redblueamerica.com

The left-wing of the blogosphere is furious about some remarks by Rush Limbaugh the other day to the effect that he "dreams" of the Democratic National Convention beset with riots, a la Chicago in 1968. Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" has earned the radio talkshow host an additional 1 percent of notoriety and perhaps swayed the Democratic primary by roughly the same percentage toward Hillary Clinton.

I don't listen to Rush, but this latest provocation, such as it is, will keep Limbaugh's name in the media and some liberals' blood pressure dangerously high. But I wouldn't expect any riots in Denver, at least not on Limbaugh's account.

Here's how Denver's ABC affiliate reported the Limbaugh row:

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country. Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.

Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."

Callous? A little bit. Over-the-top? No question. Inciting violence? Ah... no.

Not to say there won't be trouble. Did you click on that link above to "Chicago in 1968"? Here it is again. It goes to a virulently anti-Bush site called Smirking Chimp. The post, which appeared in February, discusses the parallels between 1968 and 2008 and concludes thusly:

But, if the party pulls a 1968, and rams Hillary Clinton down our throats, then the gloves are off. We need to let Howard Dean, et al, know that if they play that card all hell will break loose. Like my generation 40 years ago, a new generation has been energized ... energized by endless war, by growing economic inequities and by heavy-handed government intrusions into their private lives. They are smart. They are connected. And they will not go quietly.

My generation lost its fight, largely because we had virtually no access to mass communications or the mass media. When you told someone 40 years ago that your were "networking," it meant was that you owned phone and a phone book. All we could do to get our message on the evening news was to demonstrate, raise hell and shout insults at the police.But this generation is all about networking and mass communication.Sticks and stones didn't get it done for us in 68, but I suspect the tech-savvy, hyper-connected YouTube generation will make Democratic Party hacks long for those "good old days," if they cross them.

Take the riots off the streets and on to the Internet! Sounds good. But others are more nostalgic for the caress of the nightstick and the whiff of tear gas -- and it ain't Limbaugh listeners, believe me. Newsbusters helps throw some cold water on the whole business, as well.

Still, if Rush didn't incite a riot, he can claim credit for Inciting bloggers to fly off the handle:

Lonnee Hamilton, Huffington Post:  "Should we start holding all politicians and media blowhards to the same standard?... Limbaugh will of course get a pass because he's conservative and he's white. He can incite violence and use emotional or shock rhetoric to make his point and the country either gives him a pass or pats him on the back and asks him onto the Sunday news shows to expand on his 'ideas.' "

Jon Ponder, Pensito Review: "Has Rush Limbaugh had a drug relapse? That’s the only plausible explanation -- other than blind contempt for the rule of law -- for his call on Wednesday for rioting at the Democratic Convention in Denver this summer."

Steven D, Booman Tribune: "(H)ow many of his flock of wingnut sheep will take the opportunity to become agents provocateur in Denver? How many will attempt to ignite the very violence for which Limbaugh is an advocate? We already know that his listeners have participated Operation Chaos, where he commanded them to vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton so that the nomination battle between Obama and Clinton would continue, and thus weaken the Democratic Party's chances in the Fall. This is merely the next step in his attempt to influence the elections."

"Pelican 693", Independents Unbound: "So, the fat fool wants riots. The only people who listen to him are ditto heads and wingnuts. He wants everyone to see the American left? What in the hell is he talking about? Is he back on the hillbilly heroin? Does he really believe that the police can't tell the difference between the American left and the people who are his listeners? ...If some blogger had done this, the FBI would be on their door step by now. I am a big believer in free speech, but calling for riots anywhere is just insane, and crazy people should not be given a huge damn megaphone."Susie Madrak, Suburban Guerrilla: "Is this enough to file charges?"

Richard Blair, All Spin Zone: "Someone needs to tell me the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Moqtada al-Sadr (above and beyond the fact that al-Sadr is an ordained cleric, and Limbaugh is just an ordinary asswipe). And I want to know how Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. can continue getting away with inspiring their listeners to violence, yet are never called on it by either the Republican Party leadership or law enforcement authorities. ...The more I think about this, the more incensed I’m becoming."

Let's everyone take a deep, cleansing breath. It's going to be a lively convention, on that much we can all agree.