascist soshes . . .?

Visitor constantly reviles while moaning about being reviled.

He constantly ignores all points while moaning about his point being ignored.

He makes unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion while moaning about others making unsupported assertions.

He debates with all the reason and thought of a histrionic junior high schooler, replete with capitalized points of breathless emphasis.

He tries to control debate by characterizing others as desperate, etc., while his comments reek of desperate anger.

He has only two or three points and repeats them endlessly, mindlesly, endlessly.

All in all, an excellent representation of extreme right partisanship. Keep up the good work of demonstrating how bereft of actual thought that segment of the political spectrum has become.

Rush, um, has a point. I think. Sort of.

But, it's the SOP GOP LSD stuff. Their simplistic math, again:

"Golly Gosh! This kid hates rich folks, so, like, he must be a Commie/Pinko/Socialist/Marxist!!"

(At which point, our regular troll "Visitor" probably agrees, but that's how they're taught to think...if you call _that_ thinking...)

But, again, what Rush missed was that the young man disturbed. Mental illness plays no politic, even if, to those so brain-dead, it may look that way.

It's just typical, but then nobody accused Rush of owning a brain.

(Well, if he does, they don't make Scanning-Electron-Microscopes with that kind of power!)

To the second visitor - "Visitor constantly reviles"...and there goes lefty again, with an astonishingly accurate depiction of what has already happened, yet no original thought of your own. Before you point out the same with my post, it is intentional.

I don't suppose Big Rush even bothered to mention the many other mass murderers whose motivations clearly sprang largely from the same right wing thoughts that Mr. Limbaugh fosters, like Timothy McVeigh? Or any of these others (the individual entries can be found via the links at this page):

Andrew Kehoe, maybe the first real American mass murderer, who used explosives to kill more than 40 people in a Michigan school way back in 1927; he was a member of the School Board and irate over the imposition of a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building (Norquist with a bang)

Kenneth Junior French who in 1993 killed four people in a Fayetteville, North Carolina restaurant; he was a Sergeant in the Airborne Corps and was quoted as saying "I'll show you, Clinton, about letting gays into the army" during the shootings.

John Emil List who in 1971 murdered his mother, three children and his wife; in a letter to his Pastor, he said that the 1970s were a sinful time, that his family was beginning to succumb to temptation, especially his daughter who wanted an acting career, an occupation that List viewed as being particularly corrupt and linked to Satan.

Howard Unruh who in 1949 went for a twelve minute walk around his Camden, New Jersey neighborhood, during which he shot people at random, killing 13; he returned from WWII with a collection of medals and firearms, decorated his bedroom with military items, set up a target range in his basement, and attended daily church services while his mother supported him by working at a factory.

You get your nappies all in a bunch!

What does that even mean? Is that some kind of reference to the Imus thing? My God, is that supposed to be funny? It seems largely irrelevent to your point to say something like that, and also manages to carry the inference that it was Liberals that brought down Imus, instead of Imus' slip of the racist tongue.

It isn't any kind of stretch of the imagination to suppose that Cho was a Leftist, another 'liberal' who promotes hatred for the rich. The Unibomber hated the 'rich' and big business/science, and acted on his hatred . . . as did Cho.

Perhaps it is not a stretch of your imagination, to suppose that he was a lefty, sure. Could you perhaps cite something compelling that shows that the left in America (which is Center-right in the rest of the world) hates the rich?

And since when do liberals hate science? I seem to have missed the part where liberals in America put theology ahead of science, or had scientific studies changes to fit their religious views. Could you also please cite anything even remotely compelling to prove this point?

There is far too much in your comment to address here, but perhaps we'll put it in the mailbag and I can respond as I should, in a full length article.

All the best,

"It isn't any kind of stretch of the imagination to suppose that Cho was a Leftist, another 'liberal' who promotes hatred for the rich. The Unibomber hated the 'rich' and big business/science, and acted on his hatred . . . as did Cho."

And here, we have proof that Trollie uses simplistic arguments rather than doing hard research, else, he'd have not made such a stupid and foolish comparison!

IF...we read the Unabomber's Manifesto, we find, almost from the first, a tirade against LEFTISTS. Thus, adding such a line creates a negative, in effect, self-cancellation, ergo, 1 + (-1) = 0.

Next time, Troll, do some research. It pays. You look less like an idiot that way.

Sensationlist tripe 'journalism' ain't worth the paper with which I wipe my anus.

And I mean Rush.