Giffords had history with Palin, Tea Party

[foxpaws]

Drinking the Kool-Aid Cal ? From The Atlantic....

Tea Party Group Blames 'Leftist' for Giffords Shooting

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement.

TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains.

"The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this," he wrote. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to "blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh" and "The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term."

"The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words," he wrote.​

 

[foxpaws]

To address an earlier point you made, dismissing the Tweets, saying that YOU could post on Twitter anything you'd like and it would be equally as valid.

The Phoenix Times has confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College. So any claim she makes about knowing Loughner are plausible, unlike your claim to have slept with him.

Plausible - but as evidence - no Cal... you might want to bone-up on hearsay....

We can speculate what the appeal of the other books may have been. Perhaps he associated something in Orwell's work with his conspiracy's associated with mind control and language. Orwell was a socialist as well. Maybe he embraced Rand's first book because of it's association with Communist Russia and he misunderstood it? More likely, he only read quotes from the book and misunderstood it. However, this conversation is completely speculative and probably of little use or interest.

Yes, discussing what he may, or may not have read - is certainly of little use... He easily could have put Marx on his list as a definition of what 'not' to do - his including Animal Farm could point to that.... He could have been a white supremacist... Mein Kampf is used by those groups a lot.... Hitler hated Communism... maybe you should address that. 3 books against Communism...


His wild swings of reading (or at least the list of 'favs') conclude nothing...

Other than perhaps he was nuts.

However, in this case they captured him alive. Rare in this sort of crime. A lot will be coming out about Jared in the coming weeks and months - I think I will wait for that, before jumping to conclusions about what he listed as favorite books...

 

[04SCTLS]

Tucson shooting marks turning point for Sarah Palin
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47351.html

With a long list of enemies, a taste for incendiary rhetoric and responsibility for a campaign website graphic that placed gun-sight logos on a map of targeted congressional districts, it didn’t take long for Sarah Palin to get pulled into the orbit of Saturday’s massacre in Tucson, Ariz.
So far, the former Alaska governor has said little, posting only a brief message on her Facebook page Saturday offering condolences to those affected by the shootings. But the rush on the left to affix some of the blame on her for the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has suddenly turned the tragedy into a defining moment in Palin’s meteoric political career.

Whether she defends, explains or even responds at all to the intense criticism of her brand of confrontational politics could well determine her trajectory on the national scene — and it’s likely to reveal the scope of her ambitions as well.

Palin didn’t respond to an e-mail Sunday afternoon. Her advisers are furious that she’s being linked to the tragedy but recognize the delicacy of the situation and are trying to assess how best to halt it from spiraling further without making it any worse.

Part of Palin’s quandary is rooted in the unique spot she occupies. Since her resignation from the governorship in the summer of 2009, Palin has played a role that is part talk show personality and part political figure. It’s a positioning that has served her well, creating personal wealth and celebrity appeal while energizing her core supporters.​

But now, for the first time, Palin is being forced to choose between the public and private spheres she operates in. If she has any intentions of running for the presidency, she must begin to appeal to the country’s broad political center. And in the wake of Tucson, that task just got harder.

The other option is to simply remain in the private sector, where she can continue to issue the envelope-pushing jeremiads and employ the overheated rhetoric that appeals to her loyal base, sells her books, draws TV viewers and makes her irresistible to a sound-bite-hungry media.
Either way, she’ll have to show her hand, signaling whether she wants to be Ronald Reagan or Rush Limbaugh.​

Palin’s allies point out the unfairness of the situation, one that may force her to respond to a tragic event in which there is so far no evidence that deranged shooter Jared Lee Loughner ever even mentioned Palin’s name, let alone found inspiration from her “targeting” of Giffords.

After all, they say, numerous Democrats have used targeting and bull’s-eye imagery in the past. And many Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have also used incendiary and provocative language on the campaign trail. The president himself, Palin defenders have noted, said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” ​

Complicating Palin’s predicament, Giffords herself had specifically warned about the potential impact of Palin’s cross hairs graphics after she made the governor’s list.

“When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action,” she said on MSNBC in a March interview about what she called “Sarah Palin’s targeted list.”​

The skeletal organization surrounding the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee hasn’t helped quell the controversy.

Adviser Rebecca Mansour sparked only more attention to the former governor when she made the case Saturday to talk radio host Tammy Bruce that the cross hairs were actually something different.​

“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights,” said Mansour. “It was simply cross hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
But Palin herself, however, had in the past tweeted about the map in questions and referred to the targets as “bulls eye.”
Democrats have been more than willing to pile on.
“The phrase ‘Don’t retreat; reload,’ putting cross hairs on congressional districts as targets — these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday.
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Penn.), a streetwise Philly pol, went further, telling CNN that he would introduce legislation making it a federal crime “to use a language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.
“You can’t put bulls eyes or cross hairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” Brady said, adding, “I understand this website that had it on there is no longer in existence. Someone is feeling a little guilty.
”
The mere fact that Palin, who isn’t one to hold back in the face of such a sustained attack, hasn’t yet responded to any of the criticism suggests she understands the high stakes of the situation and the choices in front of her. Still, once the Tucson tragedy begins to fade from view, the same incentives for bombast and scorched-earth rhetoric are likely to return.
“The fact is that politicians say these things because they work,” said Republican consultant Todd Harris. “The public, or at least segments of the public on the right and the left, respond to it. It raises money and builds organization.” ​

​

​

______________________________________________________________​

Annie Oakley get your gun.

Palin's first real test as a leader.
Gifford specifically criticised Palin for putting her in gun crosshairs
and now here we are.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Calabrio]

Plausible - but as evidence - no Cal... you might want to bone-up on hearsay....

While inadmissible in a court of law, when it's noted that the information came in the form of a Tweet shortly after the violence, it is reasonable to considered it when information is scarce. Particularly when politicians and the media are actively trying to frame this as an act of partisan Republican violence despite absolutely NO evidence to support it. If you chose to dismiss the tweets, go right ahead.

Yes, discussing what he may, or may not have read - is certainly of little use...

...but you're going to do so just the same....
There were other books on the list that you didn't mention either. Why? Because it's pointless and I gave an explanation why.

To quote his page, I'm going to add the emphasis because I think iit supports my point that his list was conscious that it was to be reviewed and analyzed by the public AFTER his actions.:

Books: I had favorite books:
Animal Farm, Brave New World,The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables,The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan,To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living,Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp, Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.”

Or maybe the past tense denotes that he doesn't like books anymore. Maybe it's a grammar issue? I don't know. But I suspect that every book on that list is making a point. Some more clearly than others.

He easily could have put Marx on his list as a definition of what 'not' to do -

No, I don't think so.

He could have been a white supremacist... Mein Kampf is used by those groups a lot....

Maybe. While reports indicate that he wasn't religious, other reports say that his mother was Jewish. He could have been a self-hating Jew. Marx was.

So, did he put those books on his list to upset people and rattle them, or because he embraced them? I don't know.

I stated earlier, a point that you seem to have ignored and fixated on the "lunatic left" comment, (the lunatic designation specifically intended to distinguish it from anything remotely mainstream that anyone here may identify with) that ascribe coherent political philosophy to anything this madman did is a mistake. To ascribe partisan motivation to him is wrong. This person most likely acted as an individual, motivated by his psychosis.

Any emphasis on his "leftism" by me is NOT to smear the left. I have stated, repeatedly, that I don't think he was triggered by partisan rhetoric, I don't think he's part of a broader organization, nor do I think he acted based on rational reason. Any mention of his "leftism" is to more clearly distinguish the fact the he's not a conservative or a libertarian or a "right winger" and respond to the political and media image that is being advanced.

Hitler hated Communism... maybe you should address that. 3 books against Communism...

I don't feel like playing the name game with you again. Another time, another thread.

However, in this case they captured him alive. Rare in this sort of crime. A lot will be coming out about Jared in the coming weeks and months - I think I will wait for that, before jumping to conclusions about what he listed as favorite books...

Then perhaps you should spend more time using your verbal virtuosity to tell your political friends to back off this story and stop exploiting it for political gain. That they shouldn't be linking it to Palin, or talk radio, Tea Party's, or use it to limit free speech and increase hand gun laws. That they should settle down, mourn the dead, and let the investigation proceed.

It is curious, why did we have to wait before we identify a domestic terrorist as a Muslim, but within minutes of a random shooting, the media and political class can wildly blame it on the Tea Party? Why are they ready to pull out that narrative so quickly and confidently? Within minutes of the shooting, the political attacks and narrative was wildly repeated through the MSM and legislation is moving to restrict gun rights.

But let's end this in agreement.

The shooter is psychotic. He's even been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The actions he took were as an individual. He was not responding to the prompting of any mainstream political movement or voices, be it Sarah Palin or Ed Schultz.

He absolutely has no association with Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Conservative or Libertarian Republicans, or conservative talk radio and blaming or associating them with the action is reckless and vile.

His actions were not directed at a Democrat because he's a Republican.

The personal philosophy of the shooter is most likely inconsistent with any single mainstream belief system. Most likely it's a mish-mash of isolated views from a wide number of sources that may or may not even resemble what the initial authors or philosophers intended.

And that any politician who is going out before the camera today attribute this event with conservative voices is a vile, opportunistic, and despicable and should be condemned. To use this incident to limit freedom is obscene.

You have their ears, so it's up to you to police them from the inside, foxpaws.
Personally, I think that using this shooting as a means of passing laws, isolating and dividing people, and trying to win political favor is reckless and dangerous, possibly resulting in greater tension and possible violence in the future.

 

[dnehthend]

guy is a nut job

problem his him, not the radio or media

got that out in two sentences, amazing, amirite?

 

[Calabrio]

guy is a nut job

problem his him, not the radio or media

got that out in two sentences, amazing, amirite?

Yes. But you don't have any ulterior motive.
Apparently, the political class and the media do.

 

[04SCTLS]

Facebook (Sarah's soapbox) bites back:

Facebook executive Randi Zuckerberg said many people on the social networking site are asking whether Sarah Palin is to blame.

According to Zuckerberg that is the #1 question on the social network behemoth following the Tucson shooting.

"Hey, Sarah Palin, hows that hatey, killy, reloady, crosshairsy thing working out for ya?"

The public has already made what to it is an obvious conclusion about this and even defending herself by talking about it pushes Palin further into the bog.

Responding in any way is construed by many as an admission of some culpability.
Not responding allows your opponents to define you.
No other conservatives have been dragged into this.
With negatives of over 50% it's all eyes on Annie Oakley Palin in this lose lose situation for her and her style.

 

[foxpaws]

Animal Farm, Brave New World,The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables,The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan,To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living,Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp, Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.”

Two Lewis Carroll books, along with other children's books (what I see first - as a 'pattern') - a pedophile perhaps? No- someone who is just 22 and really disturbed.

I stated earlier, a point that you seem to have ignored and fixated on the "lunatic left" comment, (the lunatic designation specifically intended to distinguish it from anything remotely mainstream that anyone here may identify with) that ascribe coherent political philosophy to anything this madman did is a mistake. To ascribe partisan motivation to him is wrong. This person most likely acted as an individual, motivated by his psychosis.

To ascribe partisan motivation is wrong Cal - that is why I called out you when you ascertained that the shooter subscribed to lunatic leftist conspiracies. You assigned a 'side,' I didn't.

Any emphasis on his "leftism" by me is NOT to smear the left.

Really - well, your history on this site would cause me to expect otherwise.

Any mention of his "leftism" is to more clearly distinguish the fact the he's not a conservative or a libertarian or a "right winger" and respond to the political and media image that is being advanced.

Once again - how do you know this - he could be an anarchist - and no where near left.... Cal - you use the 'leftism' terms to make sure we associate this killer with the left, because obviously he isn't 'conservative' or a 'ibertarian' or a 'right winger' (see - you have done it again - since he isn't right - he must be left) - you need to leave all of that at the door - he is nuts, period, for the time being.

Then perhaps you should spend more time using your verbal virtuosity to tell your political friends to back off this story and stop exploiting it for political gain. That they shouldn't be linking it to Palin, or talk radio, Tea Party's, or use it to limit free speech and increase hand gun laws. That they should settle down, mourn the dead, and let the investigation proceed.

Well, they don't always listen... However, perhaps you too should back off doing what the Tea Party elite is dictating....

The shooter is psychotic. He's even been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The actions he took were as an individual. He was not responding to the prompting of any mainstream political movement or voices, be it Sarah Palin or Ed Schultz.

I agree Cal - and I have never in this thread linked his actions to either side of the political spectrum, unlike you. It would have been easy for you to state that this looked like the action of some individual, perhaps taking his cue from lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - but you had to add the qualifier 'left'... You decry adding a 'political' tone to this, and yet, you do it yourself.

You have their ears, so it's up to you to police them from the inside, foxpaws.
Personally, I think that using this shooting as a means of passing laws, isolating and dividing people, and trying to win political favor is reckless and dangerous, possibly resulting in greater tension and possible violence in the future.

Well, not so much any more Cal - Politics is a fickle place.

However, as a hypothetical 'what if' Jared comes out and said that he was inspired by political rhetoric - it may happen at some point, perhaps not in this instance, but one further down the line.

 

[dnehthend]

.

 

[shagdrum]

A tragedy is also an opportunity like Rahm Emanuel said.

So, because one man tied to a very specific political agenda said this, your projection of hyperbolic speculation onto entire points of view and different people is justified?!

This is absurd and you know it. However, your irrational and vitriolic hatred of Palin is showing through quite well...

 

[shagdrum]

To ascribe partisan motivation is wrong Cal - that is why I called out you when you ascertained that the shooter subscribed to lunatic leftist conspiracies. You assigned a 'side,' I didn't.



Really - well, your history on this site would cause me to expect otherwise.


Once again - how do you know this - he could be an anarchist - and no where near left.... Cal - you use the 'leftism' terms to make sure we associate this killer with the left, because obviously he isn't 'conservative' or a 'ibertarian' or a 'right winger' (see - you have done it again - since he isn't right - he must be left) - you need to leave all of that at the door - he is nuts, period, for the time being.

Foxy, why are you so determined to distort what Cal said?

 

[shagdrum]

Instead of offering her condolences Palin should apologize for painting gun sights on 20 democratic politicians on her website.
Or maybe she can say in that chirpy bubbleheaded style of hers

"Opps! I wasn't expecting someone to actually shoot any of them, by golly gosh darn it!"

lock and load

From the Democratic Leadership Committee website:

I can come up with a lot more.

It is hardly coincidental that you say something about this only when it is directed against Palin.

Please, spare us your disingenuous hand wringing as well as your transparent and opportunistic agitation and Palin bashing.

If you are going to condemn people for inspiring and perpetuating vitriol, look in the mirror first.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, why are you so determined to distort what Cal said?

no distortion - he vilified using political labels, and then proceeded to use them himself - I showed where he didn't need to - he could of called it 'lunatic fringe' however, he needed to label it as 'left'.

Why? It was uncalled for, unnecessary, and went against his own admonishments...

 

[shagdrum]

no distortion - he vilified using political labels, and then proceeded to use them himself

No, he didn't and you know it.

He "vilified" opportunistically distorting and co opting a news story, regardless of the facts and context of the story, to falsely brand and marginalize political opposition. He did not "vilify using political labels" as you claim.

Of course, your reaction was to opportunistically distort and co opt his argument, regardless of the facts and context of the argument, to falsely brand and marginalize a political opponent.

 

[foxpaws]

No, he didn't and you know it.

He "vilified" opportunistically distorting and co opting a news story, regardless of the facts and context of the story, to falsely brand and marginalize political opposition. He did not "vilify using political labels" as you claim.

Of course, your reaction was to opportunistically distort and co opt his argument, regardless of the facts and context of the argument, to falsely brand and marginalize a political opponent.

Cal's quote

You mental case who has embraced the radical conspiracies of the lunatic left fringe and fixated on particularly odd things. ​

Why add 'left' - unless to vilify. Cal hasn't even answered what 'lunatic left fringe' radical conspiracies that Loughner embraced. There have been no 'facts' brought forward that justifies Cal using 'left' with regards to this.

If you are going to create an argument against using these labels within this context, you had better be sure not to use those same labels, unless you have real, concrete facts to back you up. Cal used the label - demonizing - with no fact to back up his comment.

 

[shagdrum]

It is very interesting how the left inspires contempt and hatred to combat those who "inspire hatred".

Kinda like their cries for more civil discourse from those "homophobic, racist, gun-clinging teabaggers".

 

[foxpaws]

So, Cal is on the same level as those quotes you have pulled - correct Shag - if those are wrong - so is Cal.

I have dozens that I can show you from the other side - why are you bringing these into this discussion?

 

[shagdrum]

Cal's quote

You mental case who has embraced the radical conspiracies of the lunatic left fringe and fixated on particularly odd things. ​

Why add 'left' - unless to vilify.

How about to highlight the truth (something we all know you don't care about).

Of course, he made sure to point out that it was the fringe left, but it is convenient to overlook that fact...

This demonization by the left is nothing short of an attempt to brand mainstream conservatism, Palin and the Tea Party as "violent" "unstable", etc.

Cal hasn't even answered what 'lunatic left fringe' radical conspiracies that Loughner embraced. There have been no 'facts' brought forward that justifies Cal using 'left' with regards to this.

Here's one.

If you are going to create an argument against using these labels within this context, you had better be sure not to use those same labels, unless you have real, concrete facts to back you up. Cal used the label - demonizing - with no fact to back up his comment.

NO ONE has CREATED ANY argument against "using labels". The only argument about "labels" has been your attempts to distort Cal's argument.

The argument has been one of pointing out dishonest attempts to brand by taking tragic events out of context and distorting them to fit a false narrative to brand and politicize.

 

[shagdrum]

So, Cal is on the same level as those quotes you have pulled - correct Shag - if those are wrong - so is Cal.

Again, you are desperate to falsely brand Cal. Truth be damned!

 

[foxpaws]

How about to highlight the truth (something we all know you don't care about).

Of course, he made sure to point out that it was the fringe.

This demonization by the left is nothing short of an attempt to brand mainstream conservatism, Palin and the Tea Party as "violent" "unstable", etc.

And Cal demonizes the left - when there isn't any need to

Here's one.

Maybe you and Cal can work together to scrape up some left wing conspiracy theories that Loughner's embraced... However I doubt that many will agree with Jim Lindgren's 'ideas' are 'fact'.

In fact Lindgren states within your link....

If the people doing the finger pointing begin to realize that Loughner was more probably a mentally deranged left winger than a mentally deranged right winger.​

He too feels this compulsion to label... why? Nothing at this point would require this type of labeling - the left doing it is wrong - but the other side of the coin is also wrong. Why not leave it with 'mentally deranged'? Why not leave it with 'lunatic fringe'?

NO ONE has CREATED ANY argument against "using labels". The only argument about "labels" has been your attempts to distort Cal's argument.

The argument has been one of pointing out dishonest attempts to brand by taking tragic events out of context and distorting them to fit a false narrative to brand and politicize.

Cal's first response...

Stop it.
A lunatic went on a killing spree and opened fire on his Congress person and then a crowd of people.
Do not make this a partisan issue.
Do not politicize it like this.​

Cal created a partisan atmosphere with his subsequent statements....

If you create the rules - how about living by them?

 

[shagdrum]

Progressives live in the past when it comes to shaping the message

Some Democrats, either more honest or loose-lipped than others, have explicitly stated that, in making anti-Tea Party and anti-Palin statements about the Tucson shooting, they are attempting to replicate the stunning success they had with shaping the spin following the Oklahoma City bombing, back in 1995:

One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did. “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”​

Indeed, whole articles are now being written about Obama looking to the Oklahoma City bombing as an inspiration to reshape his ability to control the political agenda in this nation. It is Obama’s 9/11 (and the Dems don’t mean that in a tragic way, they mean that in a politically opportunistic way).

I have mentioned before, haven’t I, that a defining characteristics of Progressives is that they live in the past?

Progressives live in the past when it comes to abortion, because they resolutely refuse to recognize that the stigma of unwed motherhood is gone and that remarkably effective birth control is here instead. They live in the past when it comes to war, because, for them, all wars are the Vietnam War. They live in the past when it comes to socialism, because they’re locked in a 1930s world that refuses to recognize the unparalleled carnage the socialism has wrought, whether by the National Socialists, i.e., Nazis (20 million dead, including 6 million in the gas chambers); the Soviets (tens of millions around the world, including approximately 20 million in the Ukraine and other rural areas); the ChiComs (50-100 million dead as a result of the Great Leap Forward); the Norks (God alone knows how many dead, since it’s a completely sealed country); the Cambodians (1 million dead, or 1/3 of the Cambodian population); etc. (you can identify and count the millions of et ceteras if you have the stomach for it).

The Dems are now proving that they also live in the past when it comes to their understanding about their ability to control the message. They speak as if this is 1995, an era in which only a relatively small number of America’s more sophisticated citizens were joining the geeks who had access to that weird thing called “electronic mail.” The World Wide Web had moved beyond being just a gleam in AlBore’s eye, but few citizens looked to it for news. Mostly, the WWW was a kind of cool way to try to make hotel reservations in foreign countries. The phrase “social networking” was more than a decade away. The traditional media was still the only game in town.

In this bygone era, the old media’s hegemony was almost total. Not only did it own the airwaves and the ink presses, but its management and its employees marched in lockstep. Their man was in the White House, and they controlled the message. The only fly in the ointment was that icky talk radio, especially that outspoken Rush Limbaugh, but they were confident that they could use their consolidated power and their total message control to disarm anything Rush had to say.

In this environment, spin was so easy. Their President touted the party line — the Oklahoma tragedy occurred because of Rush and his ilk — and they won the debate, such as it was. Nobody could get on the computer and hunt up old headlines and stories putting the lie to the media narrative. Okay, that’s not quite true. Maybe a few people who could afford the high cost of a Nexis search could but, even if they could get the information, they had no way to disseminate it.

This is still the world in which the current crop of Democratic/Progressive dreamers live. Immediately in the wake of news about the Tucson tragedy, the Progressives swung into action. “It’s all Sarah Palin’s fault, because she used cross hair imagery in her ads.” “It’s all the Tea Partiers’ fault, because they are so angry.” “It’s all Rush Limbaugh’s fault because . . . well, he’s Rush, and it’s always his fault.”

* * *

UPDATE (3:10 p.m. PST): Speaking of finding history on the internet, here’s a great screen shot from today’s Big Hollywood:

UPDATE (3:21 p.m. PST): Michelle Malkin doesn’t have to travel very far into the wayback machine to find examples of hate emanating from the Lefter side of the spectrum. Again, this is lovely, because this is the type of historic information that wasn’t available back in 1995, when the Lefts positioned themselves as holier than thou in a very successful effort to marginalize a legitimate political opposition.

UPDATE (3:24 p.m. PST): And evidence from the SF Chron that, having — for the first time — been called on their bluff, Progressives are now backing down.

UPDATE (5:23 p.m. PST): Patterico also has a winning collection of hate and hypocrisy from the Left. Let me say again that I don’t think hate speech from either side of the aisle caused Loughner’s acts. He was motivated, not by ideology, but by insanity. This information is of interest only as a counter to the hypocrisy, attacks, and falsehoods emanating from Progressivex anxious to turn a tragedy into a political opportunity.

 

[shagdrum]

Cal created a partisan atmosphere with his subsequent statements....

Yes, he clearly was not responding to a post that shamelessly politicized this story in an attempt to demonize and marginalize.

Foxy, we have been down this road before where you intentionally distort someone's argument in order to marginalize them and, when challenged on your lies and dishonesty, you simply double down on your attempts to poison the well.

There is no reason to waste any more time with you in this thread.

 

[04SCTLS]

So, because one man tied to a very specific political agenda said this, your projection of hyperbolic speculation onto entire points of view and different people is justified?!

This is absurd and you know it. However, your irrational and vitriolic hatred of Palin is showing through quite well...

Your witless scholarliness is interfering with your being able to see what has happened.
Your rhetorical flourishes often fail to survive an encounter with reality.
You conservatives are wringing your hands with indignation over this being successfully pinned
(to much of the public) on Palin so far.
A BOMB has gone off and Palin just happened to be close to it if you can understand the analogy.
Her imagery fit the explosion perfectly at this moment.
Giffords also specifically warned Palin about her imagery leading to violence like this in a convenient
soundbite several months before.
It's easy for the non political public to link this now in hindsight.
Just run the warning then the shooting in an ad.
The stuff you point out though similar is not as good and current.
Timing is everything.
Killing a moose for pleasure by firing a gun on her Alaska show while saying she hates violence
is also in the public mind due to the currency of her show.
Rush spent his whole show defending conservatism from this bomb yesterday.
He wouldn't be doing that if he didn't understand the ramifications.
I have outlined in other posts why I think Bible Spice is unqualified to be president.
Huckabee is religious but is smart and not a Dolt like Palin.
I could see myself voting for him despite my views on religion in politics.
If there's one thing that life has taught me it's that life has contradictions.

I hate dolts in politics and find the religious dolts especially annoying because
they get a pass from religious voters on intellect.(the he's/she's one of us faith over reason thing )

Intrade which takes private bets on non sports events says Palin's odds to run for president
have plummeted over this.
You never think on your feet while a situation unfolds.
War requires siezing an opportunity, as well as cleverness and cunning which are qualities
you diss and do not value properly
if at all in your thinking, prefering to think of things in the lazy terms of just pure intellect.
Palin has taken a hit from (this guy who smirks like) The Joker(one of your previous avatars )
even if it wasn't intended for her and the left sees the opportunity to inflict more damage against Palin and
put conservatives and Tea Partyers on the defensive.
You need to expand your mind beyond mere knowledge (my sig)
and think of art more.
The art of war.

 

[04SCTLS]

And the pinning beyond the mascot Palin continues.....
_____________________________________________________

The Tea Party and the Tucson Tragedy

How anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism made the Giffords shooting more likely.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280711/
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Monday, Jan. 10, 2011, at 6:30 PM ET

Jared Lee Loughner
There's something offensive, as well as pointless, about the politically charged inquiry into what might have been swirling inside the head of Jared Loughner. We hear that the accused shooter read The Communist Manifesto and liked flag-burning videos—good news for the right. Wait—he was a devotee of Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard, so he was a right-winger after all. Some assassinations embody an ideology, however twisted. Based on what we know so far, the Tucson killings look like more like politically tinged schizophrenia.
It is appropriate, however, to consider what was swirling outside Loughner's head. To call his crime an attempted assassination is to acknowledge that it appears to have had a political and not merely a personal context. That context wasn't Islamic radicalism, Puerto Rican independence, or anarcho-syndicalism. It was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Arizona. Extremist shouters didn't program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.
At the core of the far right's culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government—a venomous campaign not so different from the backdrop to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Then it was focused on "government bureaucrats" and the ATF. This time it has been more about Obama's birth certificate and health care reform. In either case, it expresses the dangerous idea that the federal government lacks valid authority. It is this, rather than violent rhetoric per se, that is the most dangerous aspect of right-wing extremism.
Often the two issues are blurred together, because if government is illegitimate, rebellion is an appropriate response (hence the Colonial costumes). Conservative entertainers like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like to titillate their audiences with hints of justified violence, including frequent reminders that they are armed and dangerous. Palin went so far as to put a target on someone who subsequently got shot. Whether or not the man who fired the gun was inspired by Palin isn't the point. The point is that you shouldn't paint targets on people, even in metaphor, or jest.
Guns are also at the heart of how the right's ideology enabled Loughner. Tea Partiers often frame the right to bear arms as a necessary check on federal despotism. "You know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies," said Sharron Angle of Nevada, who nearly defeated the majority leader of the U.S. Senate in neighboring Nevada. In practical terms, easy access to firearms empowers extremists and crazies to challenge government authority at whim. The National Rifle Association position that any attempt to regulate the ownership of firearms is a violation of the Constitution has prevailed both politically and through the courts. That means that there are few things simpler than for someone to walk into a sporting goods store, as Loughner apparently did, buy a dangerous weapon, and carry it concealed to political meetings. How should politicians protect themselves from nuts with guns? By arming themselves, of course. Absent permissive firearm laws, nowhere more lax than in Arizona, Loughner might still have been able to get a gun. But he couldn't have done it quite so easily.
First you rile up psychotics with inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country. Then you make easy for them to get guns. But if you really want trouble, you should also make it hard for them to get treatment for mental illness. I don't know if Loughner had health insurance, but he falls into a pool of people who often go uninsured—not young enough to be covered by parents (until the health-care bill's coverage of twentysomethings kicked in a few months ago), not old enough for Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. If such a person happens to have a history of mental illness, he will be effectively uninsurable. To get treatment, he actually has to commit a crime. If Republicans succeed in repealing the Obama health care bill, that's how it will remain.
Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening. It was in criticizing writers on his own side for their naivete about communism that George Orwell wrote, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot." Today it is the right that amuses itself with violent chat and proclaims an injured innocence when its flammable words blow up.

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, he clearly was not responding to a post that shamelessly politicized this story in an attempt to demonize and marginalize.

Foxy, we have been down this road before where you intentionally distort someone's argument in order to marginalize them and, when challenged on your lies and dishonesty, you simply double down on your attempts to poison the well.

There is no reason to waste any more time with you in this thread.

I am not distorting, and in fact - cal changed one of his responses because it clearly showed his demonizing the left before the facts are in.

Cal very clearly told 04 to stop it (Cal's words), and yet didn't live up to his own rules.

Oh, and your little 'proof' that being against the war proves left wing lunatic fringe conspiracy theory - that is soooo funny - Ron Paul is against the war - I guess he is a left wing lunatic. Reason Magazine came out against the war - I guess that makes it the new bastion of left wing lunatic fringe conspiracy theories.

I will have to agree with 04 though on a few things - there will be serious consequences regarding Palin. She should at some point address the problem of the imagery of violence she has used. Both sides have used similar imagery in the past - it just so happens that her 'side' got caught in a tragedy first. She needs to address this somehow. It is her right to use this imagery - it works extremely well with her voter base, however, it is now tied in with this event-right or wrong. And there in lies the Catch-22. Damn if she does, damn if she doesn't. She apologies and loses credibility with her base, she remains aloof, or defends, she loses the middle.

Sarah Palin has pointed a 'figurative' gun at those politicians and others with whom her and her base (largely the tea party) disagree. The tea party, along with their leaders and pundits, have been ranting to us that these politicians they have targeted aren't just people with whom they have political disagreements, but that they are enemies, traitors, communists, fascists, (having both of those continues to stymie me), and worse. They portray people such as Giffords as villians, against everything Americans (and of course the Tea Party really is the only example of 'real Americans' we have left) hold dear. They also encourage their followers to deal with them as such (target, reload, take them down).

Now, after pointing this 'loaded' weapon of rhetoric and PR, at people such as Giffords (who really aren't Americans, but rather the enemy), we're being told not to hold them responsible because they "didn't know it was loaded?"

We may never know what drove Loughner - other than insanity, but does this give us a chance to review our rhetoric, on both sides of the fence? Can something sensible come out of the tragedy?