I too find it curious that because I have conservative values and principles I am automatically labeled a Republican. That is fine you can call me that, but it is not what I consider myself. I have a far different view on many issues than did John McCain-he wasn't my pick; however, for me, given the alternative, that is the way I voted.

I also find it interesting that so many women out there cry for female power, but then when your version of female power does not align to some over the top “feminist” movement, they want nothing to do with you. It is disgusting the way many have treated Sara Palin. I admire her TRADITIONAL family values. I admire her desire to make a difference and raise a family at the same time. They hate her why??? Because she sets the women’s movement back? How is that exactly? Because she can make a difference and raise kids? Because she can occupy a powerful role AND have a family, yet still be conservative in her beliefs. Oh no, not that! That is the most ridiculous brand of BS I have ever heard.  She made some mistakes; she did not always come across as I’m sure she would have liked, but she’s not stupid. I think the next time a liberal women makes a mistake while speaking to me I will rake her over the coals, judge her, and then finish up by calling her names. Yea, cause I would treat even my worst enemy that way. Ridiculous.

The same women who have told us all our lives we can be anything we want, do anything we want-we can be the super-mom’s and the go-getters-bring home the bacon and fry it up for dinner. It’s ok to try to make it to the top as a woman as long as you share the ideals of NOW. As long as you have no religion, no opinion of your own, and want to act like a man-oh wait that doesn't work either, then you're just a b**ch. As a woman, that is the lesson I have learned from this. In this America do not be a traditional, conservative woman or a plumber with a simple question and expect anyone to listen to or care about anything you have to say. If you are either of those people, your opinion does not count and will not be tolerated. Women turning on other women-it disgusts me.

Over these next four years I will do my best to support Obama, as I did my best to support Bush, because in America we should support our leaders as a country-believe it or not, it’s important. However, if he is going to try to turn this country into something it is not or run it into the ground with too much government and too many entitlements, I will speak up. I hope Republicans can get back to their base. I hope Republicans can get many candidates out there that represent me and people like me. I still have hope, just not the same hope that someone was trying to sell me.

I am a traditional conservative and this time around I will be paying attention.

sorry you were getting it from both sides last night.  i can't stand talking about religion and politics for this exact reason.  i like a good conversation, but verbal lashings are no fun no matter what side you're on.

Everything you said. McCain was not a true conservative. He is a centrist. He was not my first choice or even my second, but he had my vote in the end and I worked as hard as I could to get him elected.

True conservatives cannot slumber now. We must quickly regroup and fight for our conservative values. Decisions will be made by an Obama administration in the first 2 years that could undermine true conservatism for a very long time.

Perhaps this is exactly what we need to wake up the true conservative movement in America.

God Bless and thank you for being a voice of sanity.

Thank you ladies!

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show"
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

I would say that McCain lost because the Republican party tossed graciousness out the window in 1992 and never looked back.

I would say that Sarah Palin did her job of energizing the aging and dwindling base and got the rest of America good and disgusted about their ignorance and slander.

Palin is only the latest in a list of attractive, female, insult machines that have been the faces and the voices of conservatism for over a decade. Their shrill vitriol drowns out the voices of reason - because outrage sells.

I marvel at all these women who, now that the race is over, claim that what the world saw wasn't "the real Sarah Palin." You are talking about a woman who changed Alaska policy to encourge hunters to lop off the paws of wolves and turn them in for a prize. You are talking about a woman who backed a hardline Christian to replace her on a non-partisan city council seat over her own mother-in-law. You are talking about a woman who is forcing her daughter into a teenage marriage; a woman who wants to limit the choices of other women to those she made for her daughter.  That's quite an attack dog you have there, that is the real Sarah Palin but her 15 minutes are up.

Oh, yes, she might come back in 2012 and try to run again, but Mitt Romney will also return and push her off the stage the way he pushed Jane Swift. And the Republican party will decide once again that he's not a real Christian and be back to square one.

In your hibernation, you might consider that anger, vitriol, and punitive approaches to problems aren't working for America. You got the country to move about as far to the right as it's going to get. We are more conservative than we used to be, but what we see of conservativism now, whether it be religious or fiscal, or both, is mean in all senses of the word.

And that is what lost you the election.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

I'm sure you didn't mean to label Dr. Laura a Christian as she is Jewish. :-) But she is certainly respectful of Christian values.

As a Christian woman who does not consider herself a feminist, I can say that I don't ignore Deborah in the Bible. But many Bible scholars argue that having a woman in command was indicative of God's judgement on Israel, as it humbled the men. Is that because they were all sexists? I don't think so. I think they were humbled because God put them in the leadership role and it was taken from them during that time.

I am very grateful for the right to vote and for the women who fought for that right at great cost. I believe in being treated with respect, dignity, and fairness as a woman. But I do not believe I have to be treated just like a man. I am not one and actually I'm pretty happy about that! 

I very much respect Sara Palin's values and what she has accomplished in Alaska. I voted for her and for John McCain. I believe women are as capable as men are to lead, but I don't believe we're called to. I know--horror of horrors that I would believe that. 

My mother was one of the first women to do a man's job in her field. I was proud of her, but I would have traded that pride for more time with her in a heartbeat. The world gained another professional, but I lost a mom. I gave up my professional career to stay home and teach my children. It wasn't easy. At first, I was quite depressed about it. It didn't help that my college friends asked, "Don't you think you're wasting your education?" I believe that the choice I live out every day takes more strength than traveling any career path--including the office of president. And no, I'm not wasting my education. I'm raising tomorrow's leaders.

Dana, what a great column! I've been following you since you showed up on KFTK, and I've become a real fan.

I completely understand what you (and many others) are saying about a return to the true values of conservatism. I'm not entirely sure what that entails, because I've been a Democrat my whole life, and for most of it, I was....a socialist.

Not every Democrat is a socialist, but a lot of superlibs are, despite the fact they'll never admit it. (There's a wink-wink underneath the big smile.) I can't tell you how many times I spouted the line, "Oh, I love capitalism. It's what has made our country great, but...." And then after the but are all the reasons capitalism is a terrible thing.

Over the years, I've moved to the center, and even into pure conservative territory on many issues. (I always broke with the Democratic party platform and supported guns and the death penalty, but the rest of me was standard-issue superlib.)

So I have to ask, in all sincerity, what about people like me? Where do we fit in?

For several years now, I've felt adrift in a lonely sea. I've been called more names than I could count by my tolerant, open-minded fellow Democrats. It seems that as I became more centrist, I became less acceptable to practically everyone I know.

I will say that Republicans and conservatives have been exceptionally warm and kind to me. That's been a huge surprise, but a nice one. And it's reinforced some of the things I'm learning about my old party mates. I am positively mortified at how they've behaved over the last eight years, and how I behaved myself before I stepped back and started questioning the party line.

I'm now a traitor to the party, so I don't really fit in as a Democrat. I've been welcomed into conservative circles, even though I've been open about some of my still-liberalish views (pro-choice, for example). Not one person has called me a name because I'm pro choice. I can't say the same for my old comrades on the other side.

But if the conservative movement feels the Republican party has moved too far to the center in order to court disillusioned Democrats like me, what then? How do we work together and forge an alliance?

My own journey has brought me to a place where I'm more comfortable around conservatives/Republicans (not knowing which label to use) than around Democrats. I just don't fit in there anymore.

But I don't quite fit into what you define as a conservative either.

Short of trying to change my views on certain issues, do you feel there's a place for someone like me within the conservative arena?

I'm not that fond of labels, but I really don't know how to fit in. And I'd like to.

Juli

I am not a conservative.

I'm officially a democrat but have decided that's never really been the right party for me and I should have claimed Libertarian all along.

I'm a moderate. I can't even call myself a social liberal and economic conservative, I'm more "blurry" than that.

I voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin because McCain was a moderate (and because he was smart enough to know that he could not win the election without a bold move - ie Sarah Palin.)

I've been reading posts by conservatives who are voicing their displeasure at the GOP. I agree, the GOP has turned its back on the old core conservatives. I agree with most of you about a lot of things but here's where I have questions...

I, a moderate who has never crossed party lines to vote for President, voted McCain Palin. I did it because he was a moderate. I know a lot of others who did the same. If he had not been a moderate. If he had been a more "old fashioned" conservative, I don't think I could have made that vote.

How can the GOP find balance? Or do you think the GOP can win in four years without finding that balance ie without my vote?

I don't have any answers for your party - I don't have any for myself. I'm just interested in hearing what you, the conservatives, think about my future votes. :-)

~Denise

BlogHer is non-partisan but our members and editors may not be. Please visit the News & Politics topic to read opinions and information that covers the political and social spectrum.

I think at some point we have to move past the either/or hard labels we have chosen to embrace. In an effort to energize the base Palin was chosen but you can't win without the moderates, the base isn't enough votes to pull off a win. I think we need to get past the divisiveness because the WHOLE country has to be governed, I look to former presidents and the answers are there. Take a look at Lincoln's advisers and what he did. We have to find a way toward compromise and using what is best on both sides of the equation and discarding the rest. I tire of political pandering and the whole idea that campaigning never ends. Term limits anyone??? I want someone to look at decisions with principle and reason in mind not how many votes will this lose me if I vote for it, will it cost me the next election. What is best for the country should be the only thing considered. Unfortunately for a long time now things have done only for political expedience. The right thing is not always the popular thing and I think political courage is in short supply. Why can't a politician be a servant? Public service is supposed to be the ideal, not self-service. We need some compromise and agreeing to disagree, what has happened to my country?

@Denise You know, You're totally right in that McCain being a moderate is what made him more viable in this election instead a lot of other more conservative candidates. Unfortunately, there was precious little done to reach the party base which, to a lot of conservatives, was a reflection of their value to the party. This was really the first election we've had in some time where moderates were the real power players; in the past the base delivered. I think that's why real conservatives were under-courted: it was just assumed that they'd deliver because of past voting trends. McCain moved a little bit right of center to appease the party, tacked on a super right of center VP pick, but it wasn't enough as a few of his policies and his entire approach were still totally moderate - not to mention his entire record. This alienated the base (a good percentage of Christians didn't vote) and it was just a clusterfark. 

There's more infighting than unity within the GOP. Honestly, I'm infuriated with the party right now. They can't unite as a group so there's no way they could currently unite this country. I truly feel that the party needs to return to a hardcore conservative approach while appealing to moderates without sacrificing its identity and convictions - most especially fiscally, which, good grief, they have not been. They need to hammer on their strengths, return to the old principle of smaller government, and, quite bluntly, grow a pair, lol.

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show"
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Unchivalrous?  It was unchivalrous of John McCain to put his vice presidential candidate into the role that is commonly taken by vice presidential candidates?  Because she is a woman?  So that's not a role that is suited to a woman and it's wrong for a man to put a woman in that role?

If we want to get rid of the mentality of attack dog politics, I would be just fine with that.  But I am deeply troubled by the implication that the attack dog role is suitable for a man but inappropriate for a woman.  I think it would have been insulting to her if he had not allowed her to fill the role traditionally taken by the veep candidate.

Well, it all comes down to who the GOP sees as the "real conservatives".  The Republican Party is definitely split.  There are fiscal conservatives who really could care less about the social conservative platform, unless it gets the votes to propel them into office.  Most of the leaders of the Republican Party, until W., were and are fiscal conservatives.  Many of them are military conservatives (Cheney et al.)  But these same folks aren't always social conservatives.

I think McCain would have had more of a chance in this election if he had followed his initial instincts to abandon the old Republican playbook of smears and fear-mongering.  His concession speech hinted at the "old McCain", the McCain of 2000, the McCain that I wanted to vote for in 2000.  He was advised very, very poorly by his campaign staff and also missed opportunities to take them in hand and lead them, versus letting them lead him. 

No matter what your beliefs, the United States has always fared far better when it is governed from the center.   Whether the Executive Branch has a center-based ideology or the balance of power between the Exec and Legislative Branches forces center rule.   

None of these groups can claim themselves as the "real
Republicans".  They have all decided to align themselves with the
Republican party.  But they have different goals.  And the "politics of fear" playbook advanced by the GOP is a very real thing that they have used to unite such diverse factions in previous elections.  And, in the past, it's been pretty successful, though distasteful to many on the Left and, for this election, in the Center.

The Democrats ran this year under a unifying theme of hope and, even if this made some Republicans gag, it worked.  It worked.  The Center was tired of being united by fear and bogeymen and negativity. 

As an pro-liife evangelical who voted Democratic this year,  I would advise the Social Conservatives to broaden their viewpoint to consider the whole social package.   The unborn AND the poor AND the disenfranchised AND tortured, etcetera. I would venture a guess that 90% of my friends in my evangelical church community voted for Obama because they are trying to make progress on many fronts and felt that we could do more on this side of the aisle.  I believe that social conservatives, by focusing on one issue, are slowly and steadily losing their way. 

As a Black woman I think the real downfall of the party has come with its lack of inclusion and intellectual dishonesty.  Way back when when the southern strategy was implemented and Nixon used to refer to the silent majority.  They did not consider the fact that just as history has shown you cannot oppress and dismiss whole groups of people forever.  You have to keep up with modern times. when I was anti-choice you gave me Bush 1 who was Ronnie's VP. Ronald Reagan is the poster boy for intellectual dishonesty.  The man started his campaign in Mississippi talking about state's rights.  I was in middle school and figured that out while doing researh for my civics paper.  So you really want to tell me that adults did not figue out that this was a bigot of Strom Thurmond proportion.  Speaking of which there was always room for him and his type under your banner.  Jesse Helms, David Duke and now Michelle Buchman is welcomed and forgiven give me a freaking break. You all should be asking that Rush and Sean shut the H**L up!  Nope they are loved and welcomed.  And for me and many like me I cannot sit at their table and then look my kids in the eye.  I applaud Juan Williams, Tara Wall and Micheal Steel but I just can't. My uncle became a republican 20 years ago.  He attended a Palin rally in NC and came home sad and defeated.  On election day my sister was teasing him about his girl and he said nope I guess I will vote for your boy.  She was stunned.  He finnaly told her that he felt like he needed a gun in that crowd and that is not what America is about at all.  You see my uncle is an 8th grade educated man who upon retirement sold his home for 1.32 mil.  He has helped to put each of us through college and wrote a CHECK for a full year of tuition when his kid went to school. American dream in full force.

To my ppoint of intellectal dishonesty look at the Palin pick.   Now she is being trashed to no end on everthing from being an idiot to a hillbilly.  Truth is Republicans like to clainm they are hockey moms and Joe-sixpack but in truth you want them no where near the top of the party. If one or two of the wal-mart moms and joe-sixpacks take note of that than what?  Figure out what the party stands for.  But you cannot stand for family values and bigotry.  Nor can you be less government for social ills and gun rights but more intrusion on my conversations with my Dr or what to do with embroys my partner and I created.  Make up your mind.  It cannot be both.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

I think until the republican party stops the promotion of hate speech with the embrace of Rush, Coulter and others of their ilk, the real message will continue to be drowned out. I like the concept of small government and fiscal responsibility but it hasn't been practiced by the republicans in power for the last 8 years. Lassie could have ran as a republican this year and lost. People are wore out by all the vitriol and intolerance and just plain bad behavior by our government officials. I can see why a message of hope and change was so successful. Negativity eventually just wears people out. The real question is where do we go from here? I think Obama is going to have a hard road ahead of him as expectations are really high. He is just one man, not a messiah. Bush ran as a uniter in 2000 and claimed to want to reach across the aisle and get things done. Lipservice to get elected I guess. We as a country used to believe that better days were ahead, a rising tide lifts all boats, compromise was often embraced as a way to get things done. We used to be doers not complainers, there is a mentality of well I didn't get what I wanted so I am taking my toys and going home. Maybe instead of all the focus from each side (dem and rep)on getting what they want how about getting Americans what they NEED. Jobs are a huge issue, health care is a huge issue, smart foreign policy a huge issue, energy independence a huge issue. Work on these issues. When Palin was chosen I was willing to give her a chance but it felt like pandering to the Hilary voters who were unhappy she didn't get the nom. The Republicans went negative and I never felt at any point that there was a coherent message being put forth that was consistent. McCain didn't seem like he was in charge of his own campaign. Palin seemed to really outshine him and in fact CNN was just about all Palin all the time. Most of the stories were short on substance but were always on there. McCain seemed an afterthought in the news cycle. I voted for Obama but it wasn't a solid vote of confidence, it was more of the republicans are too exclusionary and negative and can't relate to my concerns so I went with Obama. Intolerance is not my thing and I am closer to the center than tacking hard left, so where do I fit? neither tent really wants me.
I suppose when you are faced with negative choices you just go with what appears to be the lesser of two evils.......
I don't feel like the republicans had a strong slate of candidates to choose from either.

Carol,

I disagree that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter promote hate speech. That is, unless hate speech is defined as "things someone says that I don't like." If that's the case, there's a wholelotta hate speech going around.

I wouldn't even call Sen. Durbin's ridiculous comments hate speech. Hysterical, yes, but not hate. I'm referring specifically when he called Gitmo a Soviet Gulag.

Many of the people who are "wore out by all the vitriol and intolerance" are the same people who called Bush Hitler again and again, claimed he was dumb because he had a Texas accent and mispronounced nuclear. (But I'll bet he knew where Kentucky is.)

I don't call that hate speech either, but it was pretty vile for the last years.

I'm getting behind Obama and praying that he WILL unite the country, and that he WILL translate hope and change into a government that is more efficient instead of throwing money at every special-interest group that demands it. I pray he is the best president ever, because we could sure use some good news and optimism.

But I have to wonder if it's fair to expect a huge segment of the population to simply forget the nastiness of the last eight years, the name calling, the protests for peace that involved setting cars on fire and slashing tires, and the endless conspiracy theories that GWB controlled everything from the oil industry to 9-11.

Is it fair to expect people to just say "Oh, okay..let's forget that people made fun of everything Laura Bush did, and had a ball with adolescent mistakes a daughter made. Let's forget that we've heard Bush is Hitler 2.0, our American troops are just a bunch of guys and gals who get pleasure from raping and pillaging - but we support the troops, yes we do - and on and on."

Dana has made a beautiful plea to her fellow conservatievs to be better than that. I hope it can be, but I certainly don't expect it.

People on both sides are tired and bitter, and I'd say we'd all better brace ourselves for four more years of the same. The only thing that will change is that instead of hearing Shrub all the time, we'll hear Uhhhhhbama. (That seems to be catching on quickly.)

I *hope* the right will treat the Obama daughters more kindly than the left did the Bush girls. But I'm not holding my breath. Why should they be held to a higher standard than the left?

I think a lot of people who have put up with a lot of hatred for the crime of being conservatives are ready for payback.

Just as liberals started the payback for the stuff about Clinton, Monica, etc. the day GWB won his first election.

If Obama can heal that, I'd say he's worth the tax hikes he'll bring.

I'm concerned about the concept of hate speech, unless it's just a term being flung around.

Brigitte Bardot was convicted earlier this year for hate speech, because she condemned Muslims for the way the slaughtered animals or something. (Sorry, don't know the details.)

In some European countries, say the wrong thing and you face CRIMINAL charges. In some countries in Europe, libel and slander are criminal offenses.

Is that a road we want to go down?

LOL, they'd have to build a new prison just for the mainstream media if we had criminal charges for defamation. Funny thought, but there's no end to something like that.

Kim, I don't think anyone was suggesting that the US ban hate speech.  The suggestion was that the Republican party try to distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who do practice hate speech on a regular basis.

 JuliL, I would have to disagree, Ann Coulter most certainly uses hate speech and quite often.  Calling John Edwards a "fa**ot" was most definitely hate speech.

 I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and was leaning towards voting for him this year until he chose Palin for his running mate and the way the campain played out from there.  

Palin was a turn off from the first moment she opened her mouth.  Her speech at the RNC was so snarky and sarcastic, I found it very difficult to warm to her.  I  decided to wait it out and see where things went.  I did  a lot of research about her and was unhappy with the things I found.

I resent the idea that because she is a woman she is not to be criticized or questioned by other woman, but just blindly supported.  For me, the fact that she does not support the rights of women and would charge women for their own rape exam kits was enough for me.

The way the McCain camp conducted itself in these last months of the campaign was just dispicable.  They incited such fear and such hatred at their rallies, it made it very difficult for me to be able to vote for them.  When they kept touting the claim that Obama "palled around" with domestic terrorists to the point that there were shouts of "Kill him!" and "Terrorist!" at their rallies was just atrocious.  They did nothing to quell the fervor and I was just digusted.

I am all for being generous to the right (but being generous to the Bush administration might be a bit much) and governing from the middle, but the Republicans need to make an effort to rebuild their image.  It has been severely tarnished and I don't think the McCain campaign helped that any during this election.

I'm a liberal Dem, but wonder if conservatives really need a third party? If you ask someone what conservatism is, you'll get a lot of answers, often grouped into different camps.

Perhaps there needs to be a religious right, socially conservative party, and then a moderate, fiscally conservative party who is not so "guns, god and gays" focused. ?

Also I beg to differ on Limbaugh and Coulter NOT being hate mongers. They are. It's easy to find examples. Oh, here's one now from Ms. Coulter: "Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." She must have forgotten about the IRA or the Tamil Tigers (who kill Muslims) or -- oh! -- American terrorist Timothy McVeigh. !

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX

I don't listen to Rush, although I was very offended when he made fun of Michael J. Fox. I still wouldn't call that hate speech, but insensitivity and a show of lack of knowledge about Parkinsons.

Ann Coulter has certainly said things that are offensive, but what loud-mouthed pundits on the political (or comedy) scene haven't? That's part of the schtick.

I guess my point, though, is that the right has no lock on nasty speech, hate speech or however you want to label it. Al Franken, a VERY funny guy (until he turned bitter and lost his funny bone), says equally nasty things about Rush, Ann Coulter, Bill O' Reilly, GWB, and so on. I mean he wrote a book called Rush is a Big Fat Idiot. I didn't read it, but I doubt it was nice.

I'm still looking for a definition of what constitutes hate speech. Calling New York hymie town? Using the N word? Making fun of disabilities?

Where's the line so I don't cross it?

Juli

Juli, I think it's safe to say that calling someone an idiot isn't hate speech, but when you attack a person by using deragotory language based on a whole group of people -- using their religion, sexual orientation, gendre, ethnicity, etc. -- then it becomes hate speech.

All the people you cited that Franken has allegedly verbally attacked have probably deserved it, IMHO, and I highly doubt (in fact, I'd bet money on it) he did it by slandering their ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX

I'm a woman of reasonable intelligence, and so, I know a rabid dog when I see one. Not only is Rush Limbaugh an ignoramus of exceptional magnitude, he is a psychopathic liar who uses the airwaves consistently to foment division and lay the foundation for violence. I have no remorse about saying that because I condemn him based on his actions and words, the content of his character, not his ethnicity, gender, or even his waistline. Furthermore, I believe he has the right to free speech just as I do, but I also believe that if we don't speak against Limbaugh's type of rhetoric, we're doomed.

I'm critical of Rush Limbaugh for the same reasons some people are critical of Louis Farrakhan for his anti-Jewish rhetoric. But unlike people that I suspect Sarah Palin identified as living in "real America" who can't see what's wrong with Limbaugh's rhetoric because they believe he speaks for them and wants to protect them from us "other" people in the not real America, I can recognize when Farrakhan's gone astray in his rhetoric despite us both being black people and his belief that he promotes our elevation. I can see and not listen anymore.

You don't believe Rush Limbaugh engages in hate speech? Please listen to Limbaugh's "blacks in a 30 year plot" railing, if you can stand it. I believe that if you don't recognize his railings as hate speech in that instance it's probably because you believe what he's saying.

Ann Coulter is known for making statements similar to Limbaugh's, but she does it smiling and batting her eyes. For instance, she told white people in one of her columns that the reason they can't get a mortgage loan is banks are giving their mortgage loans to minorities, which is not true. Both Rush and Ann types push the us vs. them paradigm for race relations.

Why is there concern about this type of propaganda? We are concerned because we know history and see where it can lead. Please read my comment at this link on Mata's post about Kristallnacht.

If I had to define hate speech, I would say it's speech that blames one group for the misfortune of another group through the use of misinformation, fact twisting, misdirection, deflection, and blatant lies. This definition does not include the informed and reasonable examination of crimes against a people or oppression of a people based on historical fact and reliable data. For instance, when we condemn Nazi Germany, we are expressing a loathing for the actions of a people who supported Hitler's ideas, but our opinions are based on fact and the Nazi's well-documented inhumane treatment of other humans, including genocide. If from that examination we draw the conclusion that we despise Nazis, then is that damnable hate or is it righteous indignation?

However, to look at the crime rate, for instance, and notice that young black teens are arrested at disproportionate rates and draw the conclusion that getting rid of black babies will reduce crime, and then to broadcast that belief and message is spreading hate speech.

If you notice that standardized test scores went down at a local school after the school population shifted to majority Mexican, and then to extrapolate from that observation that Mexicans must be stupid, not as smart as whites, and so are destroying the school system, and then to broadcast that belief to people to get them to feel the same way and draw the conclusion that the city and citizens should get those Mexicans out of our schools and also not give them jobs or rent apartments to them because they are bad for the community is hate speech.

To throw out such information as "our schools have deteriorated because we've integrated," while stopping short of saying "so move the others out of our schools or move ourselves away from the others" but knowing that's the conclusion people will draw is also hate speech, the most cunning kind. People who frame racist arguments and then watch others take that rhetoric to the next level should stop pretending they don't know what they've said and stop blaming their listeners for acting alone when they take hatred to the streets.

To decide that male pedophiles often molest boys and then to jump to the conclusion that male pedophiles must also be gay and so conclude all gay men are also pedophiles and later to broadcast that information because you're afraid for you children's safety around anyone gay and so want all of society to ostracize gay people, keep them from working in schools, having families of their own, etc., is hate speech.

To see that most Ku Klux Klan members are white people and to suspect that your boss is a Klansman or a Klansman sympathizer and that's why you never got your promotion and then to conclude all white people are against all black people and to broadcast that all white people, therefore, want to oppress people who are not white and so all nonwhite people need to take action against all white people is hate speech . It's still hate speech even after you find out your boss really does wear a white sheet and hood on Friday nights and nobody at your job will listen to your grievance. Stop saying all white people are racist devils, and take your jackass boss and the do-nothing company to court.

What do these examples have in common? In each example someone is drawing erroneous conclusions based on their narrow perception of the world and faulty logic about the root causes behind specific or general woes and so have developed a bias against a group. In addition, they have moved beyond their private thoughts to infecting others with their bigotry and fears. Rush Limbaugh and people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin do this frequently and so we ask ourselves what motivates their vilifying of other groups?. They haven't been harmed by the groups they demonize. They can't even make reasonable accusations the groups they oppose are oppressing another group or violating their civil rights. So, what causes them to use language that may incite violence and stir hatred of "the other"?

And if we criticize their rhetoric using historical fact and reliable data are we using hate speech against them?

Defining condemnation of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter's type of rhetoric as simply more hate speech is the failure to parse language accurately and analyze history objectively. Start saying it's the same thing and eventually you will find yourself declaring that people who despise the Ku Klux Klan or Hitler are no different from the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler themselves because both offenders and defenders despise somebody. Huh?

Do we give up our right to say we recognize harmful speech within context of historical records and factual evidence? No, some actions and language are worthy of condemnation. Our intelligence helps us make distinctions.

I said I know a rabid dog when I see one, but we're talking about humans here, and so I must say that I'd never want to see the rabid dog/rabid human analogy moved to action because rabid dogs get put down. I wish Limbaugh and people who think like him long lives in hopes that they will one day have a change of heart and use their influence to promote tolerance and harmony with understanding. However, if he and people who think like him wish to complain about what I've said, I have this response: People who revel in inciting animosity with a pack of lies should not whine when anger turns on them.

Besides, the more Rush Limbaugh paints African-Americans and other people who don't look and think like him as the angriest people on the planet who have no reason to protest, the more we know that he is one of the angriest men in the world, forever foaming at the mouth.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

As far as a clear definition of hate speech, I can't define it better or more clearly than Nordette did. It is dangerous to throw that term around as has been pointed out. I appreciate a clearly defined well, stated response. SPEW would probably be a better term for Coulter and Rush. I still think vitriol and intolerance define those two well also.

that said, there are a few points from Julil I would like to respond to.

"I think a lot of people who have put up with a lot of hatred for the crime of being conservatives are ready for payback."

"Just as liberals started the payback for the stuff about Clinton, Monica, etc. the day GWB won his first election."

Why is governing and involvement in politics now about payback? How is this productive for our country at all? I don't think it is a crime to be a conservative. or a liberal. As for me I am so much more than these labels and certainly do not wish to be stuck in a a labeled box. If all our elected officials are now about PAYBACK we are well and truly lost and I fear for the state of our union. We are supposed to be the UNITED States Of America. I for one am sick of red and blue states and the labels slapped on people. Payback to me just means more years of governing that doesn't represent by the people, for the people.

"People on both sides are tired and bitter, and I'd say we'd all better brace ourselves for four more years of the same."

I don't agree because I think as women and men and just people we are better than that and we can be better than that.

We can be tired but we don't have to be bitter.

Bitter is a choice.

I really feel that what I said above bears repeating.
We AS A COUNTRY used to believe that better days were ahead, a rising tide lifts all boats, compromise was often embraced as a way to get things done. We used to be doers not complainers, there is a mentality of well I didn't get what I wanted so I am taking my toys and going home. Maybe instead of all the focus from each side (dem and rep)on getting what they want how about getting Americans what they NEED. Jobs are a huge issue, health care is a huge issue, smart foreign policy a huge issue, energy independence a huge issue. Work on these issues. I'll give Lincoln the last word. Out of context but...... we are so divided.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in many years (and even then it was because someone I knew would listen to him on the radio in their car). I'm not sure what Limbaugh's main demographic is, but I'd be willing to bet it largely consists of people with blue hair and canes. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'm thinking his listeners aren't exactly the type to be inspired to act out (much less even move more than a few feet) by the sounds of his ranting. I catch Ann Coulter commenting on cable news every once in awhile, and I often roll my eyes at her. Like Limbaugh, she's over the top. I take her with a grain of salt. I think Coulter totally relishes making liberals angry and speaks with the intention of provoking them. I think any person that explodes with bitterness and anger over Ann Coulter is giving her exactly what she wants and letting her win.

Nordette, I read the link that you posted about what Limbaugh said. It's certainly inflammatory and not something with which I agree. If I had heard that, I would have simply switched off the radio. I understand why you're very offended by him and feel that you must speak out against his rhetoric. I'm also so incredibly grateful and proud that we live in a country in which Limbaugh and Coulter are free to spout their b.s., and you and I are free to speak out as loudly and frequently as we'd like to about it.

Although I empathize with your feelings Nordette, I disagree with you on a few things you've said (or maybe I have misunderstood your meaning). I know you feel justified in calling Limbaugh every name in the book since you feel he has wronged you and yours. I thought calling him a "psychopathic liar" was a bit much, but c'est la vie. I'd be willing to bet that no matter how many psychiatrists hated Limbaugh's guts, none would give him that diagnosis (meaning he's literally insane and can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy, honesty or falsity). The first thing that I have a problem with is where you say,

"I'm critical of Rush Limbaugh for the same reasons some people are critical of Louis Farrakhan for his anti-Jewish rhetoric. But unlike people that I suspect Sarah Palin identified as living in "real America" who can't see what's wrong with Limbaugh's rhetoric because they believe he speaks for them and wants to protect them from us "other" people in the not real America, I can recognize when Farrakhan's gone astray in his rhetoric despite us both being black people and his belief that he promotes our elevation. I can see and not listen anymore."

Without making any assumptions about what you meant by that paragraph, I'm wondering if you also are critical of Farrakhan? To me, it doesn't read/seem like it there. It would seem like it if you had said "I'm critical of Rush Limbaugh for the same reasons I'm critical of Louis Farrakhan for his anti-Jewish rhetoric." I'm also confused as to the point that you're making in that paragraph. To me it seems to say that you have the perspective and intelligence to disregard Farrakhan's racist statements, but listeners of Rush Limbaugh are somehow too stupid or otherwise impaired to have the ability to disregard bigotry when they hear it. Not only that, but Limbaugh's listeners are whom Palin was referring to when she said "real Americans"? In addition, I disagree strongly with the following,

"People who frame racist arguments and then watch others take that rhetoric to the next level should stop pretending they don't know what they've said and stop blaming their listeners for acting alone when they take hatred to the streets." Also when you say Limbaugh "uses the airwaves consistently to foment division and lay the foundation for violence." Not even close. That may be your opinion, but Limbaugh is using the airwaves to give his opinion, not to "lay the foundation for violence." That's more than a bit much.

So according to your first quote above, if some freak out there kills a person of another race because of something that a radio show host said, the host is somehow accountable or responsible for their violence? No. Not in a million years. I think your assertion that the people you've mentioned "incite violence" because of what they say in the media is totally false, unless they hijack the radio or television and say "I call for all people of "x" race to physically attack all people of "y" race immediately." Anyone who commits a violent act and blames something they've heard in the media-whether it be a song, a video game, a political pundit or Jodie Foster-obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on. In my opinion, to even imply that the Limbaughs, Coulters, Malkins, (or Farrakhans, Rev. Wrights or Jesse Jacksons) of the world should censor their opinions or feel in any way responsible for incidents that occur at the hands of the violent and mentally imbalanced is ridiculous and weakens the other parts of your argument. I also think it's ludicrous to draw parallels from Kristallnacht or the conditions that led to the Holocaust to conservatives on talk radio or any other type of controversial opinions being put forward, whether you strongly dislike them or not. Public demonstrations by the KKK, Neo Nazis and the likes of the Rev. Fred Phelps have been protected under the First Amendment for decades, but you don't see genocide against blacks, Jews or gays en masse because these groups are free to publically assemble and speak their demented opinions. The KKK and the Neo Nazis even publically advocate violence and it's not creating another Holocaust. I hardly think Limbaugh, Coulter or any other right-wing media pundit could ever compare. With respect to you calling these people liars, there's a difference between lying and differences in perception. If I had a radio show and announced "Chuck Schumer is an imbecile and a pathetic embarrassment to any Congressperson with a penis," and gave my opinion that Schumer was interested in trying to suppress free speech that he doesn't agree with, someone might be incensed at what I said and call me a liar. But am I lying, or is that just my perception? Is Limbaugh lying about the black community, or is it just his perception? Even if his perception is a ridiculous stereotype and is dismissed by most people as false, it's still his perception and he's honestly conveying that idea. Under your link to what Limbaugh said, some of the comments threatened Limbaugh with violence over his opinion. One commenter wrote "please slit his throat and kick his head off." Talk about "inciting violence" from kooks. Another commenter brought up the point that Bill Cosby has said practically the same thing as Limbaugh about the black community. I've also read black columnists making similar assertions. So where do those men stand in your assessment? I know you think they're wrong, but are they "laying the foundation for violence" and leading us down the path to a pre-Holocaust society as well?

The bottom lines for me are:
1) (As JuliL pointed out), the right has not cornered the market on hate speech by any means. For every conservative pundit or citizen that you deem to be involved in hate speech, there is at least one liberal celebrity or citizen that is doing the same thing. The double standard needs to be recognized. The notion that conservatives are "mean" and "racist" is tired and simpleminded at best.

2) No matter whether it's hate speech or not, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly all attempts to suppress it under the First Amendment of our Constitution, as well they should. Conservatives and liberals alike must fight vehemently against any attempts to suppress or censor free speech, no matter how it may be innocuously presented as "fair," "nice," "unbiased," "politically correct," "promoting unity" or the "right thing to do." If they don't, some day we may find ourselves in a country in which we are intimidated or have to live in fear about sharing our opinions in forums such as this.

I think at some point we have to move past the either/or hard labels we have chosen to embrace.
Dana, made a very salient point about honesty in both sides, we aren't there yet. We need to get to that honesty until we do, we are in trouble as a nation. That is my honest opinion.

I wasn't trying to incite righteous anger and I feel in retrospect that parts of the post about hate speech went too far. There are talking heads and pundits on both sides that emit far too much hot air and say too little. I am not unaware of free speech and many in my family are military (ret./active duty) and they defend that right every day. I really strongly feel that we are at a point in the life of this republic that we must somehow start to stand together. I know families that are being torn apart over the state of our government. I defer to Dana on this because she has stated some salient points that i respect
1. It is my hope that neither side becomes so introspective that they forget the purposes and reasons which brought them each to their respective positions.
Purpose and reason for a position: Dana is asking people to think with their hearts and minds on the issues. We can all benefit from doing that.
2. Everyone always assumes that I'm a Republican because I'm a conservative. It's a stereotype as my brand of conservatism is one that the Republican party has long since abandoned.
Stereotypes are dangerous ground as are assumptions, when you paint with too broad a brush you lose the ability to hear.
The first line in an earlier post of mine did that very thing, I used a broad brush speaking of hate speech, Coulter, Rush, etc. I still think they are idiots, but they have the right to speak freely and embrace being idiots. I apologize.
I don't like where we find ourselves as a republic, no civil discourse among those who represent us, only payback? I still think labels are dangerous and always will because you forget the person. I think we are dangerously divided and need to move past partisanship and look toward the center and compromise for solutions. Civil discourse hasn't been practiced for a long time. Reagan and Bush 1 were first and foremost about being gentlemen, at least imo and I can't help but think there is value in that. Clinton and beyond not so much. The other thing about this election for me and I have to say it, I am simply glad that the name of the president is neither Clinton or Bush. I couldn't see these family empirical presidency's needing to continue or even in any way being a good thing. Adams aside. One other thing I voted for Obama and I admit that but it wasn't a clear cut choice for me and I struggled with this election. In the end the negative tenor and the incoherent message from McCain lost me. I don't know where our country goes from here. Both sides voted for socialism with the bank bailout.
For me I have to believe we are better than all this fighting and that better days are ahead. I am sorry for any role I have had in posting that simply stirred up more.
In the end i think agreeing to disagree and moving forward is what is important.

Can anyone cite any hateful bigotry or namecalling by Dems or liberals who are not fringe personalities, eg, people who have been already alienated by most Democrats (like Farrakahn)?

 The equivalent of Coulter calling Edwards a "faggot" or Rush's "Blacks in a 30 year plot" bit?  I'm hard pressed to find one or think of one... 

KeegsMom blogs at KIDSFLIX

But that doesn't mean that it is helpful.

Just because Coulter can (and has) state that Liberals can be killed for their views, doesn't mean that it is helping her country to do so. Thankfully, talk like that seems no longer to be helping her cause either (never mind that Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, and others are far more self-serving than they are country-serving).

We are coming off an era where anyone who dared question the Bush Admin or the conduct of the war in Iraq was labelled unpatriotic; those who questioned Israel's heavyhanded tactics labelled anti-Semitic.

The Bush Adminstration came to power because its supporters played on the anger and fears of the most vulnerable and often least knowledgeable of citizens. Some of that outrage was justified; most of it was predatory fear-mongering.

And so "fear itself" became the only message the country heard from neo-conservatives. Rejection of that message in this election should send a signal to the Limbaughs of the world to shut up and let George Will be heard. Will and other conservatives have a message that is often logical, but requires careful listening, rather than spoon-fed finger pointing.

Conservatives may also need to consider that their message of limited government decidedly conflicts with their determination to invade the bedrooms and the hospital rooms of all Americans.

 -Lisse

@ Home in the World

though, not to pick nits or anything with NoFreeLunch, much of what is cited isn't hate speech (calling Bush/Cheney terrorists, or war criminals, or a weak attempt at humor calling the GOP the 'white party" [did you SEE the convention?], or even Barney Frank's assessment of the Katrina disaster). Those things do not denigrate an entire population based on gender, race, sexual identity, etc.

There are plenty of others cited, however, that are pretty awful and eye opening (some are just hard to belive: I can't believe Nina Totenberg -- not a ranting lefty pundit by any means -- said that - ?)... And as someone else wrote here, we've spiraled downward into "he said she said" which isn't helpful. What IS helpful is to realize how much fear-mongering and divisive language has affected us as a nation; it's what drives talk radio (why Radio America fails). We need to move away from it. Conservatives should loudly lambast and protest those who make a living doing it.

Lisse wrote: Rejection of that message in this election should send a signal to the
Limbaughs of the world to shut up and let George Will be heard.

That's worth amplifying.

Also, my original post here was asking if conservatives feel they need a third party... I don't think anyone has answered that question. I'm really quite curious about that!

What IS helpful is to realize how much fear-mongering and divisive language has affected us as a nation; it's what drives talk radio (why Radio America fails). We need to move away from it. This is taken directly from KeegsMom above and I fully agree. My question is how do you push that realization forward? An earlier post spoke about payback, when governing becomes about payback, how does that benefit us as a nation? My gut feeling is that if we don't begin strong movement away from all this partisanship and labeling we are in for very, very difficult times as a nation. How do we take the field for civility and common sense again? I am honestly asking this question. we need to move forward, how do we get there. I know people in my personal life who are still just fighting the election and are still so angry but time hasn't stopped. for some of the people i know they are just continuing to relive the past 21 months. November 5th never arrived for them. My question is what now? For me i choose to support my president and my country. period.

I wonder -- to go back to my long dead, flogged horse -- if a third party for moderate conservatives would help that happen. It seems the far right has the loudest voice, the furthest reach... but it says something that it didn't gather the support needed this time around in order to keep the GOP at the top.

If a more moderate conservative voice were to arise, and strengthen, it seems the far right might lose some steam (at least for a while) ... and I think liberals and Dems of most stripes would appreciate the oppty to have real dialog with the other side of the aisle. I feel like that might get us somewhere. Maybe?

Great conversation here.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX