Two Sicknesses On Display in Arizona
The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of several people by gunman Jared Loughner in Arizona yesterday has revealed two sicknesses.
The first and most serious is the sickness living in Loughner’s head. Evidence in the form of farewell videos, internet postings, and the recollections of people who knew him reveal a profoundly disturbed person who had veered far into a paranoid world. Loughner’s complaints about government mind control and other rants were not “anti-government” in any political sense, but anti-government or anarchist in the Ted Kazynski-deranged sense. We do not know Loughner’s motives, but those motives whatever they were were the byproduct of Loughner’s clearly delusional view of the world.
There also was a second sickness on display, and it was the swiftness and the vigor with which the left-wing blogosphere and some more mainstream Democrats immediately sought to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing “vitriol” in general for the shooting.
Within minutes of the shooting being made known, two of the highest profile left-wing bloggers, Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos and Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress, pulled out a 10-month-old electoral map used at a Sarah Palin website showing almost two dozen congressional districts being targeted, including Giffords’ district. The map was similar to one used by the Democratic Leadership Committee to target Republicans in the prior election cycle, and as Howard Kurtz points out, simply typical of campaign rhetoric using military-themed language.
Markos explicitly accused Palin of having blood on her hands and Yglesias did so implicitly. Through retweets of this message and the map, the left-blogosphere (with some exceptions who took a wait-and-see attitude) took up the cudgel of turning this shooting to their political advantage. Think Progress ran updates with details on the Palin map and also an advertisement several months ago by Giffords’ congressional campaign opponent also using military terminology. But clearly, Palin has been the focus, with a larger attack on “right wing vitriol.”
Not surprisingly, Keith Olbermann — one of the most hateful television personalities who names a nightly “Worst Person In The World” — joined the chorus. Even The New York Times joined the fray, reporting on the Palin map in its initial coverage, and running a Paul Krugman blog post blaming right-wing rhetoric.
Numerous sources also are reporting that Judge John M. Roll, who was killed, had been the subject of threats because of an immigration ruling, but by all accounts Roll was not targeted and was at the event in a shopping area purely by coincidence. [Update: The Criminal Complaint filed this afternoon indicates Judge Roll intended to attend the event to speak with Giffords or her staff, but there is no indication Loughner would have known that.]
Yet not a single person pushing the blame-Palin line has offered a shred of evidence that Loughner ever saw Palin’s electoral map, was motivated by it, was right-wing (anectodally it appears Loughner was quite left-wing as of a few years ago), was motivated by right-wing radio, or did any of the things being assumed by the left-blogosphere, the mainstream media and some Democratic politicians.
Not a shred of evidence connecting Loughner to Palin, the Tea Parties, or the right wing, yet the left-blogosphere, mainstream media and Democratic politicians have erupted into a frenzy of name-calling directed at Palin and those who oppose Obama’s agenda.
Who knows what evidence will come forward in coming days, but based on what we know now, the attempt to blame Palin and opponents of Obama for the shooting is every bit as delusional as Loughner’s attempt to blame government mind control.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this type of reaction. The meme that opponents of Obama are crazy and dangerous has been an explicit Democratic Party campaign strategy for over two years. Here is just a partial list of events in which the left-wing and Democratic Party media operation has immediately blamed right-wing rhetoric, only to be proven wrong when the facts finally came out: Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.
The facts will come out about the shooting and murder by Loughner. Until then, we’ll be subjected to the sickness of people who seek to use the crime to their political advantage and who will worry about the facts later on, if ever.
In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the deceased and those injured.
Update: Congresswoman Giffords took part in the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House last week, an event which was denounced by the left-blogosphere and some Democrats as a stunt and a reflection of a fetish:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs?fs=1]
Interestingly, Think Progress posted this video on its YouTube channel back in November, of Democratic pollster (and former Hillary Clinton campaign manager) Mark Penn arguing that Obama needed “another Oklahoma City” in order to reconnect with the people:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0Ixm21tn8?fs=1]
The manner in which the left-wing is seeking to exploit this crime reflects an attempt to replicate the political success Bill Clinton had after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Indeed, Politico reports (h/t Gateway Pundit) that a Democratic strategist is advising as follows:
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.”
Update No. 2 – Does Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Have No Shame? Dupnik’s press conference yesterday has been widely cited as proof that right-wing vitriol led to the killings was just interviewed by Meghan Kelly on FoxNews and for the first time was forced to commit as to whether he had any evidence that Loughner actually listened to or was influenced by such political rhetoric. Dupnik admitted ”it’s just my opinion period” and that “I don’t have that information yet.” Videos at the link.
——————————————-
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
00
Comments
@ Captain Quirk
Actually, liberalism is number one in placing blame in this event… and the last such event where the left was quick to paint blame… and they were wrong on both accounts.
http://reformaliberal.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/new-year-same-old-leftist-lame-blame-game/
Liberalism doe deserve copious amounts of blame in terms of economic ruin:
http://reformaliberal.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/failure-follows-complete-liberal-control/
No ideology has murdered more people than the left. 100's of millions in the 20th century… and counting into this century.
Liberalism is quick to cast aspersions but very reluctant to take responsibility.
@reform liberal:
How many thousands of young Americans died because of the lies about WMDs?
And, if our government had more than 5 native Arabic speakers on the ground for better intelligence, we might have staved off some awful events 10 years ago in NYC.
Conversely, we have a president who wins a Nobel Peace Prize and steps up war in Afghanistan. (Of course, who wants THAT regime to spread? That brand of fundamentalism is not only brutal against women, but all humans.)
We can go into a million circles biting our tails over all this, can't we?
How about civility, here, moving forward?
GretaCargo, I'm no fan of GW Bush, in fact I was still a liberal democrat during his two terms, but as I recall, the wikileaks cables have revealed that the Iranians, and I believe one other Islamic country received WMDs that were smuggled out of Iraq, either jut prior to or after the war started in Iraq.
Also, I think we have far more Arabic speakers, and I"m talking about non-Muslim US citizens who speak it. I also remember how our intelligence agencies promote such learning, they always did.. I have a hard time our government was being honest with us, when they claim they were desperate for Arabic speakers.. rather, I'll wager that this has been another lie used to provide an excuse to appoint those with divided loyalties, OR to bring in those hostile to the US.
I read this morning about Grover Norquist greasing the path for a man who is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, into Homeland Security, during the George W. Bush administration, and Norquist is very cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood, through his wife, whose family is heavily connected to that foul, terrorist front group.
The yellow cake in Iraq wasn't capable of functioning as a WMD and was eventually taken by the US, shipped to Canada, and later brought to the US so it wouldn't be used in a dirty bomb. Because Iraqi scientists were motivated to save their own skins and report the best possible scenario to the despot in charge, WMDs were inaccurately trumped up…inside and outside Iraq.
I'm personally concerned that all Muslims are targeted inaccurately, much the way the Japanese were demonized in WW2. The real issue is extremeist fundamentalism, which has reared its ugly head against woman and the weaker members of society in every era of humanity. The internet and easily availability of nuclear materials makes our lives all the more dangerous as I write. However, I do not want to demonize Americans from any background even now.
It's too easy for us to spread simple and inaccurate messages about any number of situations rather than take the time to assess the details of truth.
That is what concerns me as a citizen in a democracy where information should be open (no, not sensitive state secrets) for citizens to learn, debate, and guide their leaders.
And M, thank you for your posting!
One person did a great job exposing the leftist rhetoric and the amount of vitriol and hatred that spews from members of the DNC as well as members of the MSM.
However, one person has been left out and her name is Frances Fox Piven. She recently made statements on how she wants to see blood running in the streets, and she wants the US anarchists to follow the example of the lazy Greek anarchists.
If anyone is to be blamed then the rhetoric of Frances Fox Piven should be held up as an example since she is the one who made statements advocating direct violence of persons and property, in the name of sending the USA into chaos, thus causing the Communist takeover that she desires so much.
Do we know if Loughner saw any of her rhetoric and decided that taking out Giffords was his chance to help the revolution to begin?
Also, should we ever forget Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn and their desire to see that same Communist takeover?
The Pima County Sheriff is a democrap so facts don't appear to matter as the end justifies the means. He reminds me of NYC's deplorable Mayor Bloomberg who basically called the Times Square Bomber an anti Obama tea partier, rather than call him for the islamofascist that he really was. These democraps in sheep's clothing are shameless and despicable.
I just wish that Sarah Palin could sue these bottom dwellers for defamation, but unfortunately their liberal friends in the Courts would prevent such justice from occurring.
After eagerly flinging a few handsful of invective, @GretaCargo now sez:
"How about civility, here, moving forward?"
That, after a series of baseless accusations, such as this one:
”Whether or not Loughner had any view of Palin's language, or any of the other incendiary language which has been out there, unfortunately and predominantly from the right, it's prominently in the national media and consciousness.”
If, @GretaCargo, in your original comment you were foolishly referring to the political electoral map linked to by the professor, above, and used by Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos and a whole host of other left-wing vipers to launch their ugly invective aimed personally at Sarah Palin, then you are either displaying ignorance, or being intentionally disingenuous. The use of phrases in the political arena, such as "campaigns," "targeted" districts, or "targeting" candidates, or even operating out of "war-rooms" is now, and had been short-hand common talk amongst politicians, their staffs, all manner of political operatives, newspaper reporters, columnists, and bloggers, for as long as anyone can remember.
And, I don’t ever recall her ever mouthing anything even remotely like the comments made by then-candidate Barack Obama, specifically and accurately cited by commenter "cf", above, to wit:.
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said in Philadelphia last night. "Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans."
And
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
So, @GretaCargo, judging by YOUR standards, please explain us why the shooting in Arizona wasn’t directly attributable to the use of such "incendiary rhetoric" by him?
After all, he specifically brought up bringing a gun to a political fight, no?
It is, of course, preposterous, just as was your angry and baseless comment attempting to lend credence to the more direct screeds posted by a whole slew of vicious and mindless lefties and all aimed at trying to blame Mrs. Palin directly or indirectly for the shooting in Arizona.
Gosh, I thought I remembered you touting the fact that you were intelligent. I’m sure it was somewhere up there in this comment thread.
Oh well, looks like you better go for a second opinion on that one!
At HotAir, Ed Morrissey, citing the great piece posted yesterday by Byron York (which was linked in his tweet and I included in my comment above), does another thorough job of debunking this still-born finger-pointing attempt on the part of the left to blame it all on the so-called political rhetoric of Sarah Palin and others on the right
In Ed's case, he also focuses in on the utter hypocrisy of CNN for their dogged on-air efforts to somehow directly or indirectly blame Palin for the tough political rhetoric, which they kept somehow trying to blame this incident on — all, of course, without a single shred of evidence.
As Ed notes in an update:
"Contra David Frum, I don’t see this as a particular moment to reflect on 'extreme political rhetoric," since there’s nothing to connect political rhetoric from either side of the political spectrum to this crime. I wouldn't even call for reflection on the continued sales of Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto, even though the suspect credits both of these as among his favorites, as they have no causal connection to the actions of a lunatic. Perhaps, though, this is a good moment to reflect on those who rush to exploit tragedy in an attempt to bully political activists into silence."
Nicely put! Yet another false accusation from the hyperventilating left put to bed.
I guess I'd have to agree with the Professor's original characterization in this post . . . it truly is a sickness on their part.
Strikingly similar, from Professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee, in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal:
. . .
To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
. . . .
From an editorial in Slate (Caps mine):
"Any call to police 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police ALL speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power."
There was a clear & defining reason for the First Amendment. If we choose to restrict speech that others find offensive & inflammatory then we choose to restrict all speech. It is astounding to me that any one politically active in America today could be so foolish and nearsighted as to make such a call.
Set aside the fact that there is absolutely no connection between Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or Glenn Beck & Jarred Loughnir, EVEN if there WAS a connection the First Amendment still allows them to make 'offensive' speeches. Even *if* Beck, Palin, et al was radical their speech is protected so that our speech cannot be infringed upon.
When you add in the fact their speech had no impact on Jarred Lougnir whatsoever it gets even more outrageous.
And now we have Rep. Bob Brady of PA proposing we *ban* all Cross hairs from political speech. This is *insane*! On the argument that if it prevents even one violent attack it is worth it. Talk about sacrificing a little liberty in the hopes of increased security….
Flag-burning liberal atheist 9/11 Truther murders Republican-appointed judge; media, liberals blame Sarah Palin, Tea Party.
"Obama and the left are playing the Arizona shooting the way Hitler played the Reichstag fire."
I wonder what's next. Concentration camps for Tea Partiers, perhaps?
I'm waiting for the violence from the left against the right… due to the left's hate speech about the right.
Daniel Pipes pointed to this kind of pattern in extremist movements. That they tended to market themselves as opposition to phony conspiracies that then turned around and did exactly what they claimed the fake conspiracy group was doing.
Example: Nazis, fighting a Jewish conspiracy to enslave people and take over the world. Once in power, enslaved people and tried to take over the world.
It’s pretty transparent that the left has the hate problems and that they want to use those bogus accusations to shut down dissent.
The issue isn't censorship or limitation to the First Amendment, Mr. Lane.
What about more responsible use of rhetoric?
It takes more time to think through good articulate speech.
The example is the difference in style and clarity when Dubby and Tony Blair were side by side.
Who would you rather hear and have as a leader? Why couldn't our own Yale-educated president speak with whole sentences, clarity and elegant simplicity?
I don't advocate snobbery, but the simple respect of good communication.
That also means holding back from "fightin" words. They become a cheap and sloppy way of communicating…by both parties.
We can do better. Isn't that the point?
I fully support the Second Amendment. But I do not support the level of access which enabled recent events in AZ.
Again, we can do better than that.
I sincerely hope that the dialogue on this blog can rise above the mud pit.
How about we call out President Obama, the "Basher in Chief" of all who oppose him, for his combative refernces to all who disagree with him as "the enemy," on MTV. More recently, in welcoming John Boehner, House Speaker, he referred to some form of combativeness in the 112th Congress. Sorry I don't have the exact wording. His list of private sector enemies (except Jeff Immelt) is longer than Nixon's. He always shows his true colors before he or Bobby Gibbs has to explain that he didn't say what he said.
There also was a second sickness on display, and it was the swiftness and the vigor with which the left-wing blogosphere and some more mainstream Democrats immediately sought to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing "vitriol" in general for the shooting.
Not so…the BBC Twitteratti also took up the baton, shamelessly. Beggars belief that a national broadcaster could be so bias.
"I think it's important for all leaders… not just leaders of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party to say, look, we can't stand for this…we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the cross-hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action."
-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010
Surprised you didn't mention the DC snipers. The press was all over them obviously being right wing paramilitary types, Chief Moose wasted valuable time chasing what he thought should have been the snipers instead of pursing all possibilities.
@Greta Cargo:
Prominent left-winger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos website did much the same thing, putting a bull’s-eye on Gifford because her views were too moderate for him.
http://patterico.com/2011/01/08/markos-blames-palin-for-giffords-shooting-but-theres-just-one-problem-daily-kos-put-a-bulls-eye-on-giffords-too/
Gee, do you think he'll admit the consequences?
How about NO crosshairs or target icons by anyone? That's simply unacceptable. All First Amendment arguments aside, true leadership requires a deep investment in respect for your audience – no matter what size or background it is.
I want ALL elected officials to get rid of the crosshairs so we can avoid the crossfire – literal or figurative. That's not why I elect them; that's not their job, bottom line. Otherwise, it's all a waste of our taxpayer time and money. I want them to solve our problems and lead, and cut the BS.
The ironic perspective from Colorado after having elected a new governor who ran very likely the cleanest political ad campaign in the recent cycle, if not the state's history… is that we also led the charge in 527 groups…which funded the most negative ads in U.S. political history. What gives?
Palin would have actually risen above had her comments not used "blood libel." "Libel" would have frankly communicated enough. That she and her staff didn't do their leadership homework about the national audience is in character. She has so much at her fingertips.
Harry Truman had only a high school education and put in a lot of mental elbow grease to learn and learn to become the leader he was. After Roosevelt died, Truman spent hours studying since he was not on the inside when he assumed the great mantle of responsibility. And he knew geography far better than Mrs. Palin, even with her college diploma.
The willingness to be curious, do the work, and respect not only your electorate but the country at large is within a true leader, no matter what their education and background. To me, that's respectfully inclusive rather than divisive.