It’s been only two days since a murderous rampage left six dead — including a nine-year-old child and federal judge John Roll — and 14 wounded, including Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot point-blank in the head and who, as of this writing, is still in critical condition but (all things considered) “doing well.” Thank God for that.
The bullets had hardly stopped whizzing when a cataract of commentary descended. The first inundation came mostly from the Left. Its basic message was epitomized by Paul Krugman: The shooting was probably politically motivated. The Tea Party. Sarah Palin. Scary. “The climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing.” Beck. Limbaugh. “The evils of Partisanship.” “Culture of hate.” Et cetera.
Advertisement
I wrote about Krugman in my PajamasMedia column, explaining how he and his ilk showed the world “How to Turn a Tragedy into an Emetic.” Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year-old psychopath who shot those people in Tucson, was not inspired, egged on, or motivated by conservative opponents of Obama. He isn’t a poster boy for right-wing “hate-mongering.” He isn’t, come to that, a poster boy for left-wing hate-mongering, either. He is just a delusional, homicidal fantasist. The effort by Krugman and others to invest his actions with political import — more precisely, their efforts to blame others for this horrific episode and thereby garner political capital for their side — was itself an act of fantasy, alternately repellent and mendacious.
This has been amply pointed out by the second inundation from that cataract of commentary: the many pieces from the other side of the aisle pointing out the fact-free nature of left-wing paranoia sweepstakes. Several pieces specialized in the game of compare and contrast. Byron York, for example, was one of many who pointed out that if you’re a Muslim fanatic who mows down 13 people at Fort Hood while chanting “Allahu Akbar!” the watchword is caution: Let’s not jump to conclusions here. He was just a “lone extremist.” Islam is a religion of peace. Etc. But just let the lunatic be a white boy from the heartland and, bingo, field day. Sarah Palin. Culture of hate. The whole nine yards. As Jennifer Rubin noted, “You can almost hear the disappointment from the left that he was a pothead rather than a Tea Partyer.” (See this roundup at Instapundit.)
The irony — or maybe it’s just good old-fashioned hypocrisy — is that while Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, the Daily Kos, et al., stridently bewail “the culture of hate,” their own rhetoric is much more intemperate than that of their opponents. Moreover, as several commentators have pointed out, it takes only a comparative visit to some Tea Party rallies, on the one hand, and some anti-Bush or anti-Palin rallies, on the other, to register a wide discrepancy not only in rhetorical tone but rhetorical substance. At one you are likely to see signs decrying socialism, big government, Obamacare, high taxes, etc. At the other you are likely to see signs advising you that “Bush = Hitler,” proclaiming the imperative “F*** Bush,” etc. Really, it is instructive to compare the rhetorical temperature, and general drift, of the two sides. One complains about various policies. The other complains about “a culture of hate” while at the same time wallowing in it. (One commentator to my PJM column supplied this sobering roundup.)
Why the discrepancy — or, rather, why doesn’t the discrepancy register more forcefully on the great Geiger counter of public sentiment? That is a deep, or at least an elusive, question. Part of the answer, I think, lies in the same psychological metabolism that commends what we call “liberalism” (no matter its generally anti-liberal tendency). If you say you are in favor of something we as a society think is commendable, then it matters little that your actions or your policy conduce to the opposite.
Thanks for the example of delusion. Your very portrayal of the Tea party v Bush-Hater v Palin hater rallies is laughingly delusional. Respect yields respect. Crosshairs of a gun site are inappropriate and antagonistic. Yes, the shooter is unbalanced. Why was he sold a gun with his history?
Wonderful how you ignore the fact that the Palin machine is basically condemning their own webpage and acknowledging their own possible culpability with their own actions and comments.
According to SarahPAC staffer Rebecca Mansour those weren't target reticules at all. They were just, like you know, "crosshairs, like you see on a map". And " it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent".
And then you have Sarah Palin herself being misunderstood in regards to those crosshair markings, "don't retreat, reload!!" What a misunderstanding!
I'm sure Sarah was referring to reloading her Pez dispenser or something equally harmless. After all what politician in their right mind, with a national audience, would put riflescope target reticules on their opponents? I mean some mentally ill person might take it seriously and not figuratively and shoot up a crowd of innocent people in response.
And removing those pictures of the target reticules, I'm sorry, PEZ refill sites, right after the shooting occurred? Purely coincidental. The shootings just reminded them that they forgot to take them down after the election.
Pathetic.
Guess what, actions cause consequences. It is irresponsible to target, in gunsights, your opponents in this day and age. We are a nation of over 300 million people. Some will not get the joke.
Lets give Sarah's map/targets a simple test. Someone out there send their teenager to school with one of their binders covered with photos of their teachers. On some of the photos put gunsights over the teachers faces. On top of the page put something to the effect of these people are problems that need to be removed. Somewhere else on the page put an oblique reference to firearms, such as reloading or whatever/. You get the idea.
See how long he is in school before you get called. See how long it is before he is allowed to go back.
Frkingz1 wrote: "Lets give Sarah's map/targets a simple test. Someone out there send their teenager to school with one of their binders covered with photos of their teachers. On some of the photos put gunsights over the teachers faces. On top of the page put something to the effect of these people are problems that need to be removed."
Just one problem -- Palin's map DOESN"T put gun sights over anyone's face. The crosshairs are over a map showing congressional districts. To target with votes and funds for Republican candidates in the election. You know, just like the one the Democrats had in the 2004 election for states they viewed as winnable.
There's been a lot of good commentaty (both here and elsewhere) this morning citing examples of President Obama's uniquely strident and well-publicized contributions to what Krugman would refer to, were Obama a Republican, as the "climate of hate". But I've not seen one recent example that deserves mentioning: Obama's characterization last month of Republicans as "hostage takers" after he negotiated the tax deal with them. If the President says that the political party representing around 50% of the country are akin to the most despicable kind of terrorist-criminals, why won't Krugman -- or anyone else at the New York Times -- denounce him with at least as much vehemence as they reserve for far more mild and less impactful comments made by conservatives?
Kimball conveniently leaves out the birthers who claim Obama isn't American, Limbaugh hoping Obama "fails", Palin STILL bringing up the Rev Wright (in her recent book) more than TWO YEARS after the election (also, right-wingers can't seem to make sense of why a "Muslim" like Obama would have a Christian preacher?). Throw in Beck, Hannity and most of the writers here at National Review, and I would say the right-wing has created quite a climate of intolerance. I actually get why conservatives may want to oppose and fight Obama's policies - I have yet to see them do it in an articulate, civil way.
Apparently, frkings1 didn't click on the last link provided in the article (the last parentheses that contain "Oh, dear: The Democrats do that for Republicans, too! Who knew?".) If you actually read it, and can still believe your posts, you are one disingenuous and mendacious fool.
Kimball's article is typical; well argued and enlightening. And the links are great to read.
Here's yet another example of incindiary rhetoric, and one that has may have reason to be "connected" to Rep. Giffords shooting.
A politcal ad was played several times last fall, saying that the candidate's opponent called for a 23% sales tax ("even on food"). And of course there was the usual heart-string pulling interviews with mothers etc. saying that they would not be able to afford the basic necessities of life etc. etc.
What this add conveniently left out, and instead implied otherwise, was that this tax was to REPLACE existing taxes, namely income tax.
And whose deceptive ad was this?
Rep. Gabriel Giffords.
If we're going to blame Palin with the mantra "actions have consequences", you might want to remember the ad mentioned.
"Why the discrepancy — or, rather, why doesn’t the discrepancy register more forcefully on the great Geiger counter of public sentiment?"
Easy! Because the right-wing nut refrain is sung from, every channel, and their vicious lies are repeated often enough (i.e. "shouted the n-word at Black Congressmen") that they are saturated into the cultural fabric. No network news show or cable news channel completely escapes the memes put forth by NYT or AP sources. Many of us eventually learn the truth, but it takes persistance and healthy skepticism to keep from having "received wisdom" seep into our own thoughts and memories. Like an unwanted melody, the effect of bad reporting and repeated lies linger in the mind.
Very bold post, Deleeuw. If that's the reaction to ads, what would you say should be the action that sent several thousand US service men and women to their deaths in Iraq?
Anyone care to speculate what the reaction would have been if the gunman was a Muslim or Hispanic, and the congress-person a Republican or even worse, a Tea Partier? Doesn't bear thinking about, from the potential for revengeful violence to the hate spewed from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Malkin.
Just in case I get flamed for advocating or justifying violence, the point of my recent post was merely to illustrate the Left's hypocrisy when blaming their poster girl for the Tucson shooting, while ignoring other rhetoric which, if we're going to play this "blame anyone but the criminal" game, many could cite as being equally to blame.
Censoring political speech because of one deranged individual shows about as much grasp of reality as his rambling website.By bowing in this way to these loonies we would only make others believe they can sway political issues with violence and therefore validate their actions.The liberal left has lied before about the Tea Paty members making racial slurs in March 2010 and they firmly believe in Joseph Goebbels quote "If you lie often enough sooner or later people will believe you." We must not let this happen!
Hmmm! The liberal left can't seem to define the word terrorist even when Nidal Hasan is chanting praises to Allah while shooting innocent people at Fort Hood but have no problem translating Republican cliches into deaththreats.
I would classify the President refering to Republicans as "the enermy" to Hispanic voters last summer as beyond civil.
Hmmm! The liberal left can't seem to define the word terrorist even when Nidal Hasan is chanting praises to Allah while shooting innocent people at Fort Hood but have no problem translating Republican cliches into deaththreats.
I would classify the President refering to Republicans as "the enermy" to Hispanic voters last summer as beyond civil.
Hmmm! The liberal left can't seem to define the word terrorist even when Nidal Hasan is chanting praises to Allah while shooting innocent people at Fort Hood but have no problem translating Republican cliches into deaththreats.
I would classify the President refering to Republicans as "the enermy" to Hispanic voters last summer as beyond civil.
Arizona shooting: Mother shielded daughter from shots Says She's a Moma Bear. Where have I heard that before. Wonder if she likes Sarah and knows what a ridiculous things these slimy liberals are saying.
by John Faherty and Laura Trujillo - Jan. 11, 2011 12:00 AM External Link
The Arizona Republic
It was supposed to be a nice, quick moment. A photograph to help commemorate an important event.
Mary Reed and her daughter, Emma McMahon, were only going to be there for a few minutes.
Emma, a Tucson high-school senior, had been a congressional page for U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords over the summer. But things had been so busy, she never got a photograph of herself with the congresswoman. Giffords inspired her, and she wanted the memory. So, on Saturday morning, the two went to Safeway, where Giffords would be holding a "Congress on Your Corner," a meet-and-greet event. Also along were Mary's husband, Tom McMahon, and son, 13-year-old Owen.
They were the second-to-last people in line to meet Giffords.
Then everything changed. A gunman approached, shot Giffords in the head and kept on firing.
Mary didn't know exactly what it was when she first heard the noise, but she knew it was loud and bad. She knew she wanted to protect her daughter.
So, Mary pushed Emma up against the brick wall, cradling and covering her with her own body. "There was nowhere to go," she said.
Only when she was shot the first time did she realize what she was protecting her daughter against. "I knew what it was then," Mary said.
That's when she saw a man with a gun, 2 feet away.
"It was terrifying," Reed said. "But I had to save my daughter."
She scanned the crowd, but couldn't see her husband or son.
Owen and Tom were less than 10 feet away when the gunman started shooting, just a short distance, but enough to keep them safe in a peculiar crime where violence erupted so cataclysmically in such a small space.
Then, Reed was shot again. And shot again. But she didn't move. She couldn't expose Emma.
“Yes, a mama bear," Mary said.
