The unseemly rush to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and Republicans for murder in Arizona

The unseemly rush to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and Republicans for murder in Arizona

Toby Harnden
Telegraph.co.uk
January 9th, 2011

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, by all accounts an outstanding public servant and person, is battling for her life in hospital after being shot by a 22-year-old man at close range at a “Congress On Your Corner” event in her home district. Six people are dead, including a judge and a girl of nine, and a dozen others are being treated for their wounds.

It is, as President Barack Obama said, an “unspeakable tragedy”. It is also, as he added, “a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society”. That much we know and the President wisely did not seek to make political capital out of the carnage or jump to conclusions about the motivations of the gunman, named as Jared Loughner.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped some on the Left clamouring to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or Republicans in general for what happened.

Paul Krugman of the “New York Times” suggests darkly that Giffords was shot because she was “a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona” and “violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate” (those reponsible for such a climate being, of course, Republicans).

TBogg of FireDogLake wades straight in and blames Sarah Palin for the shooting because of a graphic of crosshairs placed on the districts of moderate Democrats who voted for healthcare reform. Was the Palin graphic clever? No. But martial imagery is standard political fare and, as Matt Lewis points out, there’s no shortage of Democrats who’ve engaged in it (VerumSerum has found a Democratic Leadership Committee target map).

Jane Fonda pins it on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party.

Even the local sheriff has been getting in on the act. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (a Democrat) said:

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

Well, we’ll see. Personally, I’d be more reassured by a sheriff who concentrated on facts rather than over-heated, sweeping generalisations.

So what are the facts we know so far? From what we know about Loughner, he was a deeply disturbed young man who railed about literacy rates, spoke of flag burning and creating a new currency.

Former classmates talk of “nonsensical outbursts” and a person “on his own planet”. His favourite reading apparently included “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto”. My colleague Jon Swaine has a summary here of the raving of a person who most people would judge to be a complete nutcase even if he hadn’t gone out and shot people.

Oh, and another former classmate said he was “left wing, quite liberal”. Naturally, this doesn’t stop Jacob Heilbrunn, pontificating that the shootings are evidence of that the “radical right is becoming even more radicalised and violent”.

Ben Smith sums up the current picture of Loughner pretty well:

The obsession with the gold standard and the hostility to the federal government resonate with the far right, the burned American flag with the left, but the discussion of mind control and grammar sound more like mental illness than politics.

This is highly inconvenient for certain people on the Left so they ignore it. They would much prefer the shooter to have been a white male in his 50s, the description the sheriff gave of a second person of interest (we’ll see if such a person materialises) but they’ll still try to make hay with a weirdo like Loughner.

Giffords herself doesn’t quite fit the likely victim of an enraged Right-winger. She is a Blue Dog Democrat, a deficit hawk and voted to lift the ban on guns in DC and voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. On Thursday, she took part in the reading of the Constitution in the House, reading aloud the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech and peaceful assembly.

She’s certainly not the “progressive” that Hanoi Jane tweeted about and provoked as much anger on the Left as on the Right for her political stances. Just the other day, a blogger at DailyKos said that Giffords was “dead to me” for failing to back Pelosi.

Plenty more will emerge in the coming days about Loughner’s motivations and those of any accomplice. It seems certain that the attempted assassination was politically motivated but in exactly what way is, at this stage, very murky.

This is a time for sombre reflection and a calming (rather than an escalation) of rhetoric. Sadly, however, some see it as another opportunity to score political points and vilify those they hate.

All these talking bloggers and TV heads need to STFU for a day or so till the investigation is complete.

You know my feelings on Sarah Palin but unless she pulled the trigger, or gave specific orders for somebody to do so, or encouraged Tea Party supporters to do so, this should be filed under "CRACKPOT THEORIES".

Someone brought up a good point yesterday on the Palin crosshairs issue. I actually never thought of it before but the guy was right on about it.......

Well, it has already started here. All the Sunday morning network TV political talk shows have been using the SarahPac graphic and been talking about the "rhetoric of the Tea Party" and "asking" if perhaps this was not at least partly responsible for yesterday's shooting.

It speaks to the sad state of our mainstream media outlets that they would make this leap before all the facts are known. Sadly, I cannot say I am surprised.

Remember the nut who went into the Discovery Channel’s headquarters last year and took hostages? The leftwing blogs immediately accused the man of being a tea partier. It turns out that the man was an environut.

Our country is in a bad place when political leaders start getting shot. This is a symptom of a much deeper problem.

I also forgot to add that the more the dumbass media does this, the more they drive people towards those they're trying to vilify. Any sane person wouldn't even give credence to the Palin shit. I just watched a video from CNN (taped yesterday) and it was full of that Palin crosshairs bullshit. I'm personally getting pretty sick and tired of it.

Another mistake the media is making is if it turns out this guy was indeed a leftist like some bloggers are saying he was. Then it's more egg on their faces for not covering ALL bases (again).

Am I sounding partisan? Yep. I have deep disdain for our major media in this country.

TexasBlue wrote:

Nah, I don't think so.

dblboggie wrote:Well, it has already started here. All the Sunday morning network TV political talk shows have been using the SarahPac graphic and been talking about the "rhetoric of the Tea Party" and "asking" if perhaps this was not at least partly responsible for yesterday's shooting.

It speaks to the sad state of our mainstream media outlets that they would make this leap before all the facts are known. Sadly, I cannot say I am surprised.

You've had 24 hours to justify this or correct it and you haven't done so.


mayhap last year's photos of armed-Tea Party-gunmen waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats.. or Mayhap some Americans started to believe some of those revolutionary speeches about taking back the government at one of other of those armed Washington marches to protect the American constitution and to stop Obama setting up his death panels to judge the American people.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

Nah, I don't think so.

Scroll down on the right side for principle point map symbol....
http://www.mapcenter.com/?section=usgs_map_symbols

cable2 wrote:You've had 24 hours to justify this or correct it and you haven't done so.

That's pretty sick to even suggest that. She is Blue Dog Democrat. Meaning that she was a conservatve on almost every important issue. Her only major left position was support of Obamacare. On immigration, she's a blue dog. She supports 2nd Amendment gun rights and opposed the ban on guns in DC. She is also a very strong supporter of border control.

In case you didn't know, the conservatives won in a big way last November. Winners don't shoot the opponents after winning.

The left hates her. The DailyKos put up a post on January 6 (which has now been pulled but screens have been taken) saying:

“My CongressWOMAN [Gabrielle Giffords] voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!”

No mention of THAT in the media.

cable2 wrote:mayhap last year's photos of armed-Tea Party-gunmen waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats.. or Mayhap some Americans started to believe some of those revolutionary speeches about taking back the government at one of other of those armed Washington marches to protect the American constitution and to stop Obama setting up his death panels to judge the American people.

There were no armed Tea Partiers waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats. You're making that up.

You seriously need to look at mainstream stuff.

cable2 wrote:You've had 24 hours to justify this or correct it and you haven't done so.

I hope you didn't mean it the way that sounded cable2.

I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself so please do so.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

Nah, I don't think so.

Scroll down on the right side for principle point map symbol....
http://www.mapcenter.com/?section=usgs_map_symbols

I am not saying the symbol you showed is not a surveyor's symbol.

I am saying the symbol on the map is not a surveyor's symbol, but a crosshairs.

Yes, they look identical, but the symbol on the map is intended to mean one thing or the other. You have your interpretation; I have mine. Both interpretations are consistent with what we see on the map. Your interpretation is certainly possible--as is mine. I believe yours is incorrect.

And I'll add, I think the target map is irresponsible and in poor taste.

Which is not to say that Mr. Loughner ever even SAW the ad, let alone acted on it. Though he may have, who knows? I have no clue about that, and it doesn't really affect my point here at all.

I assume (in good faith) that SarahPac wasn't urging anyone to shoot their representatives; the ad isn't crosshairs aren't meant to be taken literally. But is everyone capable of understanding that?

kronos wrote:I assume (in good faith) that SarahPac wasn't urging anyone to shoot their representatives; the ad isn't crosshairs aren't meant to be taken literally. But is everyone capable of understanding that?

Here's how I see it. when I first saw the ad last year (via the internet), I never even remotely thought of gun crosshairs. It never entered my mind. I'm sure with most people, it never did... even those who hate her.

I believe it came down to people trying to find something (and insinuate) something that wasn't intended to be there. That insinuation came from those who oppose her.

Bad taste? It's in the eye of the beholder.

TexasBlue wrote:
There were no armed Tea Partiers waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats. You're making that up.

You seriously need to look at mainstream stuff.

tea party arizona

Here's some pics from the Gilbert arizona tea parties. Note the armed status
of many of the protesters. The frightening aspect is that police presence
was limited to a single police officer for the gather of 300.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34337264@N06/3445152767/

cable2 wrote:tea party arizona

Here's some pics from the Gilbert arizona tea parties. Note the armed status
of many of the protesters. The frightening aspect is that police presence
was limited to a single police officer for the gather of 300.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34337264@N06/3445152767/

You said that there were armed Tea Partiers waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats. No Obama appearance there. Try again.

cable, explain your above comment or I will edit your post.

This is precisely why we need to have the other section remain open... We obviously still have a major problem in here. What cable said may have been out-of-line, but he had a point.

Okay, the main person to blame is the person who pulled the trigger. I think we all agree on that. But there has been so much rhetoric and BS flying around for the past two years that IMO, something like this was inevitable. As for who was doing the rhetoric, yeah both sides are guilty. But the most heated rhetoric, by far, came from the right. The crosshairs thing was meant to incite people, nothing more. Did it lead to yesterday's event? Not necessarily... But it didn't help. And what about those Obama appearances in 2009 where people came bearing arms? It may have been their "right" to do so, but it also sent one hell of a message. Until that kind of behavior ceases, I see more problems. People need to take responsibilty for their words and actions (and quit hiding behind the Constitution) and they just need to chill out!

i_luv_miley wrote:This is precisely why we need to have the other section remain open... We obviously still have a major problem in here. What cable said may have been out-of-line, but he had a point.

Okay, the main person to blame is the person who pulled the trigger. I think we all agree on that. But there has been so much rhetoric and BS flying around for the past two years that IMO, something like this was inevitable. As for who was doing the rhetoric, yeah both sides are guilty. But the most heated rhetoric, by far, came from the right. The crosshairs thing was meant to incite people, nothing more. Did it lead to yesterday's event? Not necessarily... But it didn't help. And what about those Obama appearances in 2009 where people came bearing arms? It may have been their "right" to do so, but it also sent one hell of a message. Until that kind of behavior ceases, I see more problems. People need to take responsibilty for their words and actions (and quit hiding behind the Constitution) and they just need to chill out!

We have ironed out our problem. You're the only one who keeps bring it up. Matt also agreed that we should delete that thread. It's been gone since yesterday afternoon. But it's still an open subforum.

Nobody is to blame but the shooter in this point in time. The FBI is handling the case and they will get to the bottom of it and very soon. They're good at that. Blaming or even remotely suggesting that any of the rhetoric from the right caused this is also very premature.

There were no Obama appearances where people had weapons. The Secret Service would NOT allow this to happen to start with.

TexasBlue wrote:There were no Obama appearances where people had weapons. The Secret Service would NOT allow this to happen to start with.

But there were... And that's precisely my point from above. Until people quit ignoring reality, they will see that there has been plenty of inciteful behavior over the past two years. Yeah, until yesterday they ended (generally) peacefully. But look at the town halls??? Those were contentious as hell - and people (literally) came to blows... And look at that park just outside of National Airport. There was a gathering (on April 19, I believe) where people brought firearms and listen to whoever... Why did they do that? And why did they pick that day? That kind of behavior is what needs to be adressed - and stopped! It doesn't matter the "cause" for the behavior. It has to stop. It serves no purpose other than to piss people off.

Gee I wonder why would anybody blame Sarah Palin for this?
Could it be because she came up with a poster that looks like this (with Gabby Giffords as a "target")



Comment deleted. That's instigating.

Admin

i_luv_miley wrote:But there were... And that's precisely my point from above. Until people quit ignoring reality, they will see that there has been plenty of inciteful behavior over the past two years. Yeah, until yesterday they ended (generally) peacefully. But look at the town halls??? Those were contentious as hell - and people (literally) came to blows... And look at that park just outside of National Airport. There was a gathering (on April 19, I believe) where people brought firearms and listen to whoever... Why did they do that? And why did they pick that day? That kind of behavior is what needs to be adressed - and stopped! It doesn't matter the "cause" for the behavior. It has to stop. It serves no purpose other than to piss people off.

Please provide documentation of Tea Partier's wielding weapons at an appearance by Obama.

You're going on with this 'inciteful behavior' ending peacefully till yesterday. You seem to have placed this guy into the Tea Party category already.

Let's address the behavior of these Tea Partiers also.

Townhalls? Never were no blows taken that I heard of. Contentious? Yep and with a good reason. When the representatives of this country ignore the majority of their constituents, they have a right to be pissed.

Find some stuff on April 19.

If people have the right to bear arms, then there's nothing anyone can do about it as long as these people are abiding by the law.

i_luv_miley wrote:What cable said may have been out-of-line, but he had a point.

No he did not. He said:

cable2 wrote:...the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

This guy was a complete unknown to anyone in the Tea Party, and there's not a single scrap of evidence to the contrary. His own YouTube sight had barely any views, and only 3 entries if I recall correctly. The guy is clearly mentally unwell and has been for years according to people who had contact with him.

And there were no town hall meetings that Obama attended that had armed citizens. Anyone with any familiarity of how Presidential appearances are set up know full well that the Secret Service would never allow such a thing to occur.

Cable's comments were completely out of line and had no basis in fact. THAT is the kind of stuff that we should all object to here. It is not productive to peddle pure fiction as "fact."

i_luv_miley wrote:Okay, the main person to blame is the person who pulled the trigger. I think we all agree on that. But there has been so much rhetoric and BS flying around for the past two years that IMO, something like this was inevitable. As for who was doing the rhetoric, yeah both sides are guilty. But the most heated rhetoric, by far, came from the right. The crosshairs thing was meant to incite people, nothing more. Did it lead to yesterday's event? Not necessarily... But it didn't help. And what about those Obama appearances in 2009 where people came bearing arms? It may have been their "right" to do so, but it also sent one hell of a message. Until that kind of behavior ceases, I see more problems. People need to take responsibilty for their words and actions (and quit hiding behind the Constitution) and they just need to chill out!

I disagree with this assessment. I can find plenty of very reprehensible rhetoric coming from the left - liberal pundits wishing the death of conservative people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas, Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Henry Hyde, Sen. Jesse Helms, Gary Bauer and the entire Cuban section of Miami. And that's just the rhetoric calling or wishing for the deaths of conservatives. That doesn't even begin to touch on the many examples of liberal pundits calling conservatives Nazi's, fascists, racists, anti-American, homophobes, and so very much more.

Both sides have plenty of heated rhetoric and to say one is more heated than another is not only untrue, it is not constructive to civil discourse.

This shooter was a nut case, for all we know he was getting his instructions from a dog. No one here knows what motivated this guy and we may never know. Unless this guy fesses up and tells authorities his motivation for this heinous act, all of this discourse is simply speculation - and I'd say it is speculation that serves absolutely no purpose and no good.

The mainstream media are behaving in an irresponsible manner in their coverage of this story in focusing so much attention on pure speculation that targets only one side of the political equation. This is not journalism, it is thinly veiled propaganda. We should not be "guessing" why this man acted - we should wait until the actual facts are out, then we can have a real and productive discourse.

Hey guys if you don't want this to happen again, we can do 1 of 2 ideas. Either

1: Ban guns of all kinds excepting those that belong to police or military (and they only are used during their time of service. Once their service is done, they give up the gun)
or
2: Get respectable and legitimate government officials that are not covered in corruption and blame game ideals.

Neither of that is going to happen.