Violence Against Dems 4 Supporting health care. Right Wing GOP says it is blameless

Following the passage of health care legislation there have been reports of attacks on over 10 Democrats. The FBI is investigating the incidents.

Meanwhile, the GOP, which argued against the legislation by inflaming the public with crazed claims that there would be death councils , that would turn the nation into communists and socialists, that kept claiming death camps, whose own Vice Presidential candidate made this claim, who was supported by other Right Wingers supporting this claim: What does the GOP do. They attack Dems, here: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/d...iticizing-and-fanning-the-flames-of-violence/ and in the attack knowingly lie http://trueslant.com/davidknowles/2010/03/26/police-cantors-office-wasnt-a-target-of-violence/.

Meanwhile the rabble rousing GOP leadership that supported the screaming atacks for death camps actually voted for, funded, and created huge debt causing health care legislation in 2003 wherein counseling to seniors was paid for by your tax money. The tax money isn't set off by any kind of reduction in government expenses. It was GOP legislation in 2003 that used your money, caused your debt, and counseled seniors about approaching old age and its consequences.

7 years later the rabble rousing GOP used this and other incendiary attacks on health care legislation sponsored by the Dems....raised the hate level clear across the land....violece is spreading and the GOP not only doesn't want to face the consequences...they attack Dems on this issue also.

Who are these GOP "leaders" in Congress and on the talk show circuit? Do they have an ounce of trustworthyness or maturity? Do they actually ever say anything that is honest and do they care a cr@p about anything but gaining power...damn the consequences.

 

I'm not sure about the threats, but a few of the slurs allegedly hurled at legislators on the day of passage turned out to be unfounded. I'm not saying the threats aren't real, but they are definitely being politicized in an effort to generate support for this very unpopular bill and marginalize those who oppose it as violent extremists. So in that spirit, have at it. You've got 10 months to wave your hands and make Americans forget about how this legislation got weaseled into place against the will of the American people, and how congress and the president took a victory lap to drive their point home.

Just so we have something to compare it to, I believe the last president to go against the will of the American people was president Bush when he went ahead with the Surge in Iraq, despite its unpopularity. Democrats certainly had no problem campaigning against it, and winning large majorities in both houses of congress, despite it's success.

 

Please don't try to make this issue seem like it's purely one-sided. Threats have been received by several Republicans as well, not just Democrats. Clearly posting one-sided info is meant to build up the anger against one side, which is what people are saying is happening to the Democrats. You can't claim you are being turned into a villan, then go and do the same.

Violence is wrong, no matter who it happnes to. It's sad really, that so few have to tarnish the reputations of who truly try to use the correct process to voice their opinions!

 

There were over 10 reports of attacks across the nation. The FBI is investigating. Some have already been verified. The politicization has been occurring for over a year. Republicans have slandered, lied, and made outrageous fear based claims for a solid year to drive people into an angry frenzy. The peak might have been the utterly false and nonsensical fear based claim of "death panels". Not only was it an hysterical claim made to drive people to anger, it was both utterly false and it missed the point that counseling to the sick and elderly, (which was the item that was twisted into "death panels" was an item included in the GOP health care legislation of 2003. That legislation established such counseling, paid for it with govt. funds, and of course didn't fund it.

Did any Republicans denounce the death panel fear based lies? I don't remember any. I do remember it being spread by Right Wing propogandists, including main stream Right Wing media. It took the lie and magnified it.

Cantor and Gingrich were quick and automatic to blame Dems for this circumstance. Do these guys have even an ounce of honesty? After a year of fanning the flames and provoking anger that has resulted in attacks now the GOP is blaming the Dems, the targets of the attacks. Do these guys have an ounce of seriousness in their bones. It looks like they don't care about anything, anyone; just gaining power.

 

Firegirl: Better document the claims from the GOP. Cantor went public to claim an attack, then said he wasn't going to be public about it, then the police investigated and said it wasn't anything of the sort. Then of course he blamed the Dems. The last year has been a vial attack on personalities and a rising storm of false claims and hysterics. The rising anger within the nation reminds me of the late 1960's and early 1970's. The GOP has fanned the flames of this anger. If violence escalates it will become a black mark on the methods of the GOP and drive ever more moderates from the party of the perpetually angry.

They should take responsibility. We will see. So far they haven't lifted a finger.

 

Oh please, its not a lie. Death panels exist today with our current insurance companies. They most definitely existed in the Govt. plan. Any organization which monitors its bottom line, which I'm assuming we would expect the govt. to do, would have to make judgement calls about how much end of life care qualifies as wasted efforts. The people opposed to this legislation are mostly opposed to it because it ignores a languishing economy and towering debt in favor of a new entitlement plan. The fact that it is a horrible bang for the buck is a purely secondary concern. If claiming that aliens would come down and take over the planet if it passes would have stopped it's passage, it would have been worth claiming.

I find it hard to believe you are that naive. Our president had the sack to get on TV and say that we needed to pass health care to spur economic growth. He might as well have said smoking helps fight cancer. He said whatever he had to to get a bill passed in the face of a population that polled in the 75th percentile saying economy was the number one issue, with health care coming in a distant second around 20%. At least the death panel story was based on reality.

Now why would you bring up the 8 years of Democrats making up stories about Bush?

Way off base on this one. There is a reason the Republican and Democrat enrollment numbers are languishing. People are declaring Independent, especially amongst the Tea Party "haters" as you describe them. There is nearly as much anger for the Republicans as there is for the Democrats amongst the Tea Party. How can the GOP be fanning the flames of an anger when the anger is directed at them?

Your post ignores the fact that Republicans have already publicly spoken out against the threats, real or imagined.

The question I'm left with is, if the Republicans are to blame for not speaking out enough before an incident happens, how much of the blame for said incident would the Democrats share after ramming legislation down the throats of the American people against their will? God knows the Democrats were more than happy to blame 9-11 on America's foreign policy initiatives. Its not a surprise really. The Democrats were never the party of personal responsibility. Another reason they are bought and paid for by the trial attorney's lobby. Like two peas in a pod.

 

The Republican party is nothing but the party of Slandering.....and when voted out of power pout and throw things at people. One can only guess the outcome to their misery when they awake from the midterms in even more perilous condition - what then their juvenile response will be?

 

Counseling seniors....used "your" money........I paid and am still paying for the give-away programs......after working 50...maybe I earned a little something......

@earlperl....maybe some day you will be lucky enough to get old.......

Who has the record of tax and spend?.......giving to those who either will not work or have learned to use the system.....and that is my tax money they are spending.....used to be called buying votes.....
And who the he** said it is OK to redistribute "my" wealth.....what little is left...to those who will not get off their lazy butts to "earn" an honest buck.....(little weak on some of my history but the names Marx and Lenin come to mind)
After 66 years I have seen just a tiny bit...and it makes me sick....

 

I'm glad to hear your prediction. I hope more people think like you. Obama has already shifted onto amnesty for Illegals, showing he is feeling his oats from getting health care through. Truly doing what it takes to bring about real change in Nov..

 

I can smell a "trow da bums out" in the breeze......

 

In the news...

This article talks about criticism for Palin for using crosshairs in a Facebook post, and for her statements regarding death panels. Here they are:

Palin's Facebook page that shows "gun sights" on districts.

Palin's Facebook page concerning "death panels."

I've read about the cross-hair and wanted to check it out myself on Palin's Facebook page, it looks fairly tame. In regards to the statements about "death panels", I would agree with certain Democrats who may believe they've been hyped out of proportion by those against the health care legislation. However, I don't believe those statements are in any form inciting violence, in fact, Palin explains exactly why she has these concerns on her Facebook page. Even if the GOP was intentionally spreading "crazed claims" about health care, in my opinion, none of these claims would be powerful enough to incite violence.

Especially for Democrats, do you think Palin is guilty of inciting dangerous behavior, as the Democratic National Committee has suggested?

 

Rebecca: The death panel attack was both an extraordinary lie and a tool to eliminate rattional discussion and turn it into an emotional fear campaign. It worked. It made people crazy with anger. The truth was lost. Emotions were crazed.

On the gun sights ad, people on the right were repelled ie Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who campaigned for Palin.

The Right Wing extremists dominate the Republican party. A prominent Right Wing thinker/Writer, David Frum, was just let go from a most prominant Right Wing Think Tank. His crime: He disagreed with the Core of the Right Wing. The Right Wing has taken over the GOP and turned it into a narrow exclusive extremist party that banishes dissent and promotes violence. Following his firing Frum commented that the GOP now works for Fox News and is not the network news source of the GOP as they acknowledged when Bush was in office.

The crazed Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are driving the Right Wing and what was once a political party, the GOP. Its a dangerous extremist group now using the same tactics as Nazis, Communist China, North Korea, and any tyranny. Dissent and you are out the door. Disagree and we'll bring violence on your person.

 

Thanks for your response EarlPearl ,

You may know more about the death panel issue, but at least here's how I see it.

Palin said...

"Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care."

Obama responded...

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.”

Palin countered it with...

"The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.”Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?”

***
Now, I won't go so far as to say that Palin's comments are what she sincerely believes. In actuality, I have no idea what she believes. It's hard to trust the sincerity of a politician, as they often have ulterior motives. However, her real/fake concerns don't seem completely out of line. Most importantly, they couldn't be considered as a call to violence. We have freedom of speech, and with this, we are constantly blasted with a variety of controversial statements and claims. Hearing how the government might kill granny to save on health care costs is just one of them. We are responsible to get additional information, watch the debates, and decide what the truth is. If someone were to be incited to violence by this, I'm sure they would have to already be a dangerous nut job.

Giving it more thought, I'll say the gun sight chart is kind of tasteless, especially right now, considering that 10 Democrats have been threatened. She could easily change it, as it's really not vital to her message, and she could find a different way to get her point across without that kind of imagery. I think she should. However, while it may be tasteless, it's certainly not a call to violence, and within limits of freedom of speech.

I'm not really here to try to defend the Republican party, I'll agree though, the party does seem to have become more radical, especially since Obama took office. It was mainly this, that was the concern, "Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine released a sharply-worded statement Wednesday night accusing several Republican leaders, including Palin, of inciting dangerous behavior." Since, at least, in my mind, I don't see any compelling evidence for this specific allegation. I'm just wondering, do you know of any stronger examples of Republican politician or leaders that are directly calling for violence?

 

Rebecca: She first used it in a speech. The speech was full of anger inducing emotionalism. It was then repeated in attacks in town hall meetings again full of anger and vitriol. Nobody full of anger cited the written Facebook piece. All the anger was driven by the Palin speech and use of "death panel" verbiage.

The facebook response is entirely different in context than the emotionally driven speeches that incited people. Its written in a reasonable context with quotes and counter quotes. The facebook writing is the kind of thing people debate without driving emotions to a fevered pitch. The speech and subsequent speeches by her and others grab peoples emotions. They all drove to a higher fevered pitch of anger.

Other Rightist politicians defended and promoted the same idea. Here is the irony and the political lie. The GOP sponsored drug and health care bill of 2003 established way higher govt. paid for health care costs, didn't fund them so they add to debt, and here is the irony...they sponsored the medical consultationsthat the GOP attacked in emotional anger driven speeches in 2009.

The evidence in the provocative nature of the speeches came from the reactions around the nation following the speech. Nobody was seething with anger at a townhall meeting with this kind of response to the Facebook page....."Obama said this...I countered with this....Here is the housebill ###letter letter...blah blah blah...that provides for voluntary health care consultations. etc etc.

There is a big difference in context with a speech that pulls out fear inducing phrases like Death panel and a written piece citing a bill and the formal language of consultations.

Ha, first make a speech laden with incendiary comments that works....then write (or have someone else research and write) a piece that never uses the incendiary comments. Sort of slick. Great way to grease/slick your way out of the anger inducing speech that started the controversy.


yeah, the GOP has increased its vitriol since Obama came into office. Maybe its all about not having power anymore. Maybe that is all they care about, gaining power, and damn the consequences.

I haven't seen any GOP leaders calling for violence. On the other hand I have seen GOP leaders encouraging the emotional anger in countless ways and times. No doubt the elected official that specifically calls for violence is out the door mighty quick. There are a lot of slick ways though to incite anger...and then worm/slick your way out of it. In fact Palin's facebook writings are a prime example.

 

Earlpearl, you have one thing right here. People are angry. I'm personally no Palin fan, and I'm angry.

I can appreciate that Democrats are trying to get control of the narrative in America, and right now, that means spinning the source of American anger to be racism and promotion of violence by people like Palin. While I can appreciate it, it also is one of the things that pisses me off. After 8 years of Democrats explaining to us why Bush was the second cousin of Satan, and how he destroyed our civil liberties in the name of liberty, and how he profiteered from the killing of innocent Iraqis, people are angry. Was that hate mongering? I don't know. Maybe the Dems just wanted power back. Maybe it was a stand on principal. Whatever it was, it worked. The American people were so pissed off by the time Obama took office, Bush's approval was in the low 30s, with Congress no better. People voted for change.

What we got was a guy who changed almost nothing that the swing voters cared about, INCLUDING the issues the Democrats complained about. Patriot act? Obama just put it back in place with some additional invasions of our privacy. Spending cuts, balanced budget, and fiscal responsibility? 800 billion dollar stimulus, multi-trillion dollar unfunded health care initiative, and an increase on the limit on how much the federal government can borrow. All this at a time where most Americans are more concerned about their jobs, their houses, their livelihoods, and being able to put food on the table than at any time in memorable history.

Yes, people are pissed off. They have been getting more and more pissed off since 2002, with a lot of help from the Democratic party. The only thing more irritating than the Democrats taking power and doing exactly the thing they campaigned against, is having them "Sell" it to us. The president tried to sell the idea that the health care bill was absolutely necessary to fix the economy. You are trying to sell us on the idea that American outrage all comes from fear mongering and Sarah Palin's use of the words "Death Panel". These arguments only serve to piss people off even more, because they basically say, "You are so stupid, I could tell you black is white, and you'll buy it". I literally laughed out loud when the president said the anger at the health care initiative was his failure to explain it correctly. I think after a year, people understand the significance of the bill.

In that spirit, I would like to encourage more posts like yours that explain to us how this is all somehow the fault of the Republican party. How this is all somehow hate mongering by Sarah Palin. How we will "grow to like" the new health care legislation, cap and trade, or any of the president's new spending laden legislation that isn't focused on jobs or smaller government. I welcome your posts, just like I welcomed Zibblu's(though you are certainly more sane than Zibblu), because they only add fuel to the fire and the bigger the fire, the more "change" we will see this November. I'm a pretty skeptical person, but I would say that, if you can make the fire big enough, the people voted into office this November in replacement of the incumbent Democrats can be made to do their job. That would be change I could believe in. The first order of business should be a two term limit for Senators, and two or three terms for house members.

 

The Democratic National Committee accusing Palin of inciting dangerous behavior (possibly inciting violence) just touched a nerve in my case. If they want to accuse someone that has not even made a threat of violence, or encouraged others to commit violence, they could say that any heated debate or speech that could possibly cause anger is dangerous behavior, inciting violence, and a threat to society. I think it's just a desperate tactic to marginalize and intimidate Palin, which will most likely backfire, since it will probably make her seem that much more interesting.

Agreed.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Funny. LOL.

"Coverage of certain physician's services for certain terminally ill individuals would be authorized. Persons entitled to these services would be individuals who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician's services. Covered services would be those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. Services would include evaluating the individual's need for pain and symptom management, counseling the individual with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the individual regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services would equal the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2004."

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...h&refer=&r_n=hr391.108&item=&sel=TOC_2103579&

When you read Palin's Facebook writings did it incite you to anger? LOL, j/k

You've probably seen this?

Fire Nancy Pelosi

 

Rebecca: My last reference to Palin was how the facebook piece was a way to slide through the initial provocative statement with a 2nd piece that was reasoned. Fair game. The facebook piece wasn't emotional...in fact like a lot of stuff full of citations, it was sort of boring, mind numbing. There is a big difference between using an incendiary phrase and publishing a piece full of citations and engaging in a reasonable sounding civilized debate.

Currently there is a rising tide of violence and anger. Its happening right now. A maniac was arrested for threatening Eric Cantor, the VA GOP congressman. Cantor, who upon hearing about the publicity around 10 Dems facing threats that are being investigated by the FBI, immediately blasted it as a publicity stunt and politicizing the issue. What is politicizing about incidents that include death threats. He got one.

The immediate single Dem comment I saw was that the person who threatened Cantor was condemned. Good. The maniac should be condemned.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way is that the GOP avoids any responsibility for increasing the anger level.

Take responsibility. Acknowledge the problems. Act like an adult. Upon hearing of the threats and actions against the Dems, House GOP leader Boehner immediately condemned it. He didn't play a game. He didn't blame the Dems, as some in his party did. He just condemned it.

Good move.

You like rising levels of anger and violence? Move to Lebanon. That once beautiful nation is a disaster after about 25 years of on again off again civil war. You like provocative elections? Move to Iraq. Post this last election one side and the other is busy bombing and killing one another.

I just saw where Karl Rove was driven from a paid book signing by radical lefties. Can't say that It didn't make me feel good as I'm definitely not a Rove fan....but the authorities at least restrained if not arrested the protesters. Probably appropriate. If they were arrested, I'm not complaining.

Okay, here is one of those events from my deep memory bank. Around the time of the Vietnam war when anger between different sides of Americans was at a feverish pitch, people from the left were killing Americans, and the authorities were killing American protestors....here is an incident I saw:

A guy representing the govt, possibly the military, or some type of Rightist oriented institution was speaking at a college auditorium. The audience was definitely not on his side. When he finished his talk, some guy went up to a mike to get in the first question. I still remember the first question...which was something like this.....

"When the revolution comes, Man, do you want to be broiled or baked?" Whoa....don't know about the rest of the people there, but that one stunned me.

The guy at the mike (who was definitely presenting a point of view that the crowd/audience didn't agree with or like) responded with something like this.....

"Sir, its people like you who make people like me look good"

Whoa again. Man did that speaker handle that heckler. The speaker got applause for that response, even from a crowd that didn't agree with him at all.

That was a long time ago. I still remember it. It defused a lot of anger. Frankly that is a great skill. Ultimately it saves a lot of lives, pain, and craziness.

 

Good post Earlpearl. Surprisingly, I agree with nearly all of it. In fairness to Mr. Cantor, not only was his life threatened, a few weeks back his office window was hit by a "stray" bullet. Funny how the media spins up an alleged racial slur against a black member of congress, yet we hear almost nothing about gunshots aimed at the office of house Republicans.

Anyway, polarization is the name of the game when one side takes actions the other vehemently opposes. As I mentioned earlier, we got 7 years of it for Bush. We got a decade of it for the Vietnam war. Now, for a change, it is the right protesting what they perceive as gross negligence with our nation's financial future. They see almost every last Obama agenda item as much further left of center than they care for this nation to go. They see bigger government. They'll stop whining when the hurt stops.

I'll grant you there are nut jobs that come from all political creeds. If someone threatened a congressional candidate, or spat at one, or used a racial slur, it certainly doesn't represent the desired approach by those expressing their dislike for Obama's policies. I have friends who have been to many of the Tea party events. They are mostly small business owners. The description that invariably comes back of these events is of well mannered middle class Americans. All this talk about racism, and bad behavior is a matter of what the media has chosen to focus on. Fine. Focus on it. Just be sure to remember that middle class people who operate businesses are not normally political activists. They don't normally take time out of their day to organize and march on Washington. What we are witnessing is something I have never seen in my lifetime, and it should send a very alarming message. to Washington. These people are EXTREMELY pissed off at the way this country is being ran and they are not going to go back to their day jobs until things change. Given Obama's choice to rub everyone's nose in his pet entitlement, I'd say he just cranked the anger level up a few orders of magnitude.

It will be interesting to watch the whole thing play out. As I said, these people have never organized politically before. The disorder, mixed messages, and lack of clear leadership make it clear they are new to the game. After watching Teddy Kennedy's seat go to a Republican, or a third party candidate nearly win the NY23 election, based almost entirely on Tea Party support, they clearly have some weight to throw around.

Win or loose, just watching Harry Reid squirm for his political life is worth the price of admission. Barbara Boxer even more so. It would be awesome to see some huge portion of the entrenched incumbents loose their seats this Nov., John McCain included. They may not want to vote in term limits for themselves, but we can keep voting them out until they do. Fix that, and gerrymandering, and you'd have a much more representative government.

 

EarlPearl, that was a wonderful post. I enjoyed your stories, especially the one about the heckler. "Sir, its people like you who make people like me look good" was a clever remark for such a tense situation.

In regards to the GOP avoiding any responsibility for increasing anger...

You probably won't see them take responsibility for increasing anger, but certainly they would condemn any acts of violence. To an extent, I'm sure they want the public to be outraged. It's a way to make them get off the couch, get involved, or at least bother to vote. Being angry isn't always a bad thing, it's just how you channel that energy. Persuading the public with emotional speech is not unique to Republicans, as Democrats do it all the time. As you'll probably agree, we need to continue speaking on political issues of importance, even ones that may make people angry, they just need to be very careful to focus it in a positive way. The GOP should be very outspoken as well with unequivocal statements that indicate a complete rejection of any violence. It's hard for me to imagine anyone getting violent over a political speech. Don't you think that they would already have to be severely mentally ill to become violent?

Our politicians could "Take responsibility. Acknowledge the problems. Act like an adult."

That's great advice. So, when are you running for office?

 

Obamanation: Your line I bolded is a great example of inappropriate and totally false Right Wing propaganda.

One: the report identified 10 Dems who suffered threats which were investigated by the by the FBI. These threats were considered serious.
Two: The police investigated the gunshot that went through a window in Cantor's district office. They identified it as a stray bullet shot in the air. The report identified that it was ABSOLUTELY not aimed. Your line is dramatically false.

Subsequently, Cantor, the Va. Republican, who raised the level of provocative anger, by attacking the victems (the Dems) and claiming they were politicizing the issue. They were victems. The attacks were being investigated. Instead of strongly speaking out against the violence, threats and rising anger, Cantor raised the anger level with attack. Ironically, subsequent to all that, a known nut case, who has placed threatening statements on his website against Obama and other Dems made a terrible web attack on Cantor. The guy is being investigated if not already arrested. Dems immediately identified the threatening guy as reprehensible. Cantor, who had previously further fanned the flames of anger after attacking Dems, who had been threatened, has now kept his big yap shut, subsequent to being the target of an attack.

Ironic, isn't it? He who acts like a big mouth provocateur turns surprisingly silent, when the rising anger he helps provoke turns against him.