Dems, Media Blame Tea Party, Palin for Shooting; S

[stayput]

Sunday, 09 Jan 2011 11:20 AM Article Font Size

As U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fights for her life after a mad gunman shot her on Saturday, some Democrats and major media have moved to pin the blame for her attack on the tea party movement and conservatives like Sarah Palin, despite the fact that the shooter was both deranged and fascinated by leftwing politics.

Giffords' Democratic colleague, Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva, told Mother Jones magazine within hours after the rampage that the “political tone and tenor” created by Palin and the tea party movement had set the stage for the shooting.

Grijalva said Palin's “apparatus” had put Giffords' and his own life at risk.

“Both Gabby and I were targeted in the apparatus in that cycle [saying] these people are ‘enemies.’” He added: “The Palin express better look at their tone and their tenor.”

The liberal New York Times was not far behind Grijalva, publishing a lead story headlined "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics."

The Times insuated that conservative criticism of President Barack Obama and his policies may have been at the root of this weekend's violence, noting "... it was hard to separate what had happened from the heated nature of the debate that has swirled around Mr. Obama and Democratic policies of the past two years."

The paper even suggested tea party criticisms of Obama's healthcare plan, the debate over Arizona's new rules on police handling of illegal immigrants and even the fact Giffords was Jewish could have played a role. The Times also claimed that the fact Palin's political action committee had targeted Giffords for defeat may have played a role.

But tea party figures and conservatives have assailed such characterizations.

Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, noted on his website that Giffords is “a liberal,” but added, “that does not matter now. No one should be a victim of violence because of their political beliefs.”

Indeed, the profile of the accused shooter, 22-year-old Jared Loughner, that continues to emerge is that of a deranged young man whose mind was deeply distubred, but who also tinkered with both anarchist ideas and leftwing politics.

ABC News reported Saturday night that Loughner had identified among his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and the fiction classic "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" -- hardly the reading list of a Palin supporter.

Other clues have emerged about Loughner's persona from Arizona press reports:



He is "described by friends and former classmates as a loner, prone to dressing in black regalia of boots, trench coat and baggy pants even on the hottest days."
He was removed from Pima Community College "for causing disruptions in classrooms and the library, college officials said. His dispute with college officials led him to post a bizarre YouTube video declaring the college illegal under the U.S. Constitution and culminated in his suspension from campus."
His rants against the government that have surfaced on the Internet don't suggest he had a conservative perspective on big government. Instead Laughner's MySpace featured a photo "showing a close-up picture of an automatic handgun sitting atop a book or paper titled 'United States History.'" Another video shows a masked man burning the American flag.
"I can't trust the current government because of fabrications," Loughner wrote in a YouTube slideshow. "The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."
Loughner suggests that he was rejected from entering the U.S. Army to which he applied because he was offered a "mini Bible" during the recruitment process, but that he declined to "write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None."




Read more: Dems, Media Blame Tea Party, Palin for Shooting; Shooter Linked to Leftwing Politics
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

[floridayankee]

Of course they do. You can't blame the idio....er, I mean poor guy behind the trigger, can you? Afterall, he's the victim here.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Anybody who tries to use this for political gain has some issues. Most likely the same people who try to portray this as right vs. left are also the same people that hope for something like this to happen just so they can bash the other side.

[billisonboard]

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

www.google.com/search?q=%22told+Mother+Jones+magazine+within+hours+after+the+rampage+%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7_____en

[privateinvestor]

Dems, Media Blame Tea Party, Palin for Shooting;


That is silly because anyone who knows anything about this incident knows that there is no way of ascertaining at the point whether such overwrought rhetoric and imagery might have influenced Jared Lee Loughner the 22 year old suspect in the Tucson shooting.

But there is absolutely no doubt that there are a few twisted minds in our society that like to play the political card or race card each time we have a tragedy in this country. We have some here who like to hyperventilate about revolution and their 2nd Amendment rights that has crept too cavalierly into the political discourse and they labeled their opponents as liberal nut jobs to add fuel to the fire instead of debating rationally

[traelin0]

Jan 10, 2011 9:06:46 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

We have some here who like to hyperventilate about revolution and their 2nd Amendment rights that has crept too cavalierly into the political discourse and they labeled their opponents as liberal nut jobs to add fuel to the fire instead of debating rationally

Who would do such a thing...? Certainly no one on these boards!

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...agreed... where did personal responsibility go, anyway?

ETA: ...for example, I will freely admit that it's our own fault that we've built our defense on one safety, good as he is, and that just is silly, plain and simple...


~~~~~~~
Reporting from Tucson — Piece by piece, details of the weekend rampage in Tucson are beginning to emerge: the heartbreaking tales of people slain on a sun-splashed morning, the courage of those who overpowered the gunman, and the state of mind of the suspect himself, a young man who authorities say had plotted for weeks, and perhaps longer, to assassinate a member of Congress.

As the full scope of the tragedy sank in Sunday, it also had rekindled a national conversation, sparked by the outspoken sheriff of Pima County, about the role that an environment of partisan and vitriolic political discourse played — or did not play — in the shootings.

Read more: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-20110110,0,6604341.story

~~~~~~~
Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

Read more: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[rockon]

The tone from both parties has not been good for honest debate and discussion but Palin's ad is no more responsible for this incident then when Obama called the Republicans "Hostage Takers" a few weeks ago. The way the media has covered this with non stop information about the shooter is more likely to encourage other idiots to seek their month of infamous attention.

[humok]

Palin's fault?? I wonder why more of this did not happen when the Tea party was on a roll over a year ago? The individuals that do this are responsible for their own actions and it is time to quit blaming "the devil made me do it" bs. In complete honesty I am surprised that much more of this has not happened on a larger scale. I do not have any idea why he shot that group of people or that cute little girl. Tragic.

[privateinvestor]

Yea but what we don't know is how many other attempted shootings were there against members of congress that the FBI, or Secret Service prevented??

[mmhmm]

While I wouldn't blame any one person, politician or otherwise, other than the shooter, for what happened here, I will say that some of what's been said, written, quoted and mis-quoted, was in very, very poor taste and not, in any way, well-thought-through. Palin is certainly guilty of this, as are others. Just because you're elected to an office, or run for an office, or are known in the political arena as a "player", it doesn't mean you have free reign to allow your political rhetoric to overstep the bounds of common decency, not to mention common sense!

[privateinvestor]

We also saw a lot of finger pointing after the Fort Hood Shooter which was absurd ...So why be surprised that after these tragedies you will have some who want to use it for political gain?? This country began to have serious issues when Joe McCarthy began to label his political enemies as Un American and it has been going down hill since then.....

[ronbuck]

Some people will try to assign blame for political gain whether from a calculated sense of opportunity or some deeply held ideological belief.

Others want to determine "The Reason" this happened so we can "make sure it can't happen again". This is a pretty human response rooted in fear. We hate the feeling that senseless things happen which are out of our control.

Perhaps even more frightening is the realization that all of us have the potential to act out hatefully or even violently (who hasn't felt violently angry at some point in life)....that we sometimes feel ourselves to be out of control.

Some percentage of our population is psychotic. They have a hard time participating in our society"s "consensual reality". And a subset of these folks have violent tendencies but without the internal restraints which most of us have learned. As a society we struggle with the issue of how to deal with serious mental issues.

But we delude ourselves when we think we can prevent "crazies" from acting crazy, anymore than we can prevent people from engaging in many kinds of socially disapproved behavior (prohibitions against drugs, alcohol, gambling, "aberrant" sexual behavior come to mind)

Sometimes we just have to accept that life is uncertain, and we are powerless over much of what happens. Paradoxically this gives us the space to focus on where we do have power.... within ourselves and how we react to the world.

I feel sadness for the victims of this event. For them it is a tragedy, as it is for anyone who is harmed by violence. But I see politicizing the event as another kind of social craziness.

[ChiTownVenture]

But we delude ourselves when we think we can prevent "crazies" from acting crazy, anymore than we can prevent people from engaging in many kinds of socially disapproved behavior (prohibitions against drugs, alcohol, gambling, "aberrant" sexual behavior come to mind)

While we may or may not be able to prevent "crazies" from acting crazy we can make sure that "we" (the general public) act civilized and demand the same civility from our public figures and politicians.

I'm not talking about taking away freedom of speech, I'm talking about the public taking a stand and saying talking about violence against other US citizens in the name of politics is uncalled for (even in jest). There is a time and place for that, and this is not it. The politicians play to the crowds if the crowds no longer support or cheer that type of rhetoric then it will die.

This holds true for everyone, conservatives, liberals, even the POTUS.

Lets not give crazy people ideas, let them come up with their own.

[ronbuck]

[quote author=chitownventure board=politics thread=1319 post=50151 time=1294683872While we may or may not be able to prevent "crazies" from acting crazy we can make sure that "we" (the general public) act civilized and demand the same civility from our public figures and politicians.

I'm not talking about taking away freedom of speech, I'm talking about the public taking a stand and saying talking about violence against other US citizens in the name of politics is uncalled for (even in jest). There is a time and place for that, and this is not it. The politicians play to the crowds if the crowds no longer support or cheer that type of rhetoric then it will die.

This holds true for everyone, conservatives, liberals, even the POTUS.

Lets not give crazy people ideas, let them come up with their own. [/quote]

ChiTown,

I think we are in agreement on this. I think we each need to speak out when we are offended by others behavior or speech. That is how we are socialized. But I would prefer hate speech to restrictions on free speech by any level of authority.

A few years ago I read of a movement by several universities to clamp down on hate speech. And at the same time, set aside an area for free speech. I can't imagine anyplace on a University campus which would not be appropriate for free speech, for the free exchange of ideas. And hate speech is best dealt with by social ostricism...not by mandate. I am not particularly interested in any "authority" determining what constitutes hate speech.

It is easy for people to over-identify with a particular political party in the same way many do with sports teams. They are so heavily invested emotionally that their sense of security or self worth is tied to their "team" winning....at any cost. I think the heated rhetoric we hear is the result. Again, this is probably pretty human. And mostly based in fear.

[floridayankee]

Jan 10, 2011 14:42:48 GMT -5 ronbuck said:

I think we are in agreement on this. I think we each need to speak out when we are offended by others behavior or speech. That is how we are socialized. But I would prefer hate speech to restrictions on free speech by any level of authority.

Like any other freedom, freedom of speech is a double edged sword. The problem trying to define and protect against "hate speech" is that it will eventually get to the point of political correctness and banning everything that is "offensive"...such as kids wearing an American Flag on their t-shirts....in a US School...for fear of offending Hispanic students.

I believe serious attempts to limit the "negative" aspects of any freedom will eventually infringe on the positive. The issue of "hate speech" truly is a slippery slope problem.

[handyman2]

Florida Yankee I totally agree. It is sad that some try to use situations like this for political and personal gain.

[robinking]

"Gun politics in Mexico have resulted in some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is in many ways similar to the United Kingdom, except with much more severe prison terms for even the smallest gun law violations. On the other hand, possession of non-military-caliber small arms by citizens is largely a non-issue. Gun politics are thus not the major issue in Mexico that they are in the neighboring United States, since few Mexican citizens have any gun law difficulties."


"Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List

The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

Laws don't prevent gun violence.

[deziloooooo]

I was listening to NPR this afternoon, they were reporting from Foreign Countries...Germany, Italy UK, France...some others..what the majority of the populace were thinking...all questioned the availability of weapons here..also the back and forth of the two sides , the verbal..lots more but it was interesting.
...........................................................

same station, later in the day {had to drive down to Miami so in car a few hours } there was a report from Pakistan, a woman has been sentenced to death for blasphemy..the law that a politician was shot to death over by one of his body guards while the other guards were just standing by, politician wanted to repeal the law, 50,000 turned out to support the law and the body guard who is in custody and how much support the law has and not just from the uneducated and the country folk but main stream an educated too..so also interesting . One of the arguments is it is in the Koran , death to blasmacist, so that over rides what ever man made law there might be so there is nothing to discuss when it is brought up that it should be discussed.. Strange world we live in.

[jkapp]

What's really crazy about this issue, besides the gunman, is that this act had nothing to do with politics, partisanship, etc...he didn't just shoot at the congresswoman, but at everyone at the rally. Some of them were kids and some were no where near in the line of sight between the shooter and the congresswoman. So he was shooting up, down, left, right - anywhere there was people. That shows is was just a senseless act of insanity, nothing to do with politics or rhetoric.

It was one crazy person deciding that that day was the day they were going to slip over the edge. Politicians could have been having group hugs and talking of rainbows and sunlit pools and this person would still have opened up on people. There was no "reason" for it - don't waste your time trying to understand crazy...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< death for blasphemy >>>

...yes, it's in the Koran... and yes, it applies to us... but let's not hijack the thread...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< don't waste your time trying to understand crazy... >>>

[stayput]

The really sad part about all of this, is that everyone has been so quick to assign blame, and I even heard a PA Congressman talking about proposing even more freedom restricting laws. Not one person in either party has tried to call out to their own following for calm, or healing.

Everyone, on both sides are coming out to say what we should or shouldn't be doing, in response to this horrific event, but where is the leadership in either party calling for calm and real caring for the victims and their families. I still can't get the picture of that beautiful little girl out of my head.

[SweetVirginia]

Jan 10, 2011 9:04:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Anybody who tries to use this for political gain has some issues. Most likely the same people who try to portray this as right vs. left are also the same people that hope for something like this to happen just so they can bash the other side.

I agree, but if this guy, Loughner, had clear, fact based loyalties to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc. the right would be having a field day in trying to blame the liberal media for this guy's demented actions. It goes both ways. To me, it seems that this guy did not have any clear ties to any side (not apparent yet) and he was just a really disturbed, and mentally ill individual. The right has proven to have provocative rhetoric in terms of "2nd amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, etc.." which I think is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, Loughner is really the only one responsible for the murder of the 6 victims killed yesterday.

[stayput]

Jan 11, 2011 0:04:52 GMT -5 SweetVirginia said:

Jan 10, 2011 9:04:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Anybody who tries to use this for political gain has some issues. Most likely the same people who try to portray this as right vs. left are also the same people that hope for something like this to happen just so they can bash the other side.

I agree, but if this guy, Loughner, had clear, fact based loyalties to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc. the right would be having a field day in trying to blame the liberal media for this guy's demented actions. It goes both ways. To me, it seems that this guy did not have any clear ties to any side (not apparent yet) and he was just a really disturbed, and mentally ill individual. The right has proven to have provocative rhetoric in terms of "2nd amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, etc.." which I think is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, Loughner is really the only one responsible for the murder of the 6 victims killed yesterday.

You are a perfect example of my whole point. You are just incapable of putting your petty hard core politics aside to even possess a genuine tear for those who are in agony right now. Go away. You really disgust me right now.

[SweetVirginia]

Jan 11, 2011 0:13:15 GMT -5 @stayput said:

Jan 11, 2011 0:04:52 GMT -5 SweetVirginia said:

I agree, but if this guy, Loughner, had clear, fact based loyalties to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc. the right would be having a field day in trying to blame the liberal media for this guy's demented actions. It goes both ways. To me, it seems that this guy did not have any clear ties to any side (not apparent yet) and he was just a really disturbed, and mentally ill individual. The right has proven to have provocative rhetoric in terms of "2nd amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, etc.." which I think is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, Loughner is really the only one responsible for the murder of the 6 victims killed yesterday.

You are a perfect example of my whole point. You are just incapable of putting your petty hard core politics aside to even possess a genuine tear for those who are in agony right now. Go away. You really disgust me right now.

What the heck are you talking about?

[stayput]

That's exactly the point. You have no clue as to what I'm taking about. You are so wrapped up in your Liberal agenda that you are incapable of letting it go for even one day so as to join with all Americans in mourning the loss of innocent victims, regardless of their party affiliation. This is a horrific tragedy, and all you can do is still put your political slant on it. You're sick.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 11, 2011 0:04:52 GMT -5 SweetVirginia said:

Jan 10, 2011 9:04:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Anybody who tries to use this for political gain has some issues. Most likely the same people who try to portray this as right vs. left are also the same people that hope for something like this to happen just so they can bash the other side.

I agree, but if this guy, Loughner, had clear, fact based loyalties to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc. the right would be having a field day in trying to blame the liberal media for this guy's demented actions. It goes both ways. To me, it seems that this guy did not have any clear ties to any side (not apparent yet) and he was just a really disturbed, and mentally ill individual. The right has proven to have provocative rhetoric in terms of "2nd amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, etc.." which I think is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, Loughner is really the only one responsible for the murder of the 6 victims killed yesterday.

I'm sure some would try to use this for political gain, it doesn't change my view of them for doing it.

[ChiTownVenture]

"A few years ago I read of a movement by several universities to clamp down on hate speech."

I still feel that there is a big difference between expecting the everyday Joe to act civilized and expecting that public figures and politicians to act civilized. When we cheer on people that propagating hate, and elevate public individuals that use hate speech we are basically saying that it's OK.

It seems that focusing on the issues and realistic remedies should be enough to get the attention and or votes. There is a time and place for talking about revolutions and war (actual war) against political positions but this is not that time. Public people should not be talking about revolutions unless they are actually planning one.

"What's really crazy about this issue, besides the gunman, is that this act had nothing to do with politics, partisanship, etc"

It will be hard to know if this is true, but when you create a atmosphere of anger and discourse it's difficult to understand what is associated with what. Or what caused what.

"The really sad part about all of this, is that everyone has been so quick to assign blame"

I think people don't want the deaths to be in vain, that want to be able to take some action to change things for the better, and to be able to say these people died, but because of that, we were able to bring some civility back to the nation.

[privateinvestor]

The question is whether or not the accused was pushed over the edge by the hyper partisanship rhetoric? According to the liberal media pundits, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Bill Maher, they say YES and point the finger at Sarah Palin and Fox News.. However when asked if these liberals have any proof of their claim they stated there is a link with the Palin's cross hairs campaign ads and the vitriol by Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly on Fox but that link has not been pr oven yet by anyone who is investigating this case. So maybe the liberals have some inside information of they are just looking for a scapegoats again..

Chris Matthews has passionately tried to make the case yesterday that members of the Tea Party have attended Obama rallies while armed and he blames them for much of the hate speech we see today. But there is no evidence that Loughner belonged to the Tea Party or ever attended their meetings but why let that influence Matthews?

Paul Krugman wrote another hit piece and blames Sarah Palin and Olberman used Krugman's blog as proof of his claim it is all Sarah Paling's fault and she bears responsibility for this tragedy... Unfortunately many of the liberals believe this nonsense as evidenced by comments on this thread