Chris Moody (Daily Caller) writes:
Texas Democrat Rep. Rubén Hinojosa said Monday that he is open to joining Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Robert Brady in support of a bill to curb speech that could be perceived as “threatening” to public officials.“The level of discourse is out of control,” Hinojosa said. “Yes, I would certainly sit down with him and look at the wording and see how we could strengthen it. There’s a need to tone down the rhetoric that occurred here these last few years. In my opinion, I would support legislation, yes.”
Brady told the New York Times on Sunday that he would seek legislation banning certain types of speech in reaction to the weekend shooting in Tucson, Ariz. that left Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords injured and killed six others.
“You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,” Brady said Sunday. “This is not a wake-up call. This is a major alarm going off. We need to be more civil with each other. We need to tone down this rhetoric.”
Brady was referring to political messaging ads used by both parties that use crosshairs to show districts they are targeting for victory….
Brady has not yet made the specific language of the bill public….
1. The Supreme Court has made clear that threats — including threats against the life of the President — can only be punished if they are “true threats,” which is to say “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Constitutionally proscribable true threats are those “where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” The speaker need not actually intend to act on the threat, but the threat has to be reasonably perceived as a “serious expression of an intent to commit” that act. (Some lower courts have suggested that the Court didn’t really mean to limit the First Amendment exception to speech made with the deliberate purpose of placing someone in fear of bodily harm or death. But even if that is accepted, a statement would still be unprotected only if a reasonable person would interpret the speech as intended to instill such fear.)
2. In particular, the leading Supreme Court case, Watts v. U.S. (1969), held that the Constitution protects even the statement “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.,” said at antiwar rally. Statements that place the President in a bullseye or a crosshair might thus be entirely constitutionally protected, if for instance the statement is in a Democratic or Republican party mailer urging people to give money to help defeat the President in the next election. A reasonable reader would not perceive such a flyer as a threat that the author, or the author’s confederates, are going to actually shoot the President. As Jack Shafer (Slate) and many other have noted, martial metaphors are commonplace in American politics. The mere use of such a metaphor does not strip the speech of constitutional protection.
3. If the concern is not that the President will feel threatened, but that some readers might be moved by such statements to attack the President, the speech remains protected. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech may be restricted on such a theory only if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added). Hess v. Indiana (1973) makes clear that speech doesn’t satisfy the “imminence” requirement if it is merely “advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time” (emphasis added). But in any event, it certainly can’t qualify for the Brandenburg exception to the First Amendment when it is not at all directed to producing lawless action, and the concern is simply that a few kooks or extremists might be moved to commit a crime at some indefinite time as a result of seeing the speech.
4. Note that Watts and Brandenburg both came in 1969, at the end of a decade that saw the assassination of a President, of one of the leading candidates for President, and of one of the leading political leaders in the nation. It was also a decade that generally saw far more homegrown political violence than this past decade has seen. Nonetheless, the Court firmly concluded that even speech that specifically calls for violence, or even seems to explicitly threaten violence, is unprotected only if it fits within the narrow “true threats” or “incitement” exceptions — and, as I said, political maps with targets painted on them, the “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” line, and the like certainly fall far outside those exceptions.
5. As it happens, federal law already provides that “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing … any threat to injure the person of another.” (A separate law provides that anyone who “makes any … threat [to inflict bodily harm] against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”) So if any proposed law merely bans true threats, then it would be unnecessary (with one exception noted below). And if it tries to go beyond true threats — which is what the proposer’s rhetoric seems to suggest — then it would be unconstitutional.
6. The one way Congress could broaden the ban on threats against Congressmen to match the ban on threats against the President is to cover all true threats, and not just true threats “transmit[ted] in interstate or foreign commerce.” The “commerce” requirement is not hard to satisfy — communications that are routed through computers in other states, for instance, would suffice — but it sometimes won’t be satisfied, for instance when they are made face-to-face or even in a purely intrastate telephone call. But all the supposedly threatening/inciting/menacing/violent/etc. speech that I’ve heard faulted in the Arizona incident went out across state lines. And I know of no evidence that purely intrastate threats against federal legislators are somehow a serious problem that is being inadequately dealt with under state law.
7. Shifting from the First Amendment to the enumerated powers of Congress, I assume that a federal ban on true threats against members of Congress would be within an enumerated federal power for the same reason that I assume the ban on true threats against the President would be within an enumerated power: It would be within the constitutional authorization of “Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the various powers created by the Constitution, since threats that may have the purpose or effect of intimidating federal officials tend to undermine the federal government’s ability to soundly decide policy. (If federal officials believe that voting in particular way, or going to meet constituents in particular ways, could get them killed, they may fail to do what is required to serve the nation’s interests; and threats that convey this message of danger thus interfere with the making and execution of federal laws.)
Hans Bader says:
This is a very ironic bill, given that it was Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski who said of Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott,”They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him.”
This is also ironic given that political rhetoric in America today is bland and mild both by historical standards, and international standards.
January 10, 2011, 4:00 pmGiant Frog says:
The level of discourse is out of control
? Lying, faux-hysterical democrats and socialists suppressing speech are nothing new.
“Kill Bush” t-shirts, etc:
January 10, 2011, 4:10 pmhttp://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
Nunzio says:
It would be almost impossible for a public figure to be convicted of making a true threat against a politician. Although the rhetoric can be out of line, no one thinks that Sarah Palin or anyone else is making a true threat against politicians they disagree with.
But if regular people posted or said some of the same statements, you wonder how much trouble they would get in.
January 10, 2011, 4:11 pmHouston Lawyer says:
The people proposing such legislation are a much bigger threat to liberty than those who they would silence.
January 10, 2011, 4:11 pmLarryWB says:
Whew! This entire discussion and the proposals in Congress are pretty much irrelevant, since there is not one iota of evidence to indicate that the shooter was motivated by political speech or anything else except the noises in his own head.
January 10, 2011, 4:13 pmPaul says:
Would they also regulate public officials speech that could be perceived as threatening private individuals?
January 10, 2011, 4:13 pmptt says:
It would be ironic only if Kanjorski co-sponsored the bill.
January 10, 2011, 4:16 pmgecko says:
Well like Rahm Emanuel likes to say. You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.
January 10, 2011, 4:21 pmSam Hall says:
Never let a crises go to waste.
January 10, 2011, 4:23 pmMike says:
I don’t think that the speech should be regulated, but if you have someone like Sarah Palin making pretty distasteful statements and someone — even someone crazy and unhinged — acts on it, then it is clearly their cross to carry for saying it in the first place. This is far different than saying that Sarah Palin is responsible or that the speech should be banned or regulated.
The political right should not be allowed to distance itself for those things that they’ve said simply because NOW it appears in bad taste. It was bad taste then.
January 10, 2011, 4:26 pmgeokstr says:
The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010
Warning to leftists: this is a link to a popular rightwing but also absolutely foaming-inducing site hated by the left. It is very lengthy, and lists (probably incompletely) cite after cite after cite of totally despicable and disgusting violent language and imagery used by the left since just 2000, against Bush and Palin and every other conservative. But the current arguments over the recent shooting in the MSM conveniently fail to note anything except the target imagery on Palin’s electoral map and talk radio.
This is perfect cover for the left to begin to take advantage of a crisis too good to waste to push for censorship of opponents.
January 10, 2011, 4:27 pmgeokstr says:
How about clicking on the link I and others have listed here to see for yourself what the left has done in the recent past, if you think that the mild stuff Palin said is “distasteful”? A lot of it comes out of the mouth of Obama himself.
How about your side gets tarred and lives with that?
January 10, 2011, 4:32 pmGov98 says:
I get that the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of Congress shall make no law…to Congress may make some laws provided that…
BUT, can’t we please please please leave regulation of Speech to the extent that it can be to the States? I know that’s like a crazy idea, but just because the Congress could push the envelope, why not…Not push the envelope.
(And yes I am genuinely saying that restrictions of speech as consistent with the previous decisions of the US Supreme Court is much more palatable when done by states instead of Congress.)
January 10, 2011, 4:32 pmgooners says:
There doesn’t seem to be a tragedy that can’t be made worse by ham-handed politicians. We know this won’t come near the floor.
The Malkin thing? Meh. Most of the violent imagery seems to be anti-war/anti-torture, which are violent things – violent imagery with an anti-violence message. And look at me – able to go there, scan through the post, and come back without foaming at the mouth. I must be some sort of super-Leftist.
January 10, 2011, 4:33 pmptt says:
Just wasted ten minutes of my life I’ll never get back and only got about a third of the way through. Could you save us all some time and highlight which — in any — of Malkin’s list of sins involves an actual politician using the rhetoric of violent death?
Also, what’s with the confusion between violence and vulgarity?
January 10, 2011, 4:36 pmgeokstr says:
Must be you missed the lines of Obama:
“They bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun”
January 10, 2011, 4:37 pm“Get in their faces”
“Punish your enemies”
“Hit back twice as hard”
“Hand to hand combat”
ptt says:
Yet his sins don’t appear on that list. Odd.
January 10, 2011, 4:38 pmMike says:
geokstr – I’m not sure that I understand the Malkin site. It seems to be a listing of things that crazy people have created. I don’t see anywhere in that list (though I’ll admit to scrolling pretty quickly) that has a member of Congress, candidate for Vice President, a high profile member of the media or otherwise calling for the death of another candidate.
If anything it’s just a list that shows that crazy exists on both sides.
January 10, 2011, 4:40 pmBill Michael says:
Yeah, gotta agree with the last poster (gooners) when he says that the Malkin site is not really all that foam-inducing. Interesting, but more interesting in how it shows how thoroughly bankrupt the right is. There are those on the left who have used extreme language and graphic pictures to make their points. So what. What you don’t see in any of those supposedly damning posts is a Democratic politician doing that. But on the right, of course, I could list example after example. I am not going to defend the idiot comments of those like Alan Grayson, but really, there is little equivalency here. And the right knows it, which is why we get the crybaby rants of Michelle Malkin and her ilk.
January 10, 2011, 4:41 pmFub says:
It’s not even a crisis. There has been no follow-on deluge of crazed gunmen shooting up shopping malls, much less shooting at politicians.
It was a single tragic event, unlikely to be repeated for many years, or maybe even in our lifetimes.
It’s just an opportunity for opportunistic grandstanders to conjure up a looming cataclysmic threat and make points with their perceived political base.
January 10, 2011, 4:43 pmSarcastro says:
[It is an unfortunat commentary that I, a lawyer and kinda into the First Amendment, totally thought death threats against the President were not protected speech. I mean the Secret Service talks to bloggers and Pro Wrestlers all the time!
Chilling.
and geokstr, no doubt the left can get heated. But somehow I suspect a list of right-wing stuff incitement could also be created.
And it did Malkin have to resort to "The Green War on Children ," "threw an ice cream pie at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol," and calling Sarah Palin "Gidget?"
It's the internet; I know the threats are out there, that's just lazy.]
January 10, 2011, 4:44 pmgeokstr says:
And I’m not certain what exactly you think Palin did to specifically encourage an attack on anybody, other than a map with targets on Congressional seats that was meant to mean that they were on a list of seats we should try to win. I can’t find them now in the huge coverage on the right, but at least two other prominent leftist sites had maps just like it with targets on states they wanted to take.
And the current leftwing hysteria has to do with the “climate of hate” that the right supposedly fosters, yet you see no parallel in any kind of leftist climate. Hmmmm…..
January 10, 2011, 4:46 pmJakeD says:
ptt:
Didn’t you see Paul Kanjorski who said of Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott,“They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him” above?!
January 10, 2011, 4:54 pmjosh says:
Hans
I thought you promised in another thread that you weren’t going to cite yourself in support of a point on this site?
January 10, 2011, 4:54 pmSeaDrive says:
Another rush to make something “illegal-er.”
Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. Of course they are not all caused by depression or other mental illness. Some of the other third are caused by mental illnesses such as obsessive behavior, e.g. stalking.
But we would rather yell and shout about yelling and shouting than put resources into mental health.
January 10, 2011, 4:54 pmRich B. says:
How is this analysis consistent with the recent conviction of Hal Turner, who received 33 months for saying that Judge Posner and other judges “deserved to be killed” and then posted their pictures, office numbers, and maps of the courthouse?
January 10, 2011, 4:55 pmSarcastro says:
watch out though, I hear geokstr can get a bit het up himself! Can volokh ever recover from the “climate of hate” he himself fosters?
January 10, 2011, 4:57 pmMike says:
geokster -
It took all of a couple minutes via google:
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/01/09/sarah-palin-shoot-with-accuracy-aim-high-and-remember-it-takes-blood-sweat-and-tears-to-win/
“… use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win…” – Sarah Palin, March 2010.
You could also look to the “second amendment remedies” language of folks like Sharron Angle too.
And, I don’t think that the current argument (in this post at least) is about the “climate of hate.” It’s about violent political speech by people with the ability to ferment violence and hate in others.
As I said, I don’t think that it should be regulated or that it in and of itself is a crime. However, why shouldn’t we hold these people to account politically for it?
January 10, 2011, 4:57 pmLarryA says:
Oh, right. Sorry, I remember the 1960s. No cities have burned lately, and I haven’t been called a baby-killer since then. When was the last time the National Guard practiced riot control?
My father remembered times that made the 60s seem tame.
January 10, 2011, 4:57 pmBob from Ohio says:
What exactly did she say that was “pretty distasteful”?
How exactly did such “pretty distasteful” comments cause someone to “act on it”?
I don’t need links, just a few comments she made that would logically lead to a multiple killing spree.
January 10, 2011, 4:57 pmptt says:
Of course I saw it. Why else would I point out that the suggestion of this bill would be IRONIC only if the proponents included Rep. Kanjorski. I’m just defending the meaning of the word “ironic”.
January 10, 2011, 5:03 pmDennis says:
Since when has irrelevence deterred anyone in Congress?
January 10, 2011, 5:05 pmpete the elder says:
The sad thing is this attack might have been prevented had the Sheriff’s department enforced the existing laws against “true threats.” According to this MSNBC article, it looks like Laughton had a history of making death threats that the police knew about. It looks like they never arrested or charged him with any crimes.
January 10, 2011, 5:07 pmDennis says:
And if you have someone like Barak Obama making pretty distasteful statements and someone — even someone crazy and unhinged — acts on it, then it is clearly their cross to carry for saying it in the first place.
January 10, 2011, 5:07 pmAnon21 says:
Incitement would be the theory, I think. Nonetheless, the Brandenburg standard is a tough one to meet, and I wouldn’t be surprised if his conviction were overturned on appeal.
January 10, 2011, 5:07 pmDave N. says:
It would pretty close to impossible for him to co-sponsor the bill, at least in this Congress, since Paul Kanjorski was defeated for re-election.
January 10, 2011, 5:09 pmAnon21 says:
And thus, it is not in fact ironic. I think we’re all on the same page here, now!
January 10, 2011, 5:10 pmJakeD says:
ptt:
I saw you post that about “ironic” but your very next question was: “Could you save us all some time and highlight which — in any — of Malkin’s list of sins involves an actual politician using the rhetoric of violent death?”
Forcing someone up against a wall and shooting them is not “violent” enough for you?
January 10, 2011, 5:10 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Maybe Turner made a true threat. I’d like to read EV’s answer to your question.
January 10, 2011, 5:11 pmByomtov says:
a map with targets
Gee. If there’s nothing wrong with the map why did Palin feel compelled to take it down, and then produce that ridiculous BS about surveyors’ marks?
January 10, 2011, 5:11 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Even though she certainly meant that “target” stuff in a purely metaphorical way, it would have been insensitive to leave it up
I believe that was an error, as in, an error in judgment. Honesty is the best policy. Giffords herself had previously objected to that map, and Palin left it up. Presumably she had a reason. That reason is what should have been communicated in answer to the question, not the surveyer nonsense.
January 10, 2011, 5:17 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I don’t understand the connection between the two halves of that proposition. If you’re virulently criticized for something, you should ignore the criticism just because you don’t think the criticism is accurate?
January 10, 2011, 5:17 pmJakeD says:
Pelosi claimed today that taking down the map indicated PALIN was feeling guilty about it (I think this type of logical fallacy is why so many jurisdictions prohibit evidence of remedial measures from being admitted at trial).
January 10, 2011, 5:22 pmptt says:
Good lord. Can you read the thread? I was responding to geokstr’s claim that he was pointing us to a list — a long one he claimed — of examples. None of them fit the criteria, at least none that I read, having given up a third of the way through. I asked him to save me the trouble and direct us all to the relevant one(s).
As for Hans Bader’s post about “They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him”, thanks for bringing that up again. If you Google the phrase, it only appears to have come into existence in the last two days. No references AT ALL before Jan 2011.
Maybe Mr. Bader will give us a link to his source.
January 10, 2011, 5:25 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Really? It seems precisely identical to saying that she is responsible.
January 10, 2011, 5:25 pmThoughts on the Tucson Shootings | OpenMarket.org says:
[...] Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel.” Law professor Eugene Volokh has an interesting commentary about the First Amendment and allegedly inciteful or threatening speech. The Washington [...]
January 10, 2011, 5:25 pmRich B. says:
That’s the point. He wasn’t threatening Posner himself, and is seems pretty unlikely that some other guy is going read the post, say, “Hey, he’s right! Judge Posner does deserve to be killed!” and then be able to bring a gun into a very secure Courthouse, let alone find Judge Posner and shoot him with it.
January 10, 2011, 5:26 pmSteve in Seattle says:
It’s on the source site, linked to in the original article.
January 10, 2011, 5:27 pmKanjorski ponders ‘nuts,’ bolts from blue
Guy says:
Actually, it would only be ironic if the bill were all like “Oh sure, I’m totally going to criminalize threats now, just watch me. I’ll get right on that any day now, after my ski trip to hell.”
January 10, 2011, 5:28 pmByomtov says:
I don’t understand the connection between the two halves of that proposition. If you’re virulently criticized for something, you should ignore the criticism just because you don’t think the criticism is accurate?
I thought she was a big tough mama grizzly, who would stand up to what she considered unfair criticism. So taking it down suggests to me that she knew it crossed the line.
In any case, she didn’t even admit that taking it down had any connection to the shooting, or that she thought it was insensitive, as Laura suggests. Rather she made up some other nonsense about how they had been meaning to do it for some time, and just remembered, etc.
January 10, 2011, 5:29 pmDon M says:
It is also important that legislation associated with this event would establish an “unreasonable man” standard. In other words, the assertion that this legislation answers is a need to tone down our rhetoric, not to avoid inciting a reasonable man, but rather so that an unreasonable man would not be affected.
Since unreasonable men can be affected by nearly anything (and Loughner was apparently affected by the rules of grammer!!!) it would end all discussion of anything.
January 10, 2011, 5:31 pmHoward says:
Let’s please stop pretending that the issue is what someone posts on some website. The issue is what national political figures say and do, and whether their political allies (not the government) say to them at some point, “That’s over the line.” No more whining about what this or that left website said; if you’re a public figure, curb your rhetoric. Of course, if you think the U.S. is about to be turned into a socialist dictatorship, you probably don’t buy this, but if you think the U.S. is about to be turned into a socialist dictatorship you’re delusional and should probably have yourself committed.
Yes, let’s stop those faux-hysterical socialists before they take away our rights and turn the U.S. into a bankrupt Leninist prison camp! Oh, and did I mention the faux-hysterical atheists who want to outlaw Christmas and destroy crosses? (Sorry, S.)
January 10, 2011, 5:35 pmProfnickd says:
There is no “rancor” or “vitriol” in politics today — we live in a lame, milquetoast, bland political culture that legislates children into car seats and prevents them from playing dodge-ball on the playgrounds; practically the worst thing that can happen to an adult is to be deleted as a friend on someone’s Facebook page. We’ve basically become a nation of pansies.
Crosshairs on a politician in a political ad? Boring.
January 10, 2011, 5:35 pmLarryWB says:
It might help you all to remember that Markos M. also “targeted” Ms. Gifford in his Daily Kos blog back during the election, just as Sarah Palin did. Presumably because she favors gun rights and immigration restrictions, and other Tea Party-like things, being a Blue Dog Democrat.
January 10, 2011, 5:36 pmMarkos, however, is not being demonized for it. Seems to be a different standard for him.
erp says:
This proposed legislation is way past rational.
Why didn’t the left propose legislation limiting what people can say on late night TV when that moron Alec Baldwin opined that Henry Hyde, his wife and children should be killed for leading the impeachment against Clinton.
This needs to be nipped in the bud, but I’m afraid the Republican leadership is too immersered in “go along to get along” to actually lead the way the voters elected them to.
January 10, 2011, 5:37 pmptt says:
Thanks for the link.
Glad to hear his comments led, at least in part, do his defeat at the polls.
January 10, 2011, 5:38 pmMike says:
david – Uh, no. Saying that she should be held politically responsible is much, much, much different than saying she should be brought up on first degree murder charges or charges that she attempted to assassinate a member of Congress. She said, she should live with it. Free speech is not speech without consequences. But people on here seem to suggest that it’s either charge her with murder or it’s okay. It’s not okay.
Dennis – sure. If BHO says, aim accurately and aim high and someone does, you can rest assured that their will be blame coming his way.
January 10, 2011, 5:40 pmHans Bader says:
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) said, “They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him,” about Florida Governor Rick Scott (R). I noted that in my comment above.
Commenter ptt asked for a link.
Here is the to the article by journalist Mark Hemingway documenting it.
Contrary to what Josh suggested, I was not citing myself about this fact; I linked to Mark Hemingway’s article in the Washington Examiner.
January 10, 2011, 5:42 pmrpt says:
Geo:
Do you get out to the movies often? You say:
“Must be you missed the lines of Obama:
“They bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun“”.
June 14, 2008, 5:13 pm
Obama: ‘We Bring a Gun’
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Senator Barack Obama was fund-raising Friday night in Philadelphia. But he was talking about “the Chicago way.”
Channeling the mob drama, “The Untouchables,” Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
“Why is Barack Obama so negative?” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, calling the line a “hyperbolic attack.”
From IMDB:
[Malone: Sean Connery] You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?
[Ness: Kevin Costner] Anything and everything in my power.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they’re not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.
Ness: How do you do it then?
Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here’s how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?
Ness: Yes.
Malone: Good, ’cause you just took one.”
Is this the best you can do? Movie dialogue?
January 10, 2011, 5:42 pmJakeD says:
ptt:
I do read the thread. Glad you finally did : )
January 10, 2011, 5:44 pmwfjag says:
There is also no evidence that Jared Loughner ever threatened anyone — he was merely creepy enough to scare them and so he was banned from Pima (AZ) County Community College. Still, he passed the criminal background check to buy the pistol, since apparently his criminal record consisted solely of a couple of arrests for possession of drug paraphernalia, the prosecution of which were sent to a diversion program. As far as websites that may have influenced him, it has been reported that he posed a few comments on Daily Kos, but, there’s no evidence he had anything to do with any TEA Party organization or website, or with Gov. Palin (or, ever read anything she’s ever posted).
So, please Representatives Brady & Hinojosa, how would address any actual fact that may have contributed to this tragedy? Are you proposing an exception to the First Amendment providing that people who post comments to blogs should be prosecuted? Or, are you proposing an exception to Second Amendment rights for “creepy people”? Or, maybe you’re proposing that we do away with that troublesome requirement in criminal law that some act is an essential element of criminal offenses and proposing prosecuting thought crimes?
January 10, 2011, 5:46 pmSteve in Seattle says:
In any case, I don’t think he seriously was threatening Scott, or trying to get supporters to assault him.
A few days ago, nobody AFAIK thought that Palin was egging anyone on to commit assassinations or other political violence. It’s silly to start blaming (insert name of politician you don’t like here) when the person behind this was clearly a nutjob.
It’s especially sad when some are clearly more interested in gaining political points over a tragedy.
January 10, 2011, 5:47 pmrpt says:
Kanjorski’s statement was inappropriate and should have been harshly riticized. No problem with that. “King Rick” Scott is of course a Medicare crook, but won anyway.
January 10, 2011, 5:48 pmGuy says:
I vaguely half-recall people being upset over a “crosshairs” map months ago, I don’t remember if it was Palin-associated.
January 10, 2011, 5:56 pmptt says:
I wish that people, when “quoting” other people, would actually quote their exact words. Not only is it reasonable but God gave us cut&paste for a reason, ya know. And if that isn’t workable, use the ellipsis that the Devil gave us.
January 10, 2011, 5:56 pmMike says:
Steve – Actually lots of people have suggested that her rhetoric had gotten out of hand well before this.
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1495:slaughter-statement-on-recent-threatening-incidents&catid=91:press-releases-2010&Itemid=141 [Statement on recent Threatening Incidents]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002836-503544.html ["Could Tea Party Rhetoric lead to another Oklahoma City?]
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0326/Stumping-for-McCain-Sarah-Palin-dials-back-the-gun-rhetoric
and on and on and on and on… Google News is your friend. Pick a custom time interval.
January 10, 2011, 5:57 pmrpt says:
Lindgren is on a continuing week long series about how Loughner is really a “left wing radical” based on hearsay statements he allegedly made to a girl three years ago. This is done to “take the political issues off the table”. Classic Lindgren.
January 10, 2011, 6:01 pmHoward says:
This is more pathetic right-wing “I know you are, but what am I?” defensiveness. If you read what various right-wing websites are saying about Daily Kos, here’s what it comes down to: (1) a Twitter post in which MM said “She’s dead to me,” [He used the word "dead"!!] and a story in which he used the the word “bull’s-eye” in reference to her district. Double standard! Leftist hypocrites! Grow up, people. Not that anything will stop this from entering the treasury of right-wing folktales.
January 10, 2011, 6:04 pmptt says:
If you read the original source, he appeared to be calling for capital punishment. It’s hard to tell, as the first sentence lacks a word. He seemed to have called for his arrest, at least to me.
The “[ ]” is mine, of course.
January 10, 2011, 6:05 pmSarcastro says:
[Ugh. I'm just reading the headlines and it's killing me!
Still, it provides some ammo for those accusing the left of politicizing the tragedy.]
January 10, 2011, 6:08 pmgooners says:
Anyone who has never noticed criticism of violent rhetoric hasn’t been paying attention. Gifford herself criticized the gun sight map:
January 10, 2011, 6:10 pmSarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/8/934345/-Flashback:-Giffords-on-being-on-Palins-crosshairs-target-list
True Progressive says:
I blame Palin. Not because she had anything to do with it, but because, as a progressive, I’m forced to insist that when something bad happens in the world, a Republican is directly at fault. Since Bush is totally out of the loop, I’ll now assign blame to Palin for random events having nothing to do with her. You might be thinking that I sound a bit childish for insisting that dangerous boogeymen (or boogeywomen in this case) are responsible for such things, but fear not, I’m not exhibiting the symptoms of a delusional nutter, I’m part of the pro-intellectual party.
Can’t you see, oh can’t you see,
January 10, 2011, 6:11 pmWhat that woman, Lord, she been doin’ to me…
Steve in Seattle says:
Which is the biggest problem with this proposal. Even if you believe Kanjorski was calling for Scott’s death within legal means (i.e. capital punishment for whatever crime Scott committed, along with Scott convicted, etc.) how do you say “well, that is OK” and “what Palin said was not”?
January 10, 2011, 6:12 pmGuy says:
I like this quote:
I’m not sure what I’d call that, but Lindgren’s characterization of it as an attack on Christianity is interesting.
January 10, 2011, 6:13 pmDave N. says:
Here’s a thought experiment: If some insane person actually bought Kos’s despicable, “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin” tweet or the comments from any of the others who have similarly tried to blame Palin or the Tea Party for these horrific crimes and actually harmed the former Alaska governor in the process, or, worse yet, bombed a Tea Party rally creating mass casualties, would Kos or the others have blood on their hands?
Inquiring minds do want to know.
January 10, 2011, 6:16 pmSarcastro says:
The way to convince partisan hacks is to hack it up like a champion yourself, to show them the error of their ways! Because partisans will respond to opposing partisanship with logic and reflection! And everyone else is sure to take such hackery only as an exercize in calming down the rhetoric!
January 10, 2011, 6:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I don’t know about blood on their hands, but right now they have egg on their faces as far as I’m concerned.
January 10, 2011, 6:17 pmgooners says:
That site Lindgren is wading through looks like Prison Planet. I applaud his confidence in his ability to sort that kind of place into two categories. I’m curious how he will fare. “Left” and “Right” are so poorly defined, constantly shifting, and most often strawmen created by the opposition he’s going to have a tough time. Of course, he could just go with the old standby:
Leftist = someone I don’t like
I don’t like Loughner
Therefore Loughner = Leftist
Mission accomplished.
January 10, 2011, 6:24 pmerp says:
Any lefties have problems with these targets?
I didn’t think so.
January 10, 2011, 6:25 pmSteve in Seattle says:
Would you agree that someone who considers Afghanistan and Iraq “war crimes” is probably not a right-winger?
January 10, 2011, 6:27 pmByomtov says:
Dave N.,
Kos vs. Palin?
Do you think that, just maybe, prominent political figures like a former VP candidate and possible Presidential contender with a large following might be held to a higher standard of discourse than a political blogger?
If you want to get into a blog quote war I’m sure there’s plenty of ammunition on both sides. That’s not really the issue here.
January 10, 2011, 6:32 pmTrue Progressive says:
Any lefties have problems with these targets?
Not me. Those are good, safe, and reasonable targets. Not despicable tea-bagger targets. It says a lot about you that you can’t tell the difference. ;)
And I think Dave N. really raises the key problem with the orgy of ignorance that the left has been pimping for the last 24+ hours. If this guy really had been a tea-bagger (you know, someone who engages in inflammatory rhetoric) the calls for exempting certain viewpoints from “reasonable” discussion would be even louder than they already are.
It appears that we may be on the wrong path.
January 10, 2011, 6:34 pmrpt says:
The answer is that it is not ok.
January 10, 2011, 6:35 pmAndrew Paul says:
This is a cruel joke, considering what Giffords thought of Palin’s rhetoric (which she said after her office was vandalized last year).
January 10, 2011, 6:35 pmDave N. says:
Byomotov.
Kos is not just a “political blogger” and I think you know that. That’s kind of like saying Rush Limbaugh is just some guy on the radio.
But thanks for playing, “Let’s Change the Subject.”
January 10, 2011, 6:36 pmgooners says:
Is the definition of a left-winger “a person who is not a right-winger”? Where do Lew Rockwell and Alex Jones fit into your Fox News/MSNBC continuum? What I’m saying is the real world is more complicated than maybe “Crossfire” suggested.
January 10, 2011, 6:37 pmAl says:
At least Lindgren’s statements are based on some actual evidence, unlike the despicable comments of Krugman, Dupnik, et al.
January 10, 2011, 6:38 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Byomtov, speaking for myself only, I see those words “former” and “possible” and as far as I’m concerned, she’s John Q. Public.
I wish everybody held themselves to some kind of standard. I dislike Palin’s poster. I also dislike TV shows like CSI, violent and misogynist rap music and video games, and Lori Drew’s use of MySpace. As far as I’m concerned, Palin’s poster is just one more item on a whole list of crap I gotta put up with. But it’s not relevant to the shooting b/c it appears not to have been relevant to the shooter. He fixed on Giffords and her inability to answer satisfactorily his weird question about the meaning of words. There’s nothing you can do about that kind of thing; in a country of 300,000,000 people all it takes is one off his rocker and you can’t really filter that out.
January 10, 2011, 6:38 pmSteve in Seattle says:
I note your use of the words “war” and “ammunition.”
January 10, 2011, 6:41 pmLarryWB says:
Ah, yes, Democrats using violent imagery in politics is a vast right-wing myth.
Well, except for:
This site, the “behind enemy lines” “targeting strategy” map, complete with bullseyes on GOP “targets.”
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
And there was the DNCC map with “targeted Republicans,” identified by red-dot targets, each of which for handy reference could be used to read about the individual Republican politicians who were thus targeted. Read about it here:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
I don’t know why I even bother indulging in this: war imagery has been used by all sides in politics forever. But I do get tired of people claiming it’s a “right wing” phenomenon, and I get a lot more than tired when idiots in Washington try to – how do they put it? Never let a crisis go to waste? – take advantage of a lunatic act and repeal the First Amendment even more than has already been done.
Can we just not fall for this crap, please? Sarah Palin is no more responsible for this shooting than Barack Obama, or Eugene Volokh.
January 10, 2011, 6:46 pmGuy says:
Well, to the extent I understand the argument (since “the argument” seems to be mostly incoherent expressions of emotion on both sides), I would think whether he is more properly described as “on the left” or “on the right” is irrelevant. The question is whether the kind of rhetoric being criticized had a causal connection to the violence.
January 10, 2011, 6:46 pmMark Field says:
I’m not sure if Ron Paul ever used that specific phrase, but he certainly opposes the wars and is hardly “left wing”.
Personally, I think the proposed speech restrictions are silly and unconstitutional. I have a better idea:
In the spirit of our Egyptian brethren, I propose that Republican officials volunteer as human shields for any Dem official who wants to meet with the public. I envision John McCain and Sarah Palin among others in a circle around a nervous Congressman, their presence silent but nonetheless eloquent in its rebuke to the rhetorical violence of their compatriots.
January 10, 2011, 6:50 pmDilan Esper says:
1. Martial metaphors are common in politics, and are not true threats. If what Watts said was protected (as it should be), nothing I’ve heard about Obama or the Democrats is unprotected.
2. I don’t like the prospect of a political discourse where every snarky comment you make gets condemned as inappropriate in a hail of phony outrage. Sarah Palin obviously wasn’t telling her supporters to shoot Democrats.
BUT:
3. I do think both sides have a bit of a responsibility to police (through denunciations) their extremes. And conservatives haven’t been doing a very good job of this lately. I.e., when people started showing up to political rallies brandishing weapons, and Sharron Angle talked about “second amendment remedies”, etc., that sort of crap should have been condemned. Those weren’t martial metaphors– those were a lot more overt than that.
Similarly, it’s pretty clear that there’s a violent fringe of the anti-abortion and anti-immigration movements in this country, yet conservatives don’t condemn it. (And yes, liberals should have no truck with the Bill Ayerses of the world either.)
There’s a lot of conservatives who are afraid to say anything Rush Limbaugh might criticize them for, but your ability to use martial metaphors (which, as I said, are entirely proper in politics) comes with a responsibility to condemn actual violence, and not just after the fact.
January 10, 2011, 6:52 pmricky says:
Whose rhetoric needs to be toned down to prevent future Nidal Hassans, Faisal Shahzads, Farouk Abdulmutallabs, Mohamed Mohamuds, etc?
January 10, 2011, 6:54 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
That will work as long as the would-be assassins are Republicans. How often is that happening?
January 10, 2011, 6:54 pmMDT says:
Byomtov,
Do you think that, just maybe, prominent political figures like a former VP candidate and possible Presidential contender with a large following might be held to a higher standard of discourse than a political blogger?
Why? No, seriously. Limbaugh and Beck and Coulter and Malkin and Drudge aren’t running for office any more than Moulitsas is. And the first four, at least, have gotten death wishes from fairly prominent individuals, and all of them, I’d guess, many hundreds from people less prominent. The ones that go to conservative women are particularly vile. If violent imagery against specific individuals is now to be outside the norm (that was Andrew Sullivan’s formulation earlier today), possibly it would be nice if people stopped burning and hanging other people in effigy, picturing them with guns to their heads, hoping they killed themselves, hoping their wives fed them so much fatty food that they died of heart disease at an early age, fantasizing about how neat it would be if someone put an exploding CO2 bullet into their brains. You know, that sort of stuff.
January 10, 2011, 6:54 pmwhit says:
wait, are you saying that kneejerk overbroad unconstitutional legislation is being proposed in a kneejerk fashion, because a crime was just committed?
i’m simply shocked.
January 10, 2011, 6:54 pmGuy says:
Osama bin Laden’s?
January 10, 2011, 6:57 pmSteve in Seattle says:
Hold on. First, this person was “right-wing.” Then we see some evidence that he held decidely not “right-wing” views, like on war. Now, suddenly there is a huge political spectrum of views, conveniently to prevent the assassin from being classified as “left-wing.”
Got it.
January 10, 2011, 6:59 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Statement of Attorney General John Ashcroft Regarding the Arrest of Eric Robert Rudolph
How many more should I find?
January 10, 2011, 6:59 pmricky says:
By the way, I think one of the surest ways to incite political violence is to insist that the other side is “violent”. Then your audience can convince themselves that when they commit political violence, it’s in self-defense!
January 10, 2011, 7:00 pmwhit says:
margaret cho, fwiw, has a comedy routine about how she’d like to rape (yes, that’s the word she used) palin.
January 10, 2011, 7:00 pmBruce Hayden says:
This is really pathetic. EV makes a lot of great points about legislation aimed at protecting politicians against getting their feelings hurt (ok, I exaggerate there), and it turns into another discussion about whether or not Sarah Palin did something threatening during the last election cycle, or whether the President and/or other Democrats have done so. In short, a rehash of numerous other discussions over the last couple of days.
I understand why members of Congress may be a bit worried here. This hit a bit close to home. But, I would suggest that nothing said over the last couple of election cycles on either side is any worse than what has been said over the last 200+ years when it comes to (verbally) attacking politicians.
I surely don’t think that it deserves cutting out special rules for members of Congress. After all, one could argue that they, more than anyone else, should be subject to the 1st Amdt., since one of the primary purposes of that Amdt. is to protect political speech. This is, of course, assuming that the courts would allow this sort of legislation to remain on the books, which EV makes a compelling case that they would not.
I should also note that another Representative has asked for special treatment by the TSA, again on the grounds that they face special danger in these supposedly more dangerous times. This, unfortunately in my view, can be implemented by the stroke of a pen by Secretary Napolitano or President Obama, and really isn’t subject to the same issues pointed out by EV above.
January 10, 2011, 7:17 pmAlaska Jack says:
LEFT: Loughner was inspired to do this by the right-wing climate of hate!!
RIGHT: What evidence do you have for that?
LEFT: None. But it’s true! Look at these [examples]. You should be ashamed!
RIGHT: So? The left does the same thing! Look at these [examples].
LEFT: [Embarrassingly unconvincing hairsplitting of why left-wing examples are somehow less bad than right-wing examples; the "target" icons (which Loughner probably never saw) are not as bad as the "bullseye" icons (which he also probably never saw); Obama's "punish your enemies" (which Loughner probably never heard) is not as bad as Palin's "aim high" (which he also probably never heard), etc.]
RIGHT: But isn’t this irrelevant? There’s no evidence Loughner was influenced by any of this. The evidence now emerging seems to indicate that, like most other assassin-types, he was just a nutcase with a hodgepodge of poorly thought-out obsessions. In fact, his concerns seem more left-wing than right-wing.
LEFT: So, you think he attacked a Democrat because he was left-wing? That’s absurd.
RIGHT: No, that’s not what I’m saying. *You’re* the one trying to posit a link between abstract expression of ideas and this one loony’s behavior. I’m just pointing out that the thesis “Assassin motivated by right-wing beliefs” doesn’t seem to be the case here.
LEFT: But Giffords was a Democrat! Who voted for universal health care!
RIGHT: And a self-described Blue Dog Democrat who voted against Pelosi as speaker. So? JFK was assassinated by a Marxist who didn’t think he was liberal *enough*.
LEFT: … Loughner was inspired to do this by the right-wing climate of hate!!
Repeat as needed.
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 7:18 pmMDT says:
whit,
I remember when Margaret Cho was a good comic. It doesn’t even seem all that long ago.
January 10, 2011, 7:19 pmAlaska Jack says:
+1,000,000
It applies to things that aren’t exactly violent, too. If a capitalist oppresses people, it’s because he’s evil. But I’m a Marxist — I’M A GOOD GUY. I believe in helping the poor and oppressed. Therefore, if circumstance demand that I do a little oppressing, well, that’s unfortunate, but it’s different; I’M A GOOD GUY.
– AJ
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 7:22 pmSteve in Seattle says:
I didn’t even realize Margaret Cho was ever a good comic. The things you learn at VC.
January 10, 2011, 7:23 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
Why? No, seriously.
Because she commands a much larger audience, and has many more admirers.
Because her prominence means she has more influence on the national discourse.
Because, as a prominent political figure who seeks to occupy a leadership role (whether she runs for President or not) she sets more of an example than a blogger.
Limbaugh and Beck and Coulter and Malkin and Drudge aren’t running for office any more than Moulitsas is. And the first four, at least, have gotten death wishes from fairly prominent individuals, and all of them, I’d guess, many hundreds from people less prominent.
I don’t doubt that these people get death threats, but I’m not sure what your point here is, or who the prominent individuals are. I’m not defending anyone who issues such threats. But if you’re going for equivalence I don’t think you’re going to find it.
The fact is that guns play a big part in conservatives’ political imagination, and they consequently rely on gun-related imagery and actions much more than liberals do.
The rhetoric on the right has been pretty bad, and sometimes it’s not just rhetoric.
January 10, 2011, 7:25 pmDave N. says:
Alaska Jack:
Positively brilliant.
January 10, 2011, 7:27 pmSarcastro says:
Yep, no one on the right is blaiming this on the left. There is not “liberal climate of hate” narrative, and the right wing has once again covered itself in glory!
January 10, 2011, 7:29 pmSarcastro says:
It is amazing how insightful the people who agree with me are!
January 10, 2011, 7:30 pmMDT says:
Dilan Esper,
Similarly, it’s pretty clear that there’s a violent fringe of the anti-abortion and anti-immigration movements in this country, yet conservatives don’t condemn it. (And yes, liberals should have no truck with the Bill Ayerses of the world either.)
That last will be awkward if they’re sharing Department office space with him at UIll/Chi. How do you suggest they go about it?
Conservatives have condemned violent opposition to abortion up the wazoo. I don’t know what more they want them to do, unless it’s to go out and slaughter the radicals.
No one but a few freaks wants to kill border-crossers; but many, many people want to apprehend border-crossers, and they are in the peculiar position that, while they’re willing to do the apprehending that the Feds say they can’t afford to do, the Feds won’t pay attention. IOW there’s a Federal law that the Federal government will not enforce, and also will not allow anyone else to enforce. The law’s in effect, technically; it’s just not state purview, so only the Feds may enforce it. Or not. Principally not. That does appear to piss some people off, though I have to say the law-enforcement death toll is a hell of a lot bigger just on the other side of the border.
January 10, 2011, 7:32 pmGuy says:
All I know is that if this thread doesn’t finally settle, once and for all, which of the two – left and right – has the moral high ground, and which of the two are hypocrites, I’ll be sorely disappointed.
I know, I know, we’ve all seen these kinds of threads before, and all they do is make everyone angry and dig in deeper in opposition, with no one’s minds being changed, but I’ve got a good feeling about this one.
January 10, 2011, 7:35 pmRandolph says:
No, reasonable people would say that nuts rarely fall into right or left categories all the time. It’s hacks like you and Kos that only do when it’s politically beneficial.
January 10, 2011, 7:37 pmMDT says:
Byomtov,
So you’re saying that Sarah Palin, as someone who might run for office, ought to be held to a higher standard than the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Markos Moulitsas. Fair enough.
January 10, 2011, 7:38 pmAlaska Jack says:
Sarcastro -
I wanted to say “Nice try,” but really, it’s not. You completely missed this part:
“RIGHT: No, that’s not what I’m saying. *You’re* the one trying to posit a link between abstract expression of ideas and this one loony’s behavior. I’m just pointing out that the thesis “Assassin motivated by right-wing beliefs” doesn’t seem to be the case here.”
I don’t know how much clearer this could be. The right is indeed pointing out examples of hateful rhetoric on the left. BUT IT IS NOT DRAWING A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN LEFT-WING RHETORIC AND THE ASSASSIN’S ACTIONS.
As far as I can see, there is pretty much exactly the same quantity and quality of rhetoric from right and left. Insisting otherwise, in the face of MOUNTAINS of evidence available at the click of a mouse, is sheer, pathetic, willful self-delusion.
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 7:39 pmMark Field says:
Never, if I were to believe Republicans. All too often if I believe my lying eyes.
Besides, we can’t use Dem officials to protect Republicans. We certainly don’t want to create a target-rich environment.
I wasn’t engaged in any larger debate with you, I was just answering your question. Since you bring it up, though…
There’s a segment of the right which IS opposed to the wars. Ron Paul is a good example, but he’s not the only one. That same segment of the right is also fond of returning to the gold standard, which it appears the assassin supported.
Does that make him “right wing”? Probably it just makes him crazy. But the claims that he was “left wing” seem pretty silly.
In any case, the issue is not his particular politics, the issue is whether the extremist rhetoric we’ve seen too often on the right is creating a climate in which deranged people feel encouraged to act.
January 10, 2011, 7:43 pmwhit says:
isn’t “abortion up the wazoo” kind of redundant?
January 10, 2011, 7:47 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Here’s a perfectly serious proposal: the Republicans should use their majority to expel Rep. Hinojosa from Congress for violating his oath to defend the Constitution – for, in fact, attacking it. I can’t think of anything that would chill the statists more, or be more deserved.
January 10, 2011, 7:49 pmAlaska Jack says:
I look forward to another colossally unconvincing round of hairsplitting, in which we all get enlightened as to how Glenn Beck’s word choice is more dangerous than Keith Olbermanns, or how President Obama’s martial imagery is as pleasant as a Hawaiian breeze next to Palin’s frigid arctic blasts.
– AJ
PS Take that, Sarcastro!
January 10, 2011, 7:50 pmricky says:
Thread winner
January 10, 2011, 7:50 pmSteve in Seattle says:
Please name a Republican assassin.
Ron Paul isn’t a right-winger, though. He’s considered more of a Libertarian if anything. “Right winger”, at least in the US, implies a level of social conservativism which Paul doesn’t share.
January 10, 2011, 7:50 pmSarcastro says:
[I'll agree with you there.
And I think you got me about the causal connections thing too, absent Freepers.
Though I think Guy's 7:35 encapsulates my thoughts best of all.]
January 10, 2011, 7:51 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Who are your lying eyes seeing? Name names, please.
January 10, 2011, 7:52 pmcalmom says:
If we cleaned up anything that might provoke a deranged killer, there would be no more Jodie Foster movies shown, no more Beatles music played.
I certainly don’t want the political discourse ruled by what might set off the deranged.
If there is to be blame placed on anyone in addition to the killer, it should be on those who knew he was ‘off’ (where were his parents in all this?) and did nothing.
January 10, 2011, 7:54 pmDilan Esper says:
This sounds nice and snarky, but if conservatives were actually making THIS point about Islam, i.e., that Islamic moderates don’t do nearly enough to police the rhetoric of jihadists, they would have a point.
The problem is many conservatives go way beyond this and lob a bunch of smears about Islam being an inherently violent religion; it is, just like Christianity, capable of being deployed to justify violence, but it is also capable of being responsibly deployed too.
It is also problematic that these same conservatives NEVER talk about Christian terrorism, e.g., murders by pro-lifers.
January 10, 2011, 7:59 pmDilan Esper says:
Ashcroft was AG. He is in a very different position from movement conservatives.
How about finding a statement by Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Bill Kristol about anti-abortion terrorism?
January 10, 2011, 8:00 pmSteve in Seattle says:
I never said the assassin was left-winger. AFAIK left-wingers don’t believe in assassination as a political tool, which kind of kicks him out of that club.
January 10, 2011, 8:01 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Whoops! Should have said Reps. Brady and Hinojosa.
January 10, 2011, 8:03 pmDilan Esper says:
Michelle:
We had a “Minuteman” movement down at the border not too long ago, implying that private violence would be used against illegal immigrants, and conservatives cheered it on. Movement conservatives also opposed the prosecution of border control agents who shot a migrant in the back.
I’d say the anti-immigrant hysteria has more than a bit of actual violence attached to it. And conservatives want the votes of those people, so they never utter a word about it.
January 10, 2011, 8:04 pmAlaska Jack says:
1. I consider myself a good, moral person.
2. I believe XYZ. It is part of what makes me a good person.
3. Other people who believe XYZ are therefore probably good, moral people too.
4. Bob does not believe XYZ. In fact, he opposes it.
5. Bob is therefore probably not a good person. I mean, it’s theoretically possible, but unlikely.
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 8:04 pmDave N. says:
I used to think Mark Field liked intelligent discussions and wasn’t a partisan hack. I guess I was wrong.
If it was meant as satire, sorry, Mark, it was an epic failure.
January 10, 2011, 8:05 pmSecond Amendment Sister says:
Tragically ironic that Representative Giffords was thrilled to have read the First Amendment to the US Constitution on Congressional opening day.
Now they are using her to gut it.
January 10, 2011, 8:07 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
…
Wow, way to move the goalposts. Whatever I find, you’ll find a way not to be satisfied with it.
January 10, 2011, 8:08 pmwhit says:
the minutemen didn’t imply private “violence” any more than a store loss prevention agent, or a neighborhood watch implies private violence.
January 10, 2011, 8:12 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Governor Palin statement on George Tiller
January 10, 2011, 8:12 pmricky says:
Whose rhetoric needs to be toned down to prevent future Omar Thorntons, Raymond Martinezs, Maurice Clemmonss, Chris Monforts, etc.?
Oh wait, I forgot. When someone in a “protected class” murders a public official, it’s an isolated incident by a lone nut and HOW DARE YOU generalize or “jump to conclusions”. Nothing to see here. It’s only when someone who can potentially be linked to Republican politicians commits a crime that it becomes a “teachable moment” and we rush out new laws.
January 10, 2011, 8:12 pmMark Field says:
We all take our entertainment where we find it. I personally find it amusing to watch the Right scramble to avoid responsibility for their eliminationist rhetoric and behavior. The false equivalencies are particularly convincing.
Sure.
Let’s see, we have Scott Roeder, we have Eric Rudolph, we have Richard Poplawski, we have the tax case guy whose name I’ve forgotten, and I have the feeling I’m missing at least one more.
And if we extend things to violent rhetoric and behavior, which is the real point I’m making, there’d be lots more.
January 10, 2011, 8:14 pmricky says:
“AFAIK left-wingers don’t believe in assassination as a political tool, which kind of kicks him out of that club.”
Indeed! No true Scotsman believes in assassination as a political tool.
January 10, 2011, 8:15 pmSarcastro says:
More Melodrama! This legislation has already passed and most of our speech will fall into it’s ambit!
January 10, 2011, 8:15 pmMark Field says:
Mark Field is REALLY sick and tired of the rhetoric on the right. As between that and my post, it shouldn’t be much of a contest which should disturb you more.
January 10, 2011, 8:16 pmShelbyC says:
Well, if one is sick and tired of the rhetoric on the right, but not sick and tired of attempts from the left to blame people like Sarah Palin for the shooting, that is a clear sign of being a partisan hack.
January 10, 2011, 8:20 pmricky says:
“I personally find it amusing to watch the Right scramble to avoid responsibility for their eliminationist rhetoric and behavior.”
LOL @ “eliminationist”
Does that count as a Godwin?
January 10, 2011, 8:21 pmgooners says:
Oh, so you were aware that there is a wider spectrum.
January 10, 2011, 8:21 pmDebrah says:
Definitely the comment of the day.
January 10, 2011, 8:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Eric Rudolph:
January 10, 2011, 8:23 pmDave N. says:
Fine. Now I know you are a partisan troll. That makes it much easier to skip your comments.
January 10, 2011, 8:27 pmShelbyC says:
This crap about folks somebody disagrees with politically being responsible for the shooting is on a par with things like birtherism.
It’s just flat-out crap. Drivel.
January 10, 2011, 8:28 pmricky says:
By the way, has anyone here seen Machete?
January 10, 2011, 8:29 pmShelbyC says:
No, it’s malpractice.
January 10, 2011, 8:30 pmSteve in Seattle says:
I consider myself a Libertarian, so, um, yeah, for the past 20 years.
I’d argue those trying to classify him as a right-winger are the ones that only see two clubs. According to their logic, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and the assassin all fall into the “right-winger” category.
January 10, 2011, 8:37 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The tax guy was Joe Stack. From what I can tell, he was a registered Democrat. He griped in his suicide note about George Bush.
January 10, 2011, 8:37 pmDave N. says:
Spot on.
(Of course, I fully expect Sarcastro to once again accuse me of confirmation bias)
January 10, 2011, 8:37 pmAlaska Jack says:
Wikipedia: Logical fallacy
Specifically, your premise itself (“The right is responsible”) assumes the conclusion is true.
It’s been pointed out hundreds of times that there is no evidence that “the right” is responsible. Therefore, why would they be “scrambling to avoid responsibility”?
YOU SEE scrambling because that is what you are ideologically predisposed to see. You have assumed the conclusion that they are guilty.
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 8:37 pmwhit says:
yes.
i don’t buy the michelle rodriguez as bad-ass chick ™ that she portrays in every movie. she’s hollywood’s go-to girl for it, and imo she can’t pull it off. OTHER than that, I enjoyed it.
January 10, 2011, 8:38 pmMark Field says:
More names:
Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, Jim David Atkinson, Keith Luke, Kody Brittingham, Joshua Cartwright, James von Brunn, John Patrick Bedell, Jerry and Joe Kane, and Byron Williams.
January 10, 2011, 8:41 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
I think Eugene is just going to have to do an Old Yeller with Lindgren one of these days. Anyone who’s had Lindgren at Northwestern knows Lindgren’s best thinking days are behind him…
January 10, 2011, 8:48 pmSteve in Seattle says:
Keith Luke is a neonazi with a swastika on his forehead. You really think he is a Republican? Begone, troll!
January 10, 2011, 8:49 pmAlaska Jack says:
Are you saying you think Lindgren should be taken out behind the barn and shot? Please clarify.
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 8:50 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Mark, I just looked up Bedell. Wrong.
I’m not chasing any more of your geese. You show that they are/were Republicans if you can.
You see what it pleases you to see. Why it pleases you to see Republicans as murderers is your business. I decline to speculate.
January 10, 2011, 8:52 pmSarcastro says:
[I dunno about that - both are calculated lies, but one plays off of historical racism and has lasted for years, while the other is the your run-of-the-mill reprehensible taking advantage of a crisis.]
Also, Dave N., your agreement that some liberal hysterics are overblown has got to be confirmation bias, I’m working furiously how that is so as we speak!
[Though I will say that the right wing victimization narrative seems to be spiraling out of control as well. "Poor Sarah Palin, some hacks are being hacks at her again!"]
January 10, 2011, 8:55 pmRagebot says:
+100
January 10, 2011, 8:56 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
OK, I just looked up Keith Luke.
Mark, provide some kind of proof that Luke is/was a Republican or reveal yourself to be a troll.
January 10, 2011, 9:03 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro,
Yep, no one on the right is blaming this on the left. There is not “liberal climate of hate” narrative, and the right wing has once again covered itself in glory!
Dammit, man, you know better. The point is that violent political rhetoric is all over the place, and the idea that this is something that just happened in the last two years is nuts. You want me to regale you with what people wanted to happen to Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck, Coulter? Clarence Thomas? And BusHITLER? And his evil genius with the bad shotgun aim? And especially Sarah Palin?
The whole pushback today was just that: OK, you say there’s been nothing like this since for ever, until Obama; fine, here’s the last decade. Take a look and decide for yourself.
January 10, 2011, 9:04 pmShelbyC says:
Uh, too late?
January 10, 2011, 9:05 pmMark Field says:
A link for anyone with intellectual honesty, though I wouldn’t personally include some of the rhetoric they do.
It’s frankly sad that none of the commenters in this thread, nor the posters on this site, show any willingness to recognize, much less condemn, the reckless and irresponsible behavior that has characterized too much of the political right for far too long. You all need to take a deep look inside yourselves.
Say what you want in response, I’m done.
January 10, 2011, 9:06 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Only if Eugene does it ;-)
January 10, 2011, 9:06 pmShelbyC says:
Dude, just stfu. You’re making as ass of yourself.
January 10, 2011, 9:13 pmgooners says:
Which I never did. So…what are you and I talking about?
January 10, 2011, 9:15 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
This response pretty much sums up everything you need to know about ShelbyC and other assassin apologists.
January 10, 2011, 9:16 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro,
This crap about folks somebody disagrees with politically being responsible for the shooting is on a par with things like birtherism.
[I dunno about that — both are calculated lies, but one plays off of historical racism and has lasted for years, while the other is the your run-of-the-mill reprehensible taking advantage of a crisis.]
Well, that’s OK then. Evidently hanging Sarah Palin in effigy and burning Silvio Berlusconi in effigy and hanging Joe Lieberman in effigy and hanging Barack Obama in effigy are totally the same, except maybe that last one. Because when you hang a black man in effigy, it’s actually violent, whereas when you do it to someone not a black man, it’s all just a little bit of fun. Yes? Stringing up dummies of white women is just a good joke. Burning images of white men is just your basic election-night lark.
January 10, 2011, 9:19 pmrpt says:
Evidence? What evidence?
January 10, 2011, 9:20 pmricky says:
“This response pretty much sums up everything you need to know about ShelbyC and other assassin apologists.”
Using the term “assassin apologists” pretty much sums up everything you need to know about partisan hacks using a mentally disturbed lash-out multiple murder to score political points.
January 10, 2011, 9:21 pmgooners says:
That’s true. I’m glad there are people like Volokh, who don’t just skip over something so obviously stupid, but take the time to document why it is so stupid. No one supports what these two Congressmen are proposing. So the conversation moves on.
January 10, 2011, 9:21 pmricky says:
“No one supports what these two Congressmen are proposing.”
Nominated for dumbest statement of all time.
January 10, 2011, 9:26 pmSarcastro says:
[I agree that that is one narrative, and a strong one on this site. It is far from the only one, though.
I take solice in the fact that by the end of the week the more hysterical narratives will fall to the fringes, and we can start discussing things better.
Till then, this was kinda fun, at least for a while. Getting tired of it now, though.
There will be some fresh crazy tomorrow though.]
[Well, the are both awful, but hanging a black dude in effigy is indeed differen than a white guy. Hostory and context matter.
Just because I say one is worse does not mean I'm endorsing the other. But you knew that.]
January 10, 2011, 9:31 pmgooners says:
Hmm…and yet not dumb enough for you to understand. Let me qualify:
January 10, 2011, 9:32 pm“No one here on this thread is supporting what the Congressmen are proposing – that is, legislation to ban ill defined “violent” rhetoric. It is possible, however, to condemn something without wanting it outlawed. So there isn’t much to talk about with the legislation. That happens sometimes on blogs when the original post is very well done or isn’t about a controversial subject (the legislation, not the speech). So let me just briefly acknowledge my appreciation for Volokh and the work he put into his post.”
rumpelstiltskin says:
And this response is a great example of being a gracious winner. “You mean our campaign of violent rhetoric succeeded in generating a viable assassin with no direct ties to any mainstream figure or group? Aw shucks, folks, I can’t take all the credit. Without those crazy, vulnerable kids, where would we be?”
Cloud-sourcing political assassinations: congratulations, it works.
January 10, 2011, 9:36 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Sarcastro, the problem here is that white folks, especially those without a knowledge of history, feel devalued when people say things like that. And if black folks’ feelings matter, then white folks’ feelings do too. I don’t see that it advances any good purpose to talk about the difference in badness between hanging people of various races in effigy.
January 10, 2011, 9:39 pmMalvolio says:
That’s the problem, he really thinks that. Republicans are bad, neonazis are bad, therefore Republicans are neonazis.
January 10, 2011, 9:49 pmKen Arromdee says:
That goes back to the question of whether it’s Al Gore’s “cross to carry” that the Discovery shooter killed people based on his ideas.
For that matter, it may still be that this shooter is a leftist. If so, will you now non-blame leftist rhetoric the same way you are non-blaming Sarah Palin?
January 10, 2011, 9:49 pmSarcastro says:
[Hrm. You may have something there. I maintain that there is a difference, and that white people are feeling devalued without merit (again, one can say something is worse than another without endorsing the latter), but at some point noting levels of despiciability can cause more rancor than enlightment.
In the end though, I still hesitate to equate this partisan spasm with the long-term crazy that is birthers. But I'll hang it on the length of time, not on the racial aspect.]
January 10, 2011, 9:49 pmRagebot says:
Just some random thoughts.
Did anyone go to Loughner’s youtube page, view his vid on grammar, and perhaps more to the point understand what he was trying to get across about grammar?
EV had a thread a while back about good legal writing, and trust me this guy needed it.
I know some of us rant about confusing off the wall posts at VC, but saying his vids seemed to show he was using cheap drugs is an understatement. To put it bluntly he did not have enough tacos to make a combo platter.
As others have pointed out he was obsessed with Giffords before Palin was nominated, and reports are he was mad at her because she was bi-lingual and answered a question in Spanish in 2007. He also told the army recruiter he smoked pot and was not smart enough to have some one pee in the cup for the test.
What worries me most is not that he shot a house rep, peeps have been trying to kill pols for most of recorded history, but that he shot a nine year old girl. I can not imagine any political upside to that. Maybe one of you google experts can come up with an example of talk radio hosts advocating shooting nine year old girls.
Next on my list of worries is the bozo cop who keeps making the defense argument that Loughner suffers from diminished capacity by being taken in by Palin’s Jedi Mind tricks. Dupnik’s comments also seem to advance the argument of a change of venue through his polluting of the jury pool. I have a very limited understanding of criminal law, can someone weigh in about speech restrictions on public officials like Dupnik.
January 10, 2011, 9:51 pmAlaska Jack says:
OK, well I got through the first paragraph:
“On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association’s contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become “tyrannical.” The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued”
Oh? So there were no incidents of “insurrectionist violence” before 2008? Surely you see how this exercise in “intellectual honesty” is completely meaningless? They simply cherry picked incidents, post 2008, that fit their loose thesis. OK, so was this violence different in quality or quantity than 2007? What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?
OK, how about this in response:
I hereby recognize and condemn the reckless and irresponsible behavior that has characterized too much of the political right for far too long.
I would also like to add:
I hereby recognize and condemn the reckless and irresponsible behavior that has characterized too much of the political left for far too long.
Satisfied?
– AJ
January 10, 2011, 10:00 pmGiant Frog says:
Politicians – including judges – “live by the sword”, even though someone else is physically wielding it for them.
January 10, 2011, 10:23 pmShelbyC says:
Assassin apologists. Lol :-).
January 10, 2011, 10:24 pmCarl N. Brown says:
Yahoo! is leading searches on “Jared Lee Loughner” with a Yahoo/News story that notes: “…Loughner, contrary to some pronouncements on and off the Internet, was not a right wing, Tea Partying acolyte of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Loughner, however, is a very disturbed young man indeed….”
There are still postings like this at YouTube: “Jared Loughner had some extremist views. He was a member of the Tea Party and White radical organizations. He targeted Gabrielle Gifford some time ago. Sarah Palin has made the climate of this county very dangerous.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ihiLkHO78I
Personally I think trying to analyze Loughner is as futile as analyzing Cujo. But, look at Jared Loughner’s rants about “conscience dreaming” (by which he apparently means “conscious dreaming” manipulating the outcome of one’s dreams in a semi-conscious trance state) or about the government exerting mind control through grammer (may be a distortion of Newspeak from one of his favorite books 1984). Where in Jared Loughner’s rants does he mention Tea Party, Sara Palin, or Glenn Beck?
January 10, 2011, 10:24 pmHere come the Judge: says:
Let’s get in the Wayback Machine and remind ourselves of some of the appeals for violence from people like … Bobby Kennedy:
January 10, 2011, 10:24 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
;-)
January 10, 2011, 10:28 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
Heller held no such thing. It upheld possession of firearms for “any lawful purpose”, in particular the right of self defense in one’s home.
When an article starts out with a flat out lie, it can’t be very “intellectually honesty”.
January 10, 2011, 10:30 pmKatahdin says:
I support a very broad interpretation of the first amendment, but that said, some free advice for political types:
Reasons to engage in over the top rhetoric:
1)It feels good to vent
2)The fringe wing of your party will worship you
3)You’ll get you name in the paper
Reasons to engage in constructive debate instead:
1)You might convince, rather than alienate, the middle of the road voters who decide whether your agenda gets implemented.
January 10, 2011, 10:31 pmHere come the Judge: says:
Eliminationist Symbolism from the Brady Campaign
January 10, 2011, 10:32 pmNot Anonymus says:
“…drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy …” – Clearly a basketball metaphor. Is Mike really suggesting that sports metaphors should now also be considered out of bounds?
Sarah Palin really deranges a lot of people on the left, but there’s no evidence at all that Jared Loughner is one of them.
January 10, 2011, 10:34 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro, the problem here is that white folks, especially those without a knowledge of history, feel devalued when people say things like that. And if black folks’ feelings matter, then white folks’ feelings do too. I don’t see that it advances any good purpose to talk about the difference in badness between hanging people of various races in effigy.
And if Paul Krugman hosts an election-day party at which someone throws an image of Silvio Berlusconi into the fire, anything he says afterwards about rhetorical political violence is just slightly suspect. I mean, what would Krugman say of burning an effigy of Obama? What would Sullivan say? What would Sarcastro say? You can burn as many people in effigy as you like, so long as they’re white?
January 10, 2011, 10:37 pmHere come the Judge: says:
Why the MSM will be the biggest victim of Loughner
If you are of a certain age, you also remember that JFK’s assassin was supposed to be a right winger – because Texas was “Right Wing Heaven.” There was also, if I recall correctly, shouts of faux anger about hate speech. That lasted for months, until the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a devoted Communist and a fan of Castro got to be so overwhelming that even the MSM had to stop blaming it on the Right. That didn’t stop Oliver Stone from putting that story line into a movie and making JFK the victim of a shadowy Right Wing Cabal®.
The “above the fray” approach was the way that George Bush handled the claim that he lied about WMDs in Iraq (when the belief that Saddam had them was universal). A lie has to be met with the truth because the unaided truth doesn’t stand a chance if no one utters it.
It is, however, not a good idea for the Right to make lists of Leftist “eliminationist rhetoric.” That’s playing the Left’s game by the Left’s rules and all you accomplish is letting the best cut-and-paster win a game without getting to the truth. The fact is that political rhetoric in today’s world only animates organized groups who are already in the violence business, such as the Muslims seeking to go on Jihad, and when that happens, the MSM denies it.
The way to handle this is to focus on the killer: is he a ideologue or a nut? If he has a political bias, it’s inevitable that that will be used to indict the group he adheres to. If he’s a nut (and the two are not mutually exclusive) it should be used to point out the political biases of the commentators. I think that this event will actually do more damage to the tattered reputation of the MSM than to either the Left or the Right.
January 10, 2011, 10:39 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
ROFL – There should be a class in remedial semiotics for people like you.
(let’s get a good response, now!)
January 10, 2011, 10:39 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
So you’re saying that Sarah Palin, as someone who might run for office, ought to be held to a higher standard than the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Markos Moulitsas. Fair enough.
It’s a combination of individual responsibility – everyone, breadth of influence – which brings in the Limbaughs and Becks (and Kos if he had anywhere near their audience), and holding or aspiring to a leadership role – the third strike against Palin (or maybe the fifteenth).
One more thing. Yes, hanging a black man in effigy is worse than hanging a white person in effigy. I’m surprised, really, that that’s so hard to understand. It’s not a question of devaluing white people, as Laura argues. It’s a question of the pain inflicted – the associations brought up. There may be no difference, in the abstract, between hitting my right arm or my left arm, but if one of them is already injured, then there is.
January 10, 2011, 10:39 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
C’mon, everyone knows Italians aren’t really white.
January 10, 2011, 10:40 pmTrue Progressive says:
Mark Field is completely humiliating himself in an effort to defend the implication that Sarah Palin is responsible for mass-murder. A claim he would readily concede is inane in any other context (unless he’s still angry with Judas Priest for killing all those kids in 1982.) Such a course is emblematic of the type of “thinker” who presumes he can identify what is “acceptable” political discourse and what is not.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear someone make that claim.
January 10, 2011, 10:41 pmLeopold Stotch says:
This straightforward analysis merits 197 comments? Bleah.
January 10, 2011, 10:49 pmFred Smith says:
Of course, partisans will try to use a crisis to achieve political results. My point is a bit different. Many of my family and friends are very liberal — not that they would all classify themselves as such. However,if we wish to reform policy, we must speak to them and their values. Generally liberals focus on egalitarian values — “fairness” and “the little guy.” Most libertarians focus on “freedom” while most conservatives focus on “security” and “stability.” None of these values are abhorent to the other cultural groups but we do weigh these values differently. Shouldn’t we consider whether speaking in their value terms might win more of them to our policies?
If we’re to achieve the political momentum needed for economic libety, I argue we should. Attacking their values doesn’t persuade. That suggests a certain servility and willingness to use language that does not offend unnecessrily. As the old saying goes: “People don’t care what we know, until they know we care!” That suggests that we consider the values of all cultural values of American: libertarians,conservatives and liberals. Eonommic liberty does advance all these values: nothing has done more to expand freedom than the market;nothing has done more to align self-interest with the public interest (relying on private property and voluntary exchange). Nothing has done more to democratize the goods once available only to elites than capitalism.
Value-based communication (a topic that we at CEI have long emphasized) is no panacea but it does offer some chanceof making our policy arguments more palatable to those who would otherwise fail to hear us. It would also, I believe,create a more civil discourse. My suggestion is that we not rush to make this tragedy any worse – that we realize that one can seriously disagree with the policies recommended by liberals(and even some conservatives) but our goal should be to find ways of communicating how “their values” are advanced by “our policies.”
This is not impossible. Catholics and Protestants in Europe sought to resolve religious differences by force (by state action). The US elected instead to “privatize” religious rivalry. Catholics and Protestants still retained strong differences about the risks of failin to hold the “right” values but — under the non-establishment clause, although they may still have believed fervently that the views of the “others” dammed them- they no longer killed them to “save their immortal souls.”
Our modern secular society should rethink the politicization of its value disputes. A shift to decentralizing such disputes and, wherever possible, their shift to the private world of voluntary exchange would do much to advance all values and also possibly to reduce the probability of future tragedies (crazy people will still do crazy things but the rest of us won’t).
So rethink why we — and they — so often find demonization so attractive. It does on occasion “fire up our side” but it does little to persuade those we must reach if America is to regain the needed balance between statism and freedom. I doubt that most citizens really wish to expand government (I exclude those elites who truly are wedded to a specific policy as opposed to “what works”) but they do “trust” those who seem to express their values. Shouldn’t we develop arguments that can appeal to their values?
Recall that Joseph Schumpeter argued long ago that “capitalism wasn’t necessary to allow the royalty of Europe to obtain silk stockings. They had them already but rather capitalism made those ‘luxury goods’ available to the shop girls of England.” Perhaps, that type argument would prove more effective than the attack style journalism that too many on all sides employ.
Or so, IMHO, I argue.
January 10, 2011, 10:50 pmHere come the Judge: says:
Do you have a problem with the way Professor Reynolds stated it?
January 10, 2011, 11:01 pmRagebot says:
Best one liner in the thread.
January 10, 2011, 11:16 pmMDT says:
Byomtov,
One more thing. Yes, hanging a black man in effigy is worse than hanging a white person in effigy. I’m surprised, really, that that’s so hard to understand.
Of course I understand it. I still think that hanging Sarah Palin or Joe Lieberman in effigy, or burning Silvio Berlusconi in effigy, is a pretty obvious threat of violence against the actual persons represented by the effigies. If it were, say, the safely white and female Hillary Clinton being done to death in effigy, how would you feel about it? Might you think it was, say, a ratcheting-up of violent rhetoric?
January 10, 2011, 11:22 pmDilan Esper says:
Dead wrong whit. You might think about who the original minutemen were. They were not Paul Blarts.
January 10, 2011, 11:23 pmwhit says:
i’m thinking about who the current minutemen are
January 10, 2011, 11:36 pmleo marvin says:
Oh please. In competitive finger-pointing, trying to foist your side’s jackasses onto the other side is just plain bad sportsmanship.
January 11, 2011, 12:05 amMel Tom says:
Hanging football coaches used to be a fairly popular expression of NFL fans’ dissatisfaction with their teams in the 60s and 70s.
I don’t remember any coaches actually be hanged, though.
January 11, 2011, 12:50 amHoward says:
OK, time to get serious. No, Sarah Palin was not trying to incite anyone to kill. She just likes to use gun metaphors because it makes her seem all down-homey and NRA. (Reported to me, so I can’t vouch for it, scene from “Sarah Palin’s Alaska”: S: “And remember, Willow, don’t retreat, reload!” W: “Mom, could you please take your prom hair somewhere else?”)
The real point is that there are some kinds of discourse that are inimical to democracy, and whenever responsible political leaders or media personalities use them, it is the obligation of people on their side (as well as everyone else) to call them on it. This includes not only violent metaphors, but also terms like “traitor,” “Marxist,” “Nazi,” etc. That kind of stuff is inconsistent with what Madison understood to be a republican form of government. Now can we please stop the pissing match over who’s worse?
You can’t possibly be this naive. Yes, hanging anyone in effigy is bad. But it’s different when it’s a black man, just as saying, “He should be gassed” would be different if you said it about a Christian than if you said it about a Jew.
Would have been even more tragically ironic if she had read the Second Amendment, sister.
I, on the other hand, just think that Sarah Palin is not a terribly honest person (considerably less so than Obama, to save you the trouble of asking). Remember how after she got slammed on the “death panels,” she referred to it as a “metaphor”? Common among narcissists, of course.
I’m not following. Who was feeling guilty about it if not Palin? Not that I can imagine her feeling guilty about anything; she’s too much of a narcissist for that.
January 11, 2011, 12:57 amDarleen says:
Whew…just waded through the comments and there is little to add except to say I’m not surprised by the leftwinger commenters here. The whole meme that nasty Republicans are violent and WOW how about them teabaggers — isn’t about reality or facts. It’s about the Left’s “idea” of how political discourse in this country should work — non-Leftists should either stop disagreeing with their obvious superiors or plain SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.
The faux show of concern over the AZ shooting by Leftists just slithers off the page, replaced by a sense of enjoyment and gleefulness in getting to engage in another few rounds of Blood Libel.
The leftists that have posted on this thread are, at best, moral fools. I feel nothing but disgust at your glee of dipping your hands into Giffords’ blood and waving them over your head shouting “Aren’t you Rethuglicans ashamed at what you’ve done?”
I always wondered if the Leftists could sink any lower than the Wellstone funeral.
Congratulations.
January 11, 2011, 1:06 amrumpelstiltskin says:
Jesus, you are dense.
In a nutshell:
Look at the Brady flier. Do you think the flier advocates the elimination of the children? No, I don’t think so; in fact, I think it represents the opposite.
Now look back at the
SarahPAC poster. Obviously, the poster is advocating the elimination of the listed representatives.
Pretty ridiculous to even put them in the same category as the crosshairs are being used for totally opposite purposes.
January 11, 2011, 1:21 amrumpelstiltskin says:
sarcastro, you have a lot to learn.
January 11, 2011, 1:22 amjukeboxgrad says:
You should find the one where Palin admitted that Rudolph is a terrorist. When invited to do so, she pointedly declined:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/25/the-moral-cowardice-of-sarah-palin/
See above.
January 11, 2011, 1:48 amjukeboxgrad says:
The “sheer, pathetic, willful self-delusion” is all yours. Malkin’s list misses the point, badly, as explained here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/10/scarborough-palin-apologize/
Most or all of Malkin’s examples are about “rank-and-file activists” behaving badly, not about “sitting lawmakers and leading political candidates” behaving badly. Big difference.
And a nice summary of those statements by “sitting lawmakers and leading political candidates” is here:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/10/revolutionary_rhetoric
I’ve read a lot of commentary on this, but I think Alex Pareene provided the most intelligent summary of the situation:
Bachmann also said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax,” because “having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/violent_imagery_in_politics_is.html
Also:
Palin’s gunsight map is appropriately getting lots of attention, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous other examples of conservative leaders, not just “rank-and-file activists,” using the rhetoric of revolutionary violence.
Also worth noticing:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/to-understand-assassination-threat-look-beyond-tucson/
This event is a wakeup call. Hopefully we’re paying attention.
January 11, 2011, 1:49 amJohn Herbison says:
The remedy for politicians’ rhetorical excesses is not legislation to restrict speech; it is voting against those who employ it. For example, if Rep. Kanjorski’s hyperbole about Rick Scott contributed to his electoral defeat, then that speaks well of the voters of his district.
Rep. John Lewis, who has been around enough to know, observed during 2008 that some of Sarah Palin’s rallies reminded him of the crowds that another governor who was fond of droppin’ final g’s an’ rousin’ rabble drew forty years before. That observation, by one who doesn’t speak of such things lightly, should give decent people pause to reflect.
I suspect that, if George Wallace—who, to his eternal credit, repented of his demagogy–could deliver a message from wherever he may be now to Wasilla, it would be along the lines of, “Be careful, dear. Karma can be a bitch.”
January 11, 2011, 1:54 amjukeboxgrad says:
http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-us-cont.html
January 11, 2011, 2:14 amptt says:
Except that one of those white folks you mention who, ignorant of history, feel “devalued” by the comment might, just might, ask, “why do you say that history and context matter?”. And then they might learn something.
January 11, 2011, 2:27 amAlaska Jack says:
…aaandd, cue the hair-splitting.
I look forward to your ingenious explanation as to why the map with the bullseye (and “TARGETED: Congressman So-and-so” verbiage) is good, and the map with the crosshairs is bad.
This is just so predictable, and depressing. The guy who, according to you, provides “the most intelligent commentary” starts off by asserting “There’s a reason he chose to attack a Democratic Congresswoman.”
Well gosh, what was it? He was an inflamed right-winger, as the left initially asserted? The left seems to be backing off that.
Maybe the reason was because she was the congressperson who happened to be handiest at the moment? Nope.
The columnist goes on to explain the reason. Except it turns out that “the reason” is a LONG CHAIN OF CONFIRMATION-BIAS-BASED SPECULATION ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
Wait, jukeboxgrad — this is the guy with the MOST intelligent summary? Wow — I’d hate to see the guy with the least!
You don’t think this guy’s summary is “intelligent” because he looks at the evidence and uses it to build an inescapable conclusion. You think it is intelligent BECAUSE HE STARTS WITH A CONCLUSION YOU ALREADY AGREE WITH, and backfills it with some speculation that sounds plausible to your ears. If there is actually a reason that Loughten targeted a Democratic congresswoman, *this guy doesn’t have the faintest idea what it is.*
Hey, I’m curious — a guy was shot and killed in Alaska last week. Was this ALSO because of the inflammatory rhetoric of the right?
If the nutcase in Arizona had shot and killed a Republican congresswoman, would that ALSO have been evidence of right-wing thuggery?
Giffords was a blue-dog Democrat. If it turns out that the nutcase killed her because she wasn’t liberal ENOUGH, do we still get to blame Sarah Palin?
This is just *$&#ing repulsive.
– AJ
January 11, 2011, 3:09 amAlaska Jack says:
Wow, interesting! Because the crowds that Lewis draws remind me of the unsavory crowds another world leader used to draw, a few years back. A guy who shared some mannerisms with Lewis! Of course, I would never come right out and say Lewis believes all the same thing this guy did, just like Lewis would never come out and say he believes that Sarah Palin thinks we should make blacks use separate water fountains. Because saying such a thing would be easily refuted! But if I just IMPLY it, on the other hand…
Seriously — could this be any more insultingly vapid? My sense of it has always been that this kind of thing is a mistake, because the people you’re trying to convince can see for themselves how lame and dishonorable it is. Shows what I know.
– AJ
January 11, 2011, 3:25 amjukeboxgrad says:
It’s not “hair-splitting” to point out that something different is happening when the violent rhetoric is coming from national leaders, rather than unknown local individuals. What Malkin documented is about the latter. The fact that she had to resort to that highlights the difference.
The map with the bullseye isn’t good, but it’s a relatively isolated example. On the R side there are many examples.
The situation is not symmetrical. Guns fans (and therefore gun nuts, who are a subset of gun fans) are generally not part of the D base. They’re part of the R base. The risk of gun-related rhetoric inciting a nut is greater on the R side, and therefore R leaders have a greater duty to be careful. But the gun fans in their base love this talk, so that’s why this talk is much more common on the R side.
Did you notice that no one complained about that D map, at the time? That’s because most D nuts are nuts without guns. An R nut is more likely to have a gun than a D nut. And that’s why many people, including Gifford herself, complained about Palin’s map. Obviously those complaints were prescient.
Yes, and the resaons are explained. Try reading it again.
Wrong. There’s plenty of evidence, in the form of many R leaders making anti-government statements that are dripping with the imagery of violent revolution. Which creates an atmosphere where an anti-government nut with a gun becomes more likely to use it. This has already been explained.
I don’t know. Did Palin put his name on a map marked with crosshairs?
If the victim had been accused of not being right-wing enough, yes.
Let me know when you find that evidence.
January 11, 2011, 3:37 amMike says:
For me, it all boils down to this:
If you are talking about this event and bring up political rhetoric (and how it needs to be toned down) in the process, then you are either:
1. Making a connection between rhetoric and the shooting (in which case you should show some evidence linking the shooter with rhetoric, and a specific kind of rhetoric if you’re blaming certain political figures)
or
2. Denying that there’s a connection between rhetoric and the shooter, in which case, why are you so willing to stand on top of dead bodies in order to advance a personal/political agenda that you deny has anything to do with the shooting?
January 11, 2011, 3:42 amHoward says:
Oh, cut the crap. He’s not saying that Loughner shot her because Sarah Palin whipped him into a frenzy. His main point is that there was a reason his rage was turned against a member of Congress, and why threats against members of Congress and the President have skyrocketed– a consistent tendency by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs to delegitimize government, talk about revolution, tell people that government is the enemy, tell people that they have to resist socialism, etc.
You want to talk about delegitimization? George Bush became president having lost the popular vote and having a 5-4 Supreme Court declare him the winner. You could hardly imagine a beginning less conducive to legitimacy. Yet after a few months of grumbling Democrats got over it, and you didn’t hear anyone saying that he wasn’t really the President. Barack Obama became president with a substantial popular vote majority and an overwhelming electoral vote majority, and yet two years later there are significant numbers of Americans who don’t accept that he’s President. This didn’t used to happen in American politics. I couldn’t watch Reagan on TV, his voice gave me the creeps, but I never disputed that he was really President. No, we have Republicans to thank for that.
Maybe people on this blog don’t notice it, because as far as they’re concerned government really is the enemy, or some pitifully abstract notion of government as Leviathan is. But as I said upthread, there are some things that are inimical to a republican form of government. One of them is believing that government is legitimate only when your party wins.
January 11, 2011, 4:26 amMike says:
I’m sorry, but I have to comment to this post.
1. Yes, there does appear to be a reason this shooter targetted a congresswoman. It appears that he’s a disturbed individual that has been obsessed with her since 2007, before Palin or the Tea Party were big national news items.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message
2. As for your George Bush description, George Bush become president after he was elected, winning a majorty of the electoral vote, you know, our system of electing presidents…..The supreme court didn’t declare him the winner. They simply stated that different criteria for counting votes was not allowed, and they put an end to the multiple recounts.
It is flat out delusional for you to say that “after a few months, the democrats got over it.” There are still people to this day that refuse to admit he was elected. Heck, your own post mentions him losing the popular vote, which is irrelevant, and the supremes “declaring him” the winner. And as for the “[they] got over it” language, again, pure delusion. Bush was subject to some of the most vitriolic rhetoric that any modern politician in this country as been subject to, rhetoric that goes much further than the stuff directed at Obama. Heck, there was a MOVIE made about Bush’s assassination for pete’s sake.
January 11, 2011, 4:43 amwhit says:
oh for pete’s sake. MOVE ON
first of all, the popular vote is irrelevant. this is NOT a direct democracy where the president is chosen by popular vote.
i would expect a person on a legal blog would respect rule of law. the rule of law is WE COUNT THE ELECTORS
so, the fact that he lost the popular vote. so what? clinton won with FAR less %age of the vote than bush got.
and sure, the SCOTUS ruled that way. and the media analysis of the votes showed that by most counting standards – he WON florida.
i seriously can’t believe you brought up this tired wank.
January 11, 2011, 5:48 amShelbyC says:
Jbg debasing himself with this idiotic drivel too? Too bad.
January 11, 2011, 6:17 amShelbyC says:
There are no final g’s in spoken English in the context you’re refering to. If you’re going to make innane criticisms of other people’s speech patterns, at least get them right.
And really? Some nimrod said some other nimrod reminded him of a third nimrod, and we’re supposed to care?
January 11, 2011, 6:41 amCarl N. Brown says:
Quote: “…. The Tea Parties …. comfortable white reactionaries ….”
The two Tea Party rallies I attended were largely uncomfortable white and black working people. Among other things, Kingsport Press had been closed by its Canadian owners affecting 2,100 employees in a small city of 45,000; foreign competition had also forced the shut down of the Kingsport iron foundry. The big gripe on the field was remote, arrogant Washington DC was fine with Global Trade and NAFTA shutting down American industry and giving jobs to Indians and Chinese regardless of the effect on Americans. The Tea Partiers were not “comfortable” and were not all-white. The rallies did include Kings Mountain re-enactors from Sycamore Shoals in colonial garb and American Revolutionary rhetoric. But the coastie left meme that Tea Partiers are “comfortable white reactionaries” is false. We are reacting all right, but it is reaction to a distant arrogant federal government.
Quote: ” Sarah Palin’s … rhetoric is blood-soaked … “Don’t Retreat, Instead — RELOAD” ”
I watched Sara Palin’s Alaska where she and her daughter were shooting clay pigeons with shotguns: the daughter was getting frustrated with missing. Palin told her “Don’t retreat, Instead — reload.” The context of the quote was omitted.
January 11, 2011, 7:46 amMDT says:
Howard,
You can’t possibly be this naive. Yes, hanging anyone in effigy is bad. But it’s different when it’s a black man, just as saying, “He should be gassed” would be different if you said it about a Christian than if you said it about a Jew.
OK, step back. Would you say that hanging or burning someone in effigy represents rhetorical violence against that individual? Would you say that someone who held a little post-election party where a specific political leader was burned in effigy is maybe not so well placed to suggest that his political opponents forswear rhetorical violence towards political figures?
Re Bush Jr., You don’t think there are still people going on about “selected, not elected”? I assure you there are; I know some personally. And the dude’s been out of office for two years.
January 11, 2011, 8:16 amDarleen says:
AAAAnnnnddd, the blood libel of the leftists moral idiocy is still continuing this morning, I see.
[waves at jukeboxgrad]
Giffords was Loughner’s representative .. who failed to answer a question from Loughner to his satisfaction in 2007. Let me repeat that — 2007 and in the place where he already lived.
But hey, when it comes to non-Leftists who refuse to fall to their knees and embrace the wonderful unicorns and fluffy bunnies of Leftist dogma, well of course Palin and TEA Party members are naturally to blame for events that started long before they were around on the national scene.
Wow, we must make sure to just SHUT UP SHUT UP rather than disagreeing with the Left. Our mere disagreement is not only wrong, but blasphemous – Why can’t teabaggers grasp that the Left only wants the best for us, seeing as we are too stupid to run our own lives or make or own decisions. That Constitution thing was written by old dead white guys that owned slaves and guns are the Left is so much more evolved than them!
I hear Brady is going to include in his “The Left will get to decide what is or isn’t legal political speech” law that Target Corporation must change their name and logo, and that the movie “A Christmas Story” be pulled from circulation until an edited version is offered that removes (ala Huck Finn and unhelpful language) all references to a Red Ryder air gun plus the scene where a target is shown.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDRENZ!!
January 11, 2011, 8:28 amSarcastro says:
The only thing we can do is claim victimhood and paint every liberal as though they agreed with the partisan hacks!
Lets also talk as though this proposed law about threatenign public officials is basically keeping all right-wingers from speaking, to get double the victim points! Possibly enough to compare ourselves to Jews!! SWEET!
AND THEN SOME CAPZ LOCK!
January 11, 2011, 8:33 amRagebot says:
Time for a reality check. Loughner reached his decision to start shooting via illogical means, he was nutty as a fruit cake, so trying to explain his actions via logical analysis is a fools errand.
If it makes you feel better to post “my dog is bigger than your dog” fine, but do not pretend there is a logical explanation.
January 11, 2011, 8:40 amSarcastro says:
Fine, but this is a good time to discuss dogs and size. You cannot take refuge in the fact that there is no causal relationship to deny how small your dog is and instead claim persecution.
January 11, 2011, 8:47 amSarcastro says:
[For some reason, cannot edit to add brackets to the above.]
January 11, 2011, 8:48 amRagebot says:
Sorry my dyslexia is kicking in again I transposed the “D” and the “G” a couple of times.
January 11, 2011, 8:55 amDebrah says:
David Brooks gets it right with The Politicized Mind.
Brooks states that among Loughner’s favorite books were “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World,” “Alice in Wonderland,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Through the Looking Glass” and “The Communist Manifesto.”
~~~~~~~
“Other themes from Loughner’s life fit the rampage-killer profile. He saw himself in world historical terms. He appeared to have a poor sense of his own illness (part of a condition known as anosognosia). He had increasingly frequent run-ins with the police. In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it. Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence.”
~~~~~~~
“We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin [of whom I am no great fan] and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons.”
~~~~~~~
Thanks, David.
January 11, 2011, 9:02 amDebrah says:
LOL!
I love you, AJ.
This thread has gone into a loony abyss that only thin-lipped maggot Keith Olbermann could enjoy.
By the way, if anyone has seen past parodies of Olbermann by Ben Affleck on SNL, one might think that he’d (Olbermann) be the very last cable talking head to cast aspersions on the behavior of anyone else—including nutcase Loughner.
The truth is that the Democrats are feverish with apprehension about 2012. This frenzy was supposed to serve as a way to neuter the successful moves of Repubs recently.
It’s all such a ridiculously transparent game which we all must endure.
January 11, 2011, 9:25 amDarleen says:
from that disgusting Salon piece
It makes a sad sort of sense that a bunch of comfortable white reactionaries would dress up their childish tantrums with such grandiose language, because “desperately protecting your privilege in the face of what appears to be the demise of the empire” sounds much less inspiring than “defeating tyranny.”
Yeah, because the nationalization of medical care in America, being a bridge-too-far for principled Americans who are tired of the giant rush to Nannystatism is merely an illusion. If it weren’t for us Constitution-fetish Libertymongers, the People (who are, of course, too stupid to run their own lives) would be wonderfully happy with letting their Leftist betters decreeing what light bulbs to own, what food to eat, where to live, when to die, how to parent, what church to attend (none of course!) what guns to own (ditto) and now what speech will be allowed.
I mean, that Constitution thing is over 100 years old (precious Ezra Klein said so) and is really irrelevant to our lives (unless as interpreted by the Leftist decoder ring).
Liberty is just code word for white privilege, you teabagging snowbillies!
January 11, 2011, 9:29 amFury says:
jukeboxgrad:
This event is a wakeup call. Hopefully we’re paying attention.
Wakeup call for what? If you’re referring to the murders over the weekend, I’m still waiting for something, anything other than speculation on what motivated the shooter.
Some of the statements of Republicans and Conservatives were stupid and hopefully cost them votes in the recent elections.
Let’s not forget that President Obama has used some language that I believe was stupid. There’s stupidity to go around on all sides.
I’ll also note that physical altercations are also inappropriate, such as what Congressman Etheridge did earlier this year.
January 11, 2011, 9:36 amjukeboxgrad says:
There are lots of examples I’ve left out, but I shouldn’t leave out this one:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php
I wonder what your point is, exactly. Is it that you consider these examples to to be normal, benign, nothing to worry about? Is it that nuts will nuts, and that they are driven by internal forces, and therefore we can safely assume that this kind of rhetoric does not influence their behavior? And that we should assume that this rhetoric is simply not a factor in the large growth in threats against government officials? And that you see no reason for this rhetoric to change? Just curious.
If I’m not correctly stating your position, I hope you’ll explain where there’s a discrepancy between what I’ve described and what you actually believe.
Another myth that doesn’t want to die:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Post_recount
And speaking of physical intimidation and political violence, this is a good moment to recall the Brooks Brothers riot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
So the tea party is a bunch of people who think it’s the government’s fault that corporations are shipping American jobs to China? And they are in favor of small government, which means that they think government should do more to interfere with the behavior of corporations? Maybe you’d like to explain how this makes sense.
And maybe you’d like to explain why they have strongly supported candidates who favor ‘free trade:’
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/tea-partiers-trade-bad/
“The context of the quote was omitted” when? By whom? I think you are not aware that Palin has made that statement on multiple occasions.
For some strange reason he didn’t attack her until years later, after lots of violent rhetoric had been heard. But you think it’s safe to assume there’s no connection, right?
No one is claiming that “Palin and TEA Party members” played a role in influencing Loughner to dislike Giffords. The problem is not that Loughner disliked Giffords. The problem is that he shot her.
In other words, you can’t imagine “disagreeing with the Left” without using violent rhetoric. Because “just SHUT UP SHUT UP” and ‘use violent rhetoric’ are the only two choices, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
That word (“nationalization”) doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’m going to guess that you have similar problem with words like ‘Marxism’ and ‘tyranny.’
Speaking of overheated rhetoric.
And it’s safe to assume that nutty people are driven by internal forces, and therefore we can safely assume that this kind of rhetoric does not influence their behavior? And that we should assume that this rhetoric is simply not a factor in the large growth in threats against government officials? And that you see no reason for this rhetoric to change? Just curious.
I wonder if you’re thinking of this:
http://www.ajokes.com/jokes/491.html
There is a commenter who calls himself “AJ” who is not Alaska Jack. Just in case you didn’t know.
January 11, 2011, 9:37 amSarcastro says:
[Threats are on the rise, sure. But are actual violent attempts on the rise? They still seem pretty rare.
Though your point that Republican leaders use more violent rhetoric than their Democratic counterparts is well taken. Code Pink is not Rush Limbaugh.]
January 11, 2011, 9:42 amGiant Frog says:
It would be within the constitutional authorization of “Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution”…
There’s the proof of relative evilness: Repuglican baggers started reading aloud, in public, from an obscure anti-government document that supports militias, “bearing arms” and Execution – it’s even capitalized! – and a crazy guy shoots a bunch of people. It can’t be a coincidence.
January 11, 2011, 9:46 amjukeboxgrad says:
I think the answer is yes:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/right-wing-violence-threats-are-rise
January 11, 2011, 9:49 amDebrah says:
Beautiful.
And it seems Etheridge lost the election to a newbie as a result.
In the actual vid, he appears to have been under the influence, and if he wasn’t, he shouldn’t admit it.
After viewing something like this, anyone attempting to gloss over such aggression—and let’s not even get into the Left’s zany rhetoric—and then try to make hay of the Gifford tragedy…..
……is playing a fool’s game.
January 11, 2011, 9:58 amShelbyC says:
@JBG,
Sure, and Obama is a foreign illegitimate president, 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the Jews run Washington, and the income tax is unconsitituional. Whatever, dude.
January 11, 2011, 10:05 amRagebot says:
I have to add it is even more of a fool’s errand to try and explain Loughner’s actions by the illogical analysis you are using.
January 11, 2011, 10:06 amOwen H. says:
Blah, blah, blah. Politics don’t matter here. The kid is crazy. It doesn’t matter if he was a crazy right-wing, crazy left-wing, or crazy independent. The operative word is crazy. It isn’t limited to one side or the other. There are more than two sides, for that matter. The kid is crazy, that’s the only relevant issue. Too many on all sides want to use it to poke the other. “Let no tragedy go to waste”. And certainly never let one go by without saying that about anything the other side says. And anyone that thinks either major party is free of nasty acts and words, don’t be stupid. And anyone thinking their particular brand of independent party is, see above. No one has moral superiority here.
I do want to express my ire for people like Jim Lindgren, originally declaring that politics shouldn’t matter but now crying crocodile tears while declaring they only kept digging to prove that while clearly gleeful (and unwilling to accept rebuttal) over the facts, and continuing to make it very clear that it is in fact all about politics now that it isn’t his side being skewered.
January 11, 2011, 10:07 amDebrah says:
Why blame photos of political figures holding guns?
“Of course, Gabrielle Giffords did nothing to contribute to the actions of her attacker. Nor did Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or the Tea Parties or anyone else other than the gunman.”
January 11, 2011, 10:13 amjukeboxgrad says:
Elisabeth Hasselbeck endorsed Palin and campaigned for her. This is what Hasselbeck said on 3/25/10:
http://talkshows.about.com/b/2011/01/08/hasselbeck-called-sarah-palin-crosshairs-graphic-despicable.htm
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003250032
Was she wrong, or was she prescient?
This is what Giffords herself said on the same day:
http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the#
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/01/tragedy_tucson
Was she wrong, or was she prescient?
I guess you’re part of the group that thinks it’s safe to assume that this rhetoric is simply not a factor in the large growth in threats against government officials?
Is it wise to treat this as an isolated incident, rather than something that is part of a broader phenomenon?
When a guy on an airplane sets his underwear on fire, do we say that this is purely a function of his own nuttiness, or do we assume that hearing lots of violent anti-Western rhetoric was an important factor in his behavior?
He was violently anti-government. Maybe you haven’t noticed the numerous cited examples of violent anti-government rhetoric.
I can’t find the part of your comment where you address the simple and fair questions I raised:
http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/the-first-amendment-and-speech-that-allegedly-threatens-public-officials/comment-page-5/#comment-1109902
I can’t find the part of your comment where you address the simple and fair questions I raised.
Who ever said that “political figures holding guns,” in the absence of some other element of incitement (like putting crosshairs on a political adversary), is a problem?
So if the underwear bomber sat in a mosque where he listened to violent anti-Western rhetoric delivered by various authority figures, you would say that those people “did nothing to contribute to the actions” of the underwear bomber. Right?
January 11, 2011, 10:37 amDebrah says:
I hope everyone who clicks on the link I left above regarding “political figures holding handguns” will scroll down to see a photo of Giffords, herself.
I realize that photo doesn’t play well inside the padded rooms where Olbermannian-foaming kibitzers reside….
…..but there you have it.
January 11, 2011, 10:43 amSarcastro says:
Now that it is becoming increasingly clear that the accused shooter is a creature of the progressive society and marxist public schools — now — now the left wants to change the subject.
January 11, 2011, 10:43 amrumpelstiltskin says:
They did move on. That’s his point. Yet the Right still hasn’t moved on from Obama winning a decisive victory.
January 11, 2011, 11:18 amrumpelstiltskin says:
Hey, does this mean there’s only 1 left to go?
January 11, 2011, 11:20 amDave N. says:
No, now the left wants to change the subject because their original premise has been pretty well debunked.
So now we are getting the self-righteous “Republican rhetoric of hate” from the usual partisans (JBG, John Herbison, Mark Field) not as the cause of the Tuscon shooting (because it obviously is not) but rather as some kind of cudgel to damn their political opponents after the first line of attack so obviously blew up in their faces.
This is a legal blog. I assume those posting here are lawyers unless they self identify otherwise (Whit, for example). At least at my law school we learned about this thing called “evidence.” We are also taught to reason logically. We even heard things like “correlation does not imply causation.” To these partisan jackals, the lack of evidence is a mere distraction — because it doesn’t serve their uber-partisan purposes.
“Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.” I can only add: Do these partisan trolls have no shame? Six people are dead and their concern is attempting to make political hay.
My response: Shame on them, all of them.
January 11, 2011, 11:21 amJakeD says:
Howard:
My point is that merely taking down the “offensive” map (as if Elisabeth Hasselback is some deep, legal thinker) is not necessarily indicative of guilt. As you so aptly pointed out, Sarah Palin may not be feeling any guilt whatsoever.
January 11, 2011, 11:21 amJakeD says:
Dave N.:
THANK YOU!
January 11, 2011, 11:23 amRagebot says:
You still don’t get it. Sarah Palin used her Jedi mind tricks to get Loughner, the Force is strong in her.
January 11, 2011, 11:26 amMDT says:
Sarcastro,
Though your point that Republican leaders use more violent rhetoric than their Democratic counterparts is well taken. Code Pink is not Rush Limbaugh.
No, Code Pink and Markos Moulitsas and Keith Olbermann are Rush Limbaugh. Or would be, if they had the audience. None of them are party figures, but all of them are partisans.
January 11, 2011, 11:32 amDebrah says:
:>) !
January 11, 2011, 11:37 amMDT says:
rumpelstiltskin,
They did move on. That’s his point. Yet the Right still hasn’t moved on from Obama winning a decisive victory.
As I said upthread a bit, I’m still seeing “selected, not elected” more than a decade after the 2000 election. Some folks haven’t “moved on.” Some folks, indeed, still think 9/11 was personally engineered by Bush.
January 11, 2011, 11:41 amShelbyC says:
Of course not. Nobody that genuinely gives a crap about discussing violent rhetoric is going to bother wasing keystrokes (or brainwaves) trying to figure out which side of the political spectrum such rhetoric predominates from. You come off like the guy who says he’s interested in controlling crime, but keeps wanting to talk about how the blacks or immigrants or whatever are responsible for most crimes. I won’t discuss crime control with that guy, because I know his agenda isn’t really crime control, and I won’t discuss violent rhetoric with you, because I know that you are just trying to smear political opponents.
Now maybe there is an interesting discussion on violent rhetoric to be had, but it’s not going to be had in a climate where people are trying to smear their political opponents with responsibility for a shooting, and it’s not going to be had by you until you engage in some introspection about why establishing whether or not such rhetoric comes predominately from the right was so important to you.
January 11, 2011, 11:42 amSarcastro says:
[Therein lies the rub.]
January 11, 2011, 11:47 amRagebot says:
Elections have consequences.
January 11, 2011, 11:50 amHoward says:
You’re being a bit dense here. Did you actually get through what I wrote before your knee started jerking? Let me try again, slowly.
1. Bush won under circumstances that made his legitimacy about as weak as it could be.
2. Nevertheless, after a few months of grumbling, Democrats accepted it.
3. Obama won with a clear popular majority and an overwhelming electoral majority.
4. Nonetheless, after two years some Republicans won’t accept his legitimacy, as we saw most recently with that woman at the reading of the Constitution. Why are you telling me to move on? I have. Tell them.
5. There is a larger effort by Limbaugh and Beck, and others, to delegitimate American government. This is new in recent American history. It seems plausible, though I can’t prove it, that this is connected to the recent surge in threats against members of Congress and the President.
Got it?
Oh, btw, that’s not what direct democracy means.
If you’re going to call someone inane, at least spell it right. If you want to call a replacement of an “ng” sound by an “n” sound not dropping a final g, fine, but everyone knows what it means and you’re being pedantic. What term would you suggest instead? Develarization? And I think the point was (I don’t know if it’s true or not) that it’s an affectation to make her seem folksy.
Yes, if he intended it, or knew it but didn’t speak out against it, but I don’t know whom you’re talking about. I’ve seen the right’s “I know you are, but what am I” picture of someone being burned in effigy, said to be Bush, at an “anti-Bush rally” in 2004, but I don’t know what conclusion I’m supposed to draw from this.
January 11, 2011, 11:52 amSarcastro says:
[With great power comes great responsibility.]
January 11, 2011, 11:53 amrumpelstiltskin says:
A missing letter “s” is equivalent to the entire birther movement? GOOD TO KNOW.
January 11, 2011, 11:53 amFury says:
Jukeboxgrad:
I guess you’re part of the group that thinks it’s safe to assume that this rhetoric is simply not a factor in the large growth in threats against government officials?
Is it wise to treat this as an isolated incident, rather than something that is part of a broader phenomenon?
When a guy on an airplane sets his underwear on fire, do we say that this is purely a function of his own nuttiness, or do we assume that hearing lots of violent anti-Western rhetoric was an important factor in his behavior?
That would be an incorrect guess. What I was hoping is that people would resist the rush to judgment on what were the additional contributing factors (other than what reasonably appears to be someone with profound mental problems). So far, that has not been the case.
And I think there’s a substantial difference between someone to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (that is who you are referring to?) and this murderer from what we know of associations to date. Abdulmutallab had multiple contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, and “who has links to three of the 9/11 hijackers, the 2005 London subway bombers, a 2006 Toronto terror cell, a 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and the 2009 Fort Hood shooter.” More here. I’m not aware of any information that suggests that the Tucson shooter had contacts with anyone advocating the types of violence that Abdulmutallab was exposed to.
And even if this murderer’s action is part of a broader phenomenon, what is the way to address that? There’s a big difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and speech that allegedly threatens public officials as outlined in Professor Volokh’s initial post. Note the third paragraph in his post:
“If the concern is not that the President will feel threatened, but that some readers might be moved by such statements to attack the President, the speech remains protected.”
Is this similar to the situation we’re contemplating – was the murderer in Arizona perhaps influenced by what he heard, read or saw?
Ultimately, it will take ostracizing or ignoring people that make statements that one considers offensive or inflammatory and which are constitutionally protected free speech (if applicable).
January 11, 2011, 11:57 amJakeD says:
Howard:
1. Given the poor knowledge of the general public, I would argue that the Supreme Court stopping the vote gave Bush MORE legitimacy than if the House of Representatives had decided a contested election.
2. A “few months”?! Next Thursday will mark the 120-month anniversary of GWB’s First Inauguration, and Democrats are STILL grumbling about it.
3-4. That all assumes that Obama is a “natural-born” citizen and, therefore, legitimately President of the United States. At least GWB never had that stain on his Presidency.
5. What “surge”?! The Director of the SECRET SERVICE testified last year that threats against Obama were at the same level as Bush43 and Clinton at the same point in their Administrations.
January 11, 2011, 12:02 pmMDT says:
Howard,
Yes, if he intended it, or knew it but didn’t speak out against it, but I don’t know whom you’re talking about. I’ve seen the right’s “I know you are, but what am I” picture of someone being burned in effigy, said to be Bush, at an “anti-Bush rally” in 2004, but I don’t know what conclusion I’m supposed to draw from this.
I was talking about Paul Krugman. Here; it’s in the New Yorker, so it ought to be untainted by right-wing bias. The actual political figure mentioned as burned in effigy was Silvio Berlusconi. It’s about a third of the way down.
January 11, 2011, 12:13 pmShelbyC says:
Of course I’m being pedantic, but it’s well deserved pedantry. You are correct, of course, that calling such speech g-dropping is a forgivable imprecision in most contexts. But in the context of tying people to George Wallace through speech patterns, you should probably get every little detail right and then some.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “calling someone inane”. Is there any dispute? Do you think trying to smear Palin by tying him to Wallace through such a speech pattern isn’t inane? I’d be hard pressed to imagine that John Herbison himself wouldn’t admit that it’s inane.
January 11, 2011, 12:15 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I think that link provides no data, but just a collection of a handful of anecdotes, and thus no support for such a claim.
January 11, 2011, 12:16 pmNot Anonymus says:
This is quite obviously complete nonsense. Get a grip.
January 11, 2011, 12:25 pmStitch Jones says:
Nevertheless, after a few months of grumbling, Democrats accepted it.
After I try the veal, should I tip my waiter?
There is a larger effort by Limbaugh and Beck, and others, to delegitimate American government. This is new in recent American history.
Limbaugh has been on the air- pimpin the same stuff- for twenty years. Your claim that this is “new” is one of the most remarkably dishonest statements I’ve ever read, save for the previously quoted comment of yours. You can say whatever you want about Limbaugh, but if you’re claiming is act and efforts are “new”, your claim is nonsense.
One thing that would really help the neo-Falwellians when they try and place the blame for Saturday’s atrocity on random political actors they don’t like, would be if they actually identified the particular teletubby whose gayness forced Sarah Palin to exercise mind control over Loughner. At least that way we could investigate their suspicions to see how reasonable they are.
January 11, 2011, 12:27 pmStitch Jones says:
link provides no data, but is just a collection of a handful of anecdotes
Makes sense, that is actually jukebox’s given name in his native tribe.
January 11, 2011, 12:30 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro,
[Therein lies the rub.]
And why is that? I mean, you can blame talk radio, but only if you can explain how talk radio gets new listeners. My only experience of right-wing talk radio was something like fifteen years ago when I was stuck in a cabin in Tahoe (I was there playing a few performances of Madam Butterfly, as concertmistress), and happened on G. Gordon Liddy’s “Radio Free America.” You don’t listen to this sort of thing unless you (a) already believe everything there; or (b) have some sort of ironic detachment from it. Even as it was, two weeks of studied ironic detachment about did it for me.
The obvious conclusion is that a lot of people really would rather listen to Limbaugh or Beck than to the late Air America, and they had their political convictions well before they started choosing radio stations.
January 11, 2011, 12:30 pmSarcastro says:
[I listen to a lot of talk radio, actually (shameless plug: Armstrong & Getty have done a great deal to shape both my moderation and my snarkiness). Mark Levin is always good for a laugh.
But I disagree I need to explain their popularity in order to note that they are a bigger deal than Code Pink. The mere fact of their popularity is enough to note that talk radio's angry narrative has more influence.]
January 11, 2011, 12:34 pmrpt says:
1. I’m curious as the the views of Prof Kerr on the likelihood of and basis for an insanity/diminished capacity defense for Loughner.
2. I’d like to hear a public comment from Jesse Kelly, Giffords’ last opponent, whose campaign ad to come to an event to shoot an automatic weapon at (?) Giffords has not been much discussed.
3. The Palin, et al cross-hairs imagery does not seem to be advocacy or causation, but rather provides those who would oppose health reform, or some other such legislation, with an acceptable historical framework to consider/rationalize “watering the tree of liberty” with the blood of a politician they oppose. Why else would sophisticated marketing and political advisers use such imagery?
January 11, 2011, 12:35 pmAlaska Jack says:
jukeboxgrad -
wayyyyy too much hand-waving to address cogently. I’m just going to zero in on one single point in order to illustrate a larger one: You, personally, have a very strong urge to believe what you *want* to believe.
1. Sarcastro asks a very good question: “are actual violent attempts on the rise?”
2. You respond: “I think the answer is yes,” and provide a link. At first, I assume the link is going to be to FBI statistics or Census Data or something. But no, it’s to CrooksAndLiars.com.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/right-wing-violence-threats-are-rise
3. So, being one of those nasty skeptics, I went to have a look. Holy Cow.
4. It LEADS OFF with “head-stomping of a liberal protester by a Rand Paul campaign official.” First, this is just an anecdote. Second, it’s not even a good one — we discussed this to death in a thread here at the time. The short summary: The guy acted like an a-hole; but it wasn’t a stomp; it wasn’t on her head; she was a professional agitator wearing a wig (i.e., partial disguise) and behaving in an erratic manner; within the knowledge constraints at the time, the bystanders acted reasonably in restraining her until they could figure out what was going on.
[SHORT BUT IMPORTANT DIGRESSION: In that thread, one of the primary critiques of the crowd's actions was "There was never any real danger. The crowd should have known this. Assassination attempts on politicians are extremely rare." I wonder where the people who made this point are now?]
5. It gets worse. Next, we get more anecdotes, which CrooksAndLiars terms a “gathering trend.” Evidence present for same: None.
6. Next, a link to a Google map. First, this is also anecdotal. Second, are you aware that this map is very well known? For it’s complete crappiness? It has been roundly criticized for basically lumping in ANYTHING THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE TO THE LEFT and terming it “right-wing violence,” even if the incident was not violent, and/or there was no evidence linking it to “right-wing” motives. Go ahead, scroll through it yourself and see.
[Another little digression: I note with interest that it regurgitates the story about the "n-word" being hurled at Congressman Lewis. Obviously, this is not violence; but more importantly, this is the incident for which Andrew Breitbart has offered a ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR REWARD to anyone who can offer any evidence that it actually happened, other than taking the word of Lewis. The response: Resounding silence.]
OK, where were we.
A guy from the SLPC says “I do think that it’s gotten even hotter out there.” If you know anything about the SPLC, you would be gobsmacked to hear them say anything ELSE. This is the organization that sent out a release warning police officers to be extra careful when pulling over vehicles with conservative bumper stickers. Also, needless to say, this guy’s feelings do not constitute data.
There’s more, but it’s all along these lines.
SO, TO SUM UP. You THINK “actual violent attempts are on the rise.” And you know what? You may be right! But there’s no *evidence* of it. You believe it because you WANT to believe it.
– Alaska Jack
January 11, 2011, 12:39 pmMDT says:
If you’re going to call someone inane, at least spell it right. If you want to call a replacement of an “ng” sound by an “n” sound not dropping a final g, fine, but everyone knows what it means and you’re being pedantic.
You and rumpelstilskin really have to chat.
[Re "selected, not elected"]
A missing letter “s” is equivalent to the entire birther movement? GOOD TO KNOW.
January 11, 2011, 12:39 pmSarcastro says:
Surveying symbols! The amature surveyor vote!
January 11, 2011, 12:40 pmrpt says:
In the greater LA area, “conservative” talk radio is the only alternative. The local Salem FM Christian station has an afternoon drive time talk show with the same content.
January 11, 2011, 12:43 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
I was talking about Paul Krugman. Here; it’s in the New Yorker, so it ought to be untainted by right-wing bias. The actual political figure mentioned as burned in effigy was Silvio Berlusconi. It’s about a third of the way down.
Glad you trust the New Yorker. Did you read the whole article, and what happened after Krugman started criticizing Bush?
And from the latest New Yorker:
January 11, 2011, 12:45 pmJakeD says:
Very funny, Sacastro (NOT ; )
rpt:
Jesse Kelly DID issue a statement: “In the wake of this stunning tragedy, my prayers are with Rep. Giffords, her husband Mark and the rest of her family. May God’s strength comfort her as we pray together for her recovery. We mourn for those who lost their lives in this horrible act.
Senseless acts of violence such as this have absolutely no place in American politics.”
As for DEMOCRATS using the same, exact type of cross-hairs imagery, why aren’t you upset about that?!
January 11, 2011, 12:47 pmNot Anonymus says:
Nonsense. My radio has lots of stations. Yours must be broken.
January 11, 2011, 12:51 pmStitch Jones says:
Why else would sophisticated marketing and political advisers use such imagery?
Why don’t you ask the DLC and DCCC, both of whom used substantially identical imagery? Unless, of course, you already know the answer and are just pretending it’s a legitimate question to raise in this context because you don’t have any coherent arguments to offer.
You could at least follow the Byomtov method and quote people who, without offering any evidence, or even attempting to do so, make assertions that help make themselves feel better. It’s pathetic and sad, but at least it’s something.
January 11, 2011, 12:56 pmOwen H. says:
You mean, because no one spread as big a lie as that about Bush, it says something about either of them? If there is a stain anywhere, it was not put there by President Obama. Lies like that do cause a stain, and it is the people spreading it putting a stain on themselves.
January 11, 2011, 12:57 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
The obvious conclusion is that a lot of people really would rather listen to Limbaugh or Beck than to the late Air America, and they had their political convictions well before they started choosing radio stations.
Oh come on. Sure, people who start to listen may well be conservative in general. But what Beck and Limbaugh do is turn that into resentment and anger. So someone voted for McCain, and thinks maybe the health care reform bill is not such a hot idea. These guys take that and twist it into Obama being some sort of illegitimate tyrant. I mean, if you’re unhappy he won, and someone starts telling you he’s not even eligible for office, you might pay attention.
There’s a whole host of these people on the right, as I need hardly point out, and they have a huge audience.
Of course, I guess you could just argue that conservatives really all always thought the way Coulter et al think, but I’m not sure you want to make that argument.
January 11, 2011, 12:57 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro,
I listen to a lot of talk radio, actually (shameless plug: Armstrong & Getty have done a great deal to shape both my moderation and my snarkiness). Mark Levin is always good for a laugh.
I listen to talk radio every morning. I believe the content provider is mostly NPR, though the immediate provider is Oregon Public Radio. Apart from my brief excursion into Liddy-land 15 years ago, I’ve pretty much stuck to NPR affiliates.
But I disagree I need to explain their popularity in order to note that they are a bigger deal than Code Pink. The mere fact of their popularity is enough to note that talk radio’s angry narrative has more influence.
No. Cart, horse. We aren’t in the 1984 universe; no one can make you listen to a radio station. You go to a radio station because you’re already confident that it will tell you what you need/want to hear/know. True for people who listen to Limbaugh; true for people who listen to NPR. True for people who listened to actual dedicated liberal radio, before the enterprise went spectacularly bust for lack of, y’know, actual listeners.
January 11, 2011, 12:58 pmStitch Jones says:
Nonsense. My radio has lots of stations. Yours must be broken.
It may be that he’s got electronic problems. But given existing evidence, wouldn’t a more reasonable conclusion be that he is simply incapable of telling the truth in any context? When you get to the point where one is pretending that LA radio is solely conservative, assuming good-faith seems wholly unwarranted.
January 11, 2011, 1:00 pmslimslowslider says:
Once again, amazing work Jukeboxgrad. Thanks for posting.
January 11, 2011, 1:03 pmJakeD says:
Owen H.:
Bigger LIES were indeed told about GWB. Since you are the expert, though, is the following a “lie” about Obama?
“Are you saying 43% of the country is incorrigibly stupid, or resistant to truth?” Chris Matthews of all people have even asked: “Why has the President himself not demanded that they put out the initial documents?”
January 11, 2011, 1:04 pmJakeD says:
slimslowslider:
Did you miss the smackdowns of “Jukeboxgrad” by ShelbyC, Fury, David, and Alaska Jack?!
January 11, 2011, 1:10 pmMDT says:
byomtov,
Yes, I read the whole article. I am still curious what you think of the idea of making a bonfire of ideas and images of people you don’t like. To my doubtless naive mind it seems to smack of violence; OTOH, we’re talking about Paul Krugman, Nobelist, here, so I must be wrong. Especially as he’s argued so persuasively just yesterday that no one ought to use violent rhetoric.
January 11, 2011, 1:11 pmNot Anonymus says:
The left lied about Bush constantly for eight years. “Bush lied, people died” and “Bush knew (about 9/11 before it happened)” are but two examples of lies that are much worse that “Obama isn’t a citizen”. The lie that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii isn’t particularly vicious, it’s just stupid.
January 11, 2011, 1:11 pmJakeD says:
Not Anonymous:
Is it “stupid” to point out that YOU don’t know, for sure, where you were born either?
January 11, 2011, 1:18 pmNot Anonymus says:
I listen to both, on occasion.
In general though, it’s quite possible for a person to go through much of their life avoiding conservatism. But it’s practically impossible for a person to go through life without being deluged by liberalism, on TV, at school, on the radio, in the news…
January 11, 2011, 1:20 pmMDT says:
byomtov,
Oh come on. Sure, people who start to listen may well be conservative in general. But what Beck and Limbaugh do is turn that into resentment and anger. So someone voted for McCain, and thinks maybe the health care reform bill is not such a hot idea. These guys take that and twist it into Obama being some sort of illegitimate tyrant. I mean, if you’re unhappy he won, and someone starts telling you he’s not even eligible for office, you might pay attention.
Enh. Why is it that “talk radio” is just automatically perceived as a conservative thing? As I said to Sarcastro a little above, I listen to talk radio daily; it’s called “Oregon Public Radio.” But the one attempt to make a non-govt-affiliated Leftish talk radio outlet did not work.
One obvious conclusion? Conservatives are much, much more likely to be the sorts of people who are allowed to run the radio at work.
January 11, 2011, 1:21 pmRoger Zimmerman says:
No, the issue is whether laws to prevent “extremist rhetoric” can be tailored narrowly enough to protect the freedom of speech and/or whether protecting freedom of speech is defensible when we have deranged people around who might be “encouraged” to act on such rhetoric.
I’d love to see your (retrospective) positions on these questions when the hot issue of the moment is, for example, “Bushhitler”.
January 11, 2011, 1:22 pmNot Anonymus says:
Yes, that would be extremely stupid.
January 11, 2011, 1:26 pmDave N. says:
Um, go to 1150 on the AM Dial. I believe the radio station’s call letters are KTLK.
Unless, of course, you think Randi Rhodes and Tom Leykas are conservatives.
January 11, 2011, 1:29 pmJakeD says:
Roger Zimmerman:
Great point! Right now, their “target” is Sarah Palin, but it won’t be so comfortable when the tables are turned. Even if this lunatic claims that “Sarah Palin told me to shoot them” that’s no more credible than John Hinckley, Jr. shooting Ronald Reagan because of Jodie Foster.
I was reading one of her rare interviews on the subject:
“Certain (movies) would give me pause” to make again, she says, declining to name them. “But (Brave One) doesn’t. I really believe in this movie. And I totally believe in Taxi Driver. It’s a classic, beautiful film. It’s a beautiful marker for our time. That movie spoke to generations of people — who didn’t shoot anyone.”
Foster said she isn’t rationalizing her own violent Hollywood work. If anything, she considers herself squeamish with brutality “that doesn’t say something, that doesn’t have a message.”
Interestingly, she went on to criticize Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” for what she considers glorified sadism. She also turned off Robert Rodriguez’s “Sin City”, which partially revolved around the kidnapping of a girl.
January 11, 2011, 1:29 pmJakeD says:
Not Anonymous:
How do you know “for sure”? From a piece of paper?
January 11, 2011, 1:31 pmMDT says:
Roger Zimmermann,
I’d love to see your (retrospective) positions on these questions when the hot issue of the moment is, for example, “Bushhitler”.
Seconded.
January 11, 2011, 1:32 pmJohn Herbison says:
Interesting New Yorker quote in Byomtov’s 12:45 p.m. comment:
As a libertarian-leaning Democrat, I strongly support the right to keep and bear arms. After all, not everyone is blessed with the combination of brains and testicular fortitude that walking around unarmed requires.
January 11, 2011, 1:39 pmrpt says:
Please identify any nonconservative talk stations in the greater LA area. You may include (without factual basis) KPCC because it is public. KCRW is almost all music programming.
January 11, 2011, 1:46 pmrpt says:
Thanks. Their signal is pretty weak, but I did forget about them.
January 11, 2011, 1:49 pmrpt says:
SJ:
We’ve already noted KTLK. What else do you have to contribute?
January 11, 2011, 1:54 pmBob in FL says:
Mission accomplished!
We’re all talking about (a) did rhetoric ’cause’ the shooting (b) is there too much heat in politics, and whose fault is it (c) what laws should we pass addressing the issue, and (d) gee, maybe we ought to look at mental health care and its intersection with public safety.
We’re not talking about repealing ObamaCare, what spending concessions can be extracted from the Democratic Senate and Obama in return for raising the debt limit, and addressing the FY2011 AND FY2012 budgets…
Good job, mainstream media!
January 11, 2011, 2:11 pmDave N. says:
I am using Google (I don’t live in LA), but it seems Jim Hightower is on KPFK, 90.7 FM (and a good chunk of the other programming leans decidedly left, though, ironically, Jim Hightower is not listed).
This list says KGIL, 1260 AM is liberal/progressive. So there appear to be at least 3 such stations in the LA area.
January 11, 2011, 2:17 pmMDT says:
Byomtov,
Oh come on. Sure, people who start to listen may well be conservative in general. But what Beck and Limbaugh do is turn that into resentment and anger. So someone voted for McCain, and thinks maybe the health care reform bill is not such a hot idea. These guys take that and twist it into Obama being some sort of illegitimate tyrant. I mean, if you’re unhappy he won, and someone starts telling you he’s not even eligible for office, you might pay attention.
So why, why is there conservative talk radio and no liberal talk radio (private, I mean; I’m not discounting NPR, which is the only radio I listen to anyway that isn’t something like a streaming classical-music broadcast from alltid.klassisk in Norway)? Why did the one attempt to create a liberal Limbaugh flop so badly?
Personal guess: The already-conservative folks work in professions where they can listen to the radio. They’re truckers, drivers, packers, haulers, plumbers, electricians, roofers — people whose presence is indispensable to the more-liberal folk around them. They listen to the radio while they work, because they can; and they listen to conservative talk radio because NPR irritates them, and Air America doesn’t exist, and even if it were still there it would irritate them too, because the “flyover country” thing isn’t myth. A lot of people seriously don’t believe anything significant happens between the East Coast and the West Coast, except possibly in Chicago or Cleveland.
January 11, 2011, 2:18 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
Yes, I read the whole article. I am still curious what you think of the idea of making a bonfire of ideas and images of people you don’t like.
I’m not crazy about it, especially the Berlusconi business – though that was done by some Italians, not Krugman. But let’s note that it was a private party, not a public event, so it was hardly “rhetoric” in the sense being discussed here. Nor was it a “bonfire of ideas.” People burned things they themselves wrote on slips of paper, not books by conservative authors.
January 11, 2011, 2:26 pmrpt says:
Thanks. KGIL covers some sports but is mostly music. I couldn’t see anything “liberal”, including from Leykis:
“Tom Leykis knows men. He knows that somewhere between death and taxes, men need to have a little fun. And for the millions of men who believe the harder you work, the harder you play he created The Tasting Room with Tom Leykis. The first of its kind, The Tasting Room is a lifestyle themed program for men with a taste for the finer things in life. From fine wine, high-end spirits, & craft brews to first-rate dining & premium cigars, Leykis covers it all in this weekly two-hour, on-air ride through every man’s wish list.”
January 11, 2011, 2:26 pmReal American says:
First, the Leftists try to suppress our First Amendment rights. Then our Second Amendment rights. Before we know it, they’ll be forcing us to quarter soldiers without our consent.
January 11, 2011, 2:29 pmDave N. says:
I am guessing KGIL used to be the Air America affiliate. But I don’t live in LA, so I could be wrong about that.
January 11, 2011, 2:29 pmMike says:
Yes, let me know how well those “brains and testicular fortitude” serve you when an armed assailant breaks into your home/goes after you.
January 11, 2011, 2:33 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
Personal guess: The already-conservative folks work in professions where they can listen to the radio.
I think that’s a fair guess. But I’m not sure what that has to do with the criticisms of conservative talk radio as dishonest and inflammatory, and of the GOP for being delighted to go along for the ride.
January 11, 2011, 2:34 pmTheDudeAbiding says:
I used to think liberals were just intellectually lazy, but after scanning the comments here, I have a hard time believing that to be true. It looks more like hypocritical intellectual dishonesty.
January 11, 2011, 2:35 pmrpt says:
The DLC/DCCC “imagery” and other “targeting” discussions used across the spectrum are not problematic because they do not include the firearms context, which is part of the self-created Palin persona, or the implicit justification that it’s justified to use the means of violence to remove politicians from office (spill the “blood of tyrants” or “martyrs”) if they have voted for or supported health care, bailouts, etc. Again, it’s not causation but justification.
January 11, 2011, 2:36 pmMike says:
Obviously, we should tone down the rhetoric and simply push false documents about a sitting president through a political partisan on a national news broadcast. B/c that’s the responsible, non vitriolic thing to do.
January 11, 2011, 2:37 pmrpt says:
Actually, the AA affiliate was KTLK.
January 11, 2011, 2:39 pmJeff says:
Maybe Obama should swear off using the terms “enemies”, “get in their faces”, “bring a gun”, “republicans are terrorists” for a couple of news cycles so we can all see what “reasonable” discourse looks like …
Otherwise, to all the liberals here, you can just put a sock in the “right wing hate speech” nonsense …
when your leader is the worst offender you really should be ashamed to show your face in public …
one of Obama’s oldest and dearest Chicago friends tried like hell to kill alot of fellow Americans (when Obama was 12 I think) … Yet your leader sought Ayers out a befriended him …
Don’t begin to lecture anyone about guilt by association when your leader has been happy to associate with the guilty …
January 11, 2011, 2:43 pmStitch Jones says:
What else do you have to contribute?
I agree with you, if we ignore KPCC, KCRW, KTLK, that the FM dial has other public radio from Rivertucky (KSPC, KUOR, KVCR) and San Bernardino (KVCR)- and, like any good progressive, ignore the wealth of Spanish, Chinese, and Korean options in the community- than your original claim that there is no radio except conservative radio is dead on. Oh wait, we have to ignore that your AM dial will also grab bay area stations (I prefer 680, but that’s a sports channel) as well- but other than that you’re on solid ground.
Nice work on that one.
January 11, 2011, 2:47 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
Did you see that Jesse Kelly issued a statement:
“In the wake of this stunning tragedy, my prayers are with Rep. Giffords, her husband Mark and the rest of her family. May God’s strength comfort her as we pray together for her recovery. We mourn for those who lost their lives in this horrible act.
Senseless acts of violence such as this have absolutely no place in American politics.”
Also, what was Obama’s “context” in saying:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
January 11, 2011, 2:53 pmJAL says:
Language:
So Rules for Radicals needs to be censored? Someone tell POTUS.
I suggest a lot of people need to grow up.
The First Amendment shouldn’t be trivialized by opportunists.
January 11, 2011, 2:54 pmJakeD says:
Mike:
Good one!
Stich Jones:
When I’m up in L.A., I can sometimes even get San Francisco talk radio.
January 11, 2011, 2:56 pmOwen H. says:
Is saying Bush knew about 9/11 (which I don’t believe) a stain on Bush? Does it make sense for someone to say that at least no one is saying that about President Obama?
Why are we even still talking about right/left politics? All that some on either cate about is scoring points.
January 11, 2011, 2:59 pmkevino says:
If we are now going to dumb-down political speech so that even crazy people won’t get ideas, then let’s start by banning the word “campaign”. It is, after all, a militaristic word referring to one side conquering the other. So, no more political campaigns — ever.
January 11, 2011, 3:02 pmJakeD says:
Owen H.:
What about what Chris Matthews said recently re: Obama’s birth certificate?
January 11, 2011, 3:03 pmrpt says:
I didn’t see Kelly’s statement. Thanks.
Somewhere earlier in this thread I answered the question by providing the context and dialog and Sean Connery quote from “The Untouchables” from which the “Chicago Way” phrase also comes. Connery is a cop telling Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) how to go after Al Capone. It was the kind of metaphorical comment (by Obama) that was probably unwise at the time, and looks bad out of context. However, no one has suggested that it was meant to be taken literally. In contrast, when you include firearms and tyranny with the “targetting” or “crosshairs” references and images you’re in a different zone. Not causation but rationalization for the shooter.
From Wikipedia:
“In June 1170, the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury held the coronation of Henry the Young King in York. This was a breach of Canterbury’s privilege of coronation. In November 1170 [Thomas] Becket excommunicated all three. While the three bishops fled to the king in Normandy, Becket continued to excommunicate his opponents in the church. Soon word of this reached Henry.
A Seal of the Abbot of Arbroath, depicting the murder of St. Thomas. Arbroath Abbey was founded 8 years after the death of St. Thomas and dedicated to him; it became the wealthiest abbey in Scotland.After these reports of Becket’s activities, Henry is said to have raised his head from his sickbed and roared a lament of frustration. The King’s exact words are in doubt and several versions have been reported. The most commonly quoted, as handed down by “oral tradition”, is “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”,[6] but according to historian Simon Schama this is incorrect: he accepts the account of the contemporary biographer Edward Grim, writing in Latin, who gives us “What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?”[7][8]”
You know what happened next.
January 11, 2011, 3:08 pmSarcastro says:
Birtherism is very much germane to this thread. Good thing we got JakeD to, as always, keep us on track!
January 11, 2011, 3:10 pmCarl N. Brown says:
By the way, the opening post was:
“The First Amendment and Speech That Allegedly Threatens Public Officials” by Eugene Volokh
“”Chris Moody (Daily Caller) writes: “Texas Democrat Rep. Rubén Hinojosa said Monday that he is open to joining Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Robert Brady in support of a bill to curb speech that could be perceived as “threatening” to public officials. ….”
How far afield have we wandered.
On the issue of vitriolic rhetoric poisoning the body politic, the knee jerk claims that
LaugnerLougnerLoughner was a Tea Partier taking marching orders from Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, quite frankly, are part of the vitriol.Wasn’t there a crazed assassin who took orders from his neighbor’s dog, Sam? What was done about dogs?
January 11, 2011, 3:11 pmCarl N. Brown says:
By the way, the opening post was:
“The First Amendment and Speech That Allegedly Threatens Public Officials” by Eugene Volokh
“”Chris Moody (Daily Caller) writes: “Texas Democrat Rep. Rubén Hinojosa said Monday that he is open to joining Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Robert Brady in support of a bill to curb speech that could be perceived as “threatening” to public officials. ….”
How far afield have we wandered.
On the issue of vitriolic rhetoric poisoning the body politic, the knee jerk claims that
LaugnerLougnerLoughner was a Tea Partier taking marching orders from Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, quite frankly, are part of the vitriol.Wasn’t there a crazed assassin who took orders from his neighbor’s dog, Sam? What was done about dogs?
January 11, 2011, 3:11 pmMDT says:
byomtov,
I think that’s a fair guess. But I’m not sure what that has to do with the criticisms of conservative talk radio as dishonest and inflammatory, and of the GOP for being delighted to go along for the ride.
Don’t you?
The already-conservative folks work in professions where they can listen to the radio. They’re truckers, drivers, packers, haulers, plumbers, electricians, roofers.
Those are obviously all plutocrats. Right? No?
Actually, they’re all exploited workers, who ought to tune in all the time to any station that tells them how oppressed they are. Weirdly, they don’t take to NPR much better than they did to the late Air America. It apparently isn’t just Kansas that it’s the matter with; great swaths of America seem to think that their opinions are their own. Stupid reactionary gun-toting idiots.
January 11, 2011, 3:13 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
If we are now going with “rationalization” I think the GRAMMAR POLICE are more to blame than Sarah Palin. Serious question: was Jodie Foster to blame for Reagan getting shot?
Sacastro:
I wasn’t the one who brought it up first.
January 11, 2011, 3:18 pmrpt says:
You left out Ryan Seacrest, but you know we are talking about the “talk radio” genre, and not music or sports or straight news. KPCC is not a “liberal” station, nor is KCRW. You can’t categorize them as such without actual content and programming analysis (just) because they are NPR affiliates. KCRW is mostly eclectic music. KPFK is indeed (at least) liberal and really unique. We have already covered KTLK. I’ve never listened to the Spanish or Asian stations because I’m not fluent in those languages, although I do like Norteno music. I can’t get “bay area” stations from either San Diego or San Francisco. Now what?
January 11, 2011, 3:20 pmptt says:
That was our plan all along, but we wanted to wait until DADT was repealed so we can force you to house homosexuals. Between that and the draconian water restrictions the EPA is about to impose, you’ll never be safe again…
January 11, 2011, 3:29 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
Yeah. Lots of those guys are conservative. No problem. But do you really want to equate that with the garbage that comes out of talk radio? Sorry. You still haven’t explained what the audience has to do with the invective and dishonesty. BTW, here’s Limbaugh today:
Lovely stuff. And entirely typical.
January 11, 2011, 3:31 pmShelbyC says:
Who has suggested that the crosshair map was meant to be taken literally? Why can’t the Obama “bring a gun” comment have been rationalization for the shooter? Because that would be nuts? Again, this is just idiotic drivel, not serious commentary.
January 11, 2011, 3:34 pmJakeD says:
Rush is right. So was “calmom” from last night:
“If we cleaned up anything that might provoke a deranged killer, there would be no more Jodie Foster movies shown, no more Beatles music played.
I certainly don’t want the political discourse ruled by what might set off the deranged.
If there is to be blame placed on anyone in addition to the killer, it should be on those who knew he was ‘off’ (where were his parents in all this?) and did nothing.”
January 10, 2011, 7:54 pm
Maybe his parents did everything they could, but it’s looking like that’s not the case. Pima Community College officials, as well as others who DID evaluate his mental condition, however, should be called out. But, whatever you think, Sarah Palin did not make him shoot anyone!!!
January 11, 2011, 3:35 pmRagebot says:
Well it certainly was not the professional surveyor vote. Not only did I get the highest score and qualify as marksman in basic training I also did lots of GIS work which included working with professional surveyors, and I can tell you from experience the imagery both Palin and the DNC used was not like anything I saw looking in a rifle scope or any reticle in a telescope used to survey.
January 11, 2011, 3:38 pmrpt says:
Palin is not “to blame” because she did not cause the shooting. But she did provide a context for shooters to rationalize to themselves that they would be justified in shooting someone on the target list because the targets are “traitors” or “tyrants”, or whatever other term is used to describe them. That’s the issue.
What does Jodie Foster have to do with Reagan?
January 11, 2011, 3:43 pmStitch Jones says:
KPCC is not a “liberal” station, nor is KCRW.
But of course, they don’t need to be in order for your claim- that conservative radio was the “only” option- to be false. And, indeed, we already know your original claim was false. Now we just get to watch how fast you can spin and pretend that you didn’t toss out a false claim that got immediately ridiculed because there were a host of people with personal experience in the area you were discussing.
You might want to make a note of that.
As to your “some targets are more equal than others bit,” I would suggest to you that when Orwell wrote Animal Farm he did so as a cautionary tale, not an aspirational one.
So that’s another note you might want to make.
January 11, 2011, 3:44 pmptt says:
I’m again puzzled by folks who make the claim that the Palin map and DNC maps used the same imagery. At this point, quite a few people have seen both maps. The images are not the same. You weaken your argument when you talk about them as though they are. You lose all credibility when you use words like “identical” in comparing them.
January 11, 2011, 3:44 pmJakeD says:
Never mind, rpt.
January 11, 2011, 3:45 pmJakeD says:
Ragebot:
This is a common “surveyor’s symbol” (even if it’s not exactly what surveyors see in any reticle):
http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP219/k2197290.jpg
January 11, 2011, 3:53 pmMDT says:
byomtov,
Yeah. Lots of those guys are conservative. No problem. But do you really want to equate that with the garbage that comes out of talk radio? Sorry. You still haven’t explained what the audience has to do with the invective and dishonesty.
Neither have you, come to that. Many millions of Americans are purposefully listening to what you call “garbage.” (I presume you don’t mean NPR, but that other talk radio that is called “talk radio.”)
“Lots of those guys” are the actual bulk of the country, and if they were primarily liberal, Air America might actually have turned a profit. Unfortunately, people who do that menial sort of stuff that can be done with the radio on … well, they’re just manual laborers, right? Not serious people like us?
January 11, 2011, 3:59 pmVolokh: The First Amendment and Speech That Allegedly Threatens Public Officials » FREE WHITEWATER says:
[...] It’s well past time for a primer on the boundaries of free speech and public officials. Fortunately, Eugene Volokh of UCLA has that very post on his website. See, The First Amendment and Speech That Allegedly Threatens Public Officials. [...]
January 11, 2011, 4:00 pmStitch Jones says:
You lose all credibility when you use words like “identical” in comparing them.
Please explain the distinction in the imagery. Not the distinction in the made-up stuff that surrounds the imagery that you manufactured previously, but in the images themselves.
This is going to be good.
January 11, 2011, 4:01 pmSarcastro says:
Sweet.
January 11, 2011, 4:02 pmptt says:
And darned easy, too.
One is a cross-hairs. The other is a bulls-eye. See, we even have different words for them!
And what did I “manufacture” previously? That’s a rude thing to say.
January 11, 2011, 4:05 pmrpt says:
Again, Obama was quoting movie dialog in a metaphorical context, which included a Chicago reference. He wasn’t identifying particular targets or advocating action. And, more importantly, Giffords is the politician victim and presumed target here. She is a Democrat who voted for the health care bill which is the main complaint of the “anti-tyrants”. Her opponent had a campaign event in which he invited people to come and shoot automatic weapons as part of his effort to remove her from office. How subtle does it need to be?
January 11, 2011, 4:06 pmJakeD says:
Jim Lindgren’s series must be very much germane to this thread about LIMITS to the First Amendment too. Good thing we’ve got Sarcastro to, as always, keep us on track!
January 11, 2011, 4:07 pmSarcastro says:
Radio-based class warfare, sweet!
If someone is popular, it means he has no influence, cause people know what to expect!! Also, the marketplace has spoken so anything he does is fine anyway.
January 11, 2011, 4:08 pmHoward says:
Oh, come on. Here’s the actual quote:
“We had two or three TVs set up and we had a little portable outside fire pit and we let people throw in an effigy or whatever they wanted to get rid of for the past eight years.”
“One of our Italian colleagues threw in an effigy of Berlusconi.”
“I put out some coloring paper and markers so that people could write stuff on it and throw it into the fire. People really felt like there was stuff they wanted to shed! I had little hats and party whistles.”
Does this really strike you as violence?
Hey, if 10 years from now people are still telling you that Obama isn’t really a citizen, I’ll have no problem with that. God bless ‘em. What I’m talking about is a whole movement. Did anyone tell soldiers that they should disobey orders because Bush wasn’t really the President? Did anyone shout it from the gallery of the House? How about the Congressman who introduced a bill requiring that all candidates provide birth certificates? Anything like that from Democrats?
And then we have stuff like this:
Take a good look at that, MDT. The only reason Obama has that “stain” is that crazy right-wingers are still screaming about it. They didn’t win the popular vote, they got trounced in the electoral vote, but instead of saying, “We lost,” as citizens in a democracy sometimes have to do, they cook up a whole story about how the candidate himself is illegitimate. Drop the whole “Oh, the other side is just as bad” and admit that in this regard, your side is worse.
I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are at least as likely to be right-wing kooks as left-wing kooks.
Well, to begin with, it was a reference to this:
January 11, 2011, 4:08 pmIf you’re going to make innane criticisms of other people’s speech patterns, at least get them right.
Clearly this would be a silly criticism if it were just “Here are two people who talk funny, therefore they’re alike.” It’s less silly if you say, “Here are two people who put on a particular speech pattern in order to make themselves appear less educated than they are, therefore they’re alike.” I assume the second is what Lewis was getting at.
ptt says:
As frustrating as his no-comments schtick is, I am getting some comfort from knowing he’s wasting days analyzing the writings of a madman.
January 11, 2011, 4:10 pmrpt says:
What are you talking about here? Did you understand me to say to that there were no music or sports stations in Los Angeles? If that is so, I’ll be more careful to be very explicit in the future.
January 11, 2011, 4:12 pmSarcastro says:
Maybe he’ll do that Tyrant Wilson next!
January 11, 2011, 4:19 pmJakeD says:
Howard:
If you don’t want to answer my questions to you, that’s just fine with me. Considering that you must think that 120 months are simply a “few” and that rpt doesn’t know basic American history, the less I have to interact with you two, the better.
January 11, 2011, 4:19 pmDave says:
Isn’t the Left trying to make this into their Reichstag Fire.
January 11, 2011, 4:23 pmrpt says:
Are we talking history now? What do you have in mind? Becket? Chicago?
January 11, 2011, 4:27 pmJakeD says:
American history, a mere 20 years ago (you don’t even know that John Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan because of Jodie Foster).
January 11, 2011, 4:30 pmJakeD says:
I meant 30 years ago (March 30, 1981, to be exact)
Darn it, that I do not have permission to edit the previous comment (although the clock is still counting down ; )
January 11, 2011, 4:33 pmrpt says:
What does this mean? Who is “the Left”?
January 11, 2011, 4:36 pmMDT says:
Howard,
We had two or three TVs set up and we had a little portable outside fire pit and we let people throw in an effigy or whatever they wanted to get rid of for the past eight years.”
“One of our Italian colleagues threw in an effigy of Berlusconi.”
“I put out some coloring paper and markers so that people could write stuff on it and throw it into the fire. People really felt like there was stuff they wanted to shed! I had little hats and party whistles.”
Does this really strike you as violence?
Supposing an effigy of Obama went into this fire pit, would you have thought it maybe threatening? How about Hillary Clinton?
Me, I think burning images of still-living people is maybe not the best way to celebrate anything.
January 11, 2011, 4:36 pmSarcastro says:
Totally. This Lochner guy sounds like a lefty deep cover plant. I expect Obama’s going to get Ultimate Power any day now! I mean, if the Nazis did it, the libs want to do it!
January 11, 2011, 4:37 pmRagebot says:
You snipped out the heart of my comment, but maybe you can help me by finding out what this symbol means ;)
January 11, 2011, 4:37 pmJakeD says:
What symbol?
January 11, 2011, 4:40 pmHoward says:
OK, entertaining as this whole pissing match has been (not),why don’t we draw a line under it and say that, regardless of who did what in the past, from now on we will oppose and condemn the use of violent language in politics, as well as attempts to deny the legitimacy of the other side. Any problems with that? I can’t wait to hear.
January 11, 2011, 4:43 pmStitch Jones says:
What are you talking about here?
I’m responding to your original claim. The false one you are now trying to avoid acknowledging.
Nice work on the picture distinction. I mean, it’s not an argument that explains anything or even manages to attempt to explain why the distinction is valuable in any way, but it’s not obviously false, so it’s definitely an upgrade from your previous efforts.
January 11, 2011, 4:46 pmRagebot says:
Sorry my humor impairment seems worse than usual today. I was responding to Scarcastro’s post, here is the back and forth:
Ragebot says:
Sarcastro: Sarcastro says:
rpt: Why else would sophisticated marketing and political advisers use such imagery?
Surveying symbols! The amature surveyor vote!
Well it certainly was not the professional surveyor vote. Not only did I get the highest score and qualify as marksman in basic training I also did lots of GIS work which included working with professional surveyors, and I can tell you from experience the imagery both Palin and the DNC used was not like anything I saw looking in a rifle scope or any reticle in a telescope used to survey.
Then I responded to you with the symbol inside the quotation marks at the end of the posts, “;)”
January 11, 2011, 4:47 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro,
If someone is popular, it means he has no influence, cause people know what to expect!!
That’s so nearly true that I hardly know what to say. Seriously, to get to extremist political sites, you have to want to get there first. If you land on one by accident, you’re practically certain to stop reading. The only exceptions are people who who mesh exactly with whatever they hit via Google. They find their homes (denmcraticunderground and freerepublic are the big ones), and stay there.
January 11, 2011, 4:50 pmJakeD says:
Oh, okay, I thought for a moment that you really were a qualified sniper and did lots of professional surveyor work.
January 11, 2011, 4:51 pmDebrah says:
Ha!
I know almost nothing about guns and have never had the least of interest in them; however, I once entertained the idea of getting a little pistol with a pearl handle to have as a sense of protection.
But I really only had the idea because I liked the way it looked.
I suppose it’s a good idea to actually learn to use one first.
:>)
January 11, 2011, 4:52 pmDebrah says:
This segment from Jon Stewart on the Tucson shooting is worth a listen.
January 11, 2011, 4:54 pmricky says:
“A war is coming. At stake: our lives, the planet, freedom, living. The government, the corporations, and the extreme right are prepared to coalesce into an Axis of Evil. Are you going to fight back? Will you do whatever it takes, including taking up arms?”
January 11, 2011, 4:55 pmrpt says:
You are now channeling Bernstein’s new book: “Rehabilitating Loughner”. Who could have foreseen?
January 11, 2011, 4:56 pmMDT says:
Howard,
OK, entertaining as this whole pissing match has been (not),why don’t we draw a line under it and say that, regardless of who did what in the past, from now on we will oppose and condemn the use of violent language in politics, as well as attempts to deny the legitimacy of the other side.
Any problems with that? I can’t wait to hear.
Personally? Of course I have none. Let’s all refrain in the future from images of politicians with guns to their heads.
January 11, 2011, 5:04 pmByomtov says:
MDT,
Neither have you, come to that. Many millions of Americans are purposefully listening to what you call “garbage.”
Tell me. Is the Limbaugh quote I provided garbage or not? Is it your idea of thoughtful political commentary? When Obama went to Hawaii to visit his dying grandmother during the 2008 campaign Limbaugh claimed it was to doctor his birth records somehow. Does that fit into your definition of garbage, or reasonable commentary?
You seem to be claiming that it can’t be garbage because it has a big audience. That makes no sense whatsoever. Watched TV lately?
January 11, 2011, 5:09 pmSarcastro says:
[Gotta say I disagree. Positive feedback is a heluva drug. So are pleasing narratives. Partisan media provides both.]
January 11, 2011, 5:13 pmGeorge says:
Limitations on the content of speech is control of speech by the government and is by definition not democracy.
Democracy requires that individuals be responsible for their own actions. Not someone else, no matter what is said. The whole premise of democracy is that each person is a responsible individual. Taking away that responsibility and giving it to the government takes away democracy. That is of course what the left really wants.
January 11, 2011, 5:13 pmJakeD says:
Ricky:
But don’t you know that Ted Rall is now a secret-Republican plant?
January 11, 2011, 5:15 pmJPG says:
There is little doubt in my mind that the killer’s actions are to be explained from a psychiatrical point of view. From the gathered public evidence so far, we might very well have a delusional, dissociative personality with, almost certainly, a schizophrenic disorder. Whether or not voices from Marx, Limbaugh or Mars bounced in the nutty’s head is irrelevant to the actual political debate.
From reading this thread, however, I have to come to the conclusion this nation has much more than its needed share of lawyers. What it truly needs is a great import of psychiatrists. Otherwise, the world is doomed. Sanity is coming short, clearly.
January 11, 2011, 5:17 pmJakeD says:
JPG:
To my credit, I’m a retired lawyer : )
January 11, 2011, 5:37 pmrpt says:
Re the shortage of psychiatrists, with Drs. Paul and Lindgren on the job, we’ll soon know everything there is to know about Mr. Loughner’s mental condition.
January 11, 2011, 5:40 pmDave N. says:
I will agree to that. Will you agree with me that we should call out those who jump to conclusions without evidence because it suits their political narrative? Will you also agree with me that trying to exploit a tragedy of this kind for political gain is beneath contempt?
January 11, 2011, 5:57 pmGood grief « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] UPDATE: I’m not surprised that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional. [...]
January 11, 2011, 5:59 pmMDT says:
Sarcastro,
Gotta say I disagree. Positive feedback is a heluva drug. So are pleasing narratives. Partisan media provides both.
That’s true, but it doesn’t explain why the pleasing narratives just now ought to be right-wing ones. If kooks are Googling at random, they’re at least as likely to end up in Farleftsville as in Farrightsville. For every freerepublicker there is a democraticundergroundian and then some.
January 11, 2011, 6:01 pmMDT says:
Howard,
I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are at least as likely to be right-wing kooks as left-wing kooks.
Evidence? I think Rosie “Fire doesn’t melt steel” O’Donnell is an unlikely right-wing kook, but maybe she harbors a secret Cheney fetish or something.
January 11, 2011, 6:12 pmHyphenated American says:
I am always amazed when the party of Al Sharpton (a man who incited 2 riots which resulted in murder of Jews) is the one upset about “violent rhetoric”. Hey, is anyone home there anymore?
BTW, Obama says hi to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two terrorists from the 60ies.
January 11, 2011, 6:15 pmJPG says:
I heard hollywood was interested in Prof. Lindgren’s story. The movie, starring Bruce Willis in the leading role, would have a character who keeps saying: “I see liberal people. They are everywhere! They don’t know they’re libs!”. Producers are not yet decided if the script is one of an horror movie or a dramatic biopic.
January 11, 2011, 6:20 pmGiant Frog says:
NASA sends the dog with communication or NASA fakes the situation.
January 11, 2011, 6:22 pmNASA didn’t send the dog with communication.
Therefore, NASA fakes the situation.
JPG says:
i think you are proving my point. Is there any such thing as dangerous for society than a retired lawyer who can afford to spend all of his free time bugging people around him? Shrinks are needed, NOW!
January 11, 2011, 6:24 pmJakeD says:
JBG:
Perhaps law professors waiting for the spring semester to start? Don’t read my posts, if you are getting bugged by me.
MDT:
Maybe a LIZ Cheney fetish ; )
January 11, 2011, 6:28 pmJakeD says:
BTW: isn’t Barack Obama a RETIRED lawyer too?
January 11, 2011, 6:35 pmJPG says:
I was just teasing you, of course. But I have to grant you a point on this one: lawyers with too much time on their hands are a force to be reckon with.
January 11, 2011, 6:36 pmAnthony Paul says:
If only he had had a Tea Party to join.
January 11, 2011, 6:36 pmJPG says:
Why bug some people around you when you can bug over 300M people at the same time? Some retired people are more ambitious than others.
January 11, 2011, 6:38 pmJakeD says:
Yep. BOTH Barack and Michelle are “Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law” (it’s fair to say that neither of them will ever practice law again ; )
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=540901303
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=867418348
January 11, 2011, 6:39 pmJakeD says:
Clearly, JPG.
“No malpractice report required as attorney is retired” (Emphasis added)
Again, that all assumes that Obama is a “natural-born” citizen and, therefore, legitimately President of the United States. Not only did GWB never leave that stain on his Presidency, but GWB got an MBA rather than a snake oil JD ; )
January 11, 2011, 6:43 pmBarbara Skolaut says:
“You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,” Brady said.”
Maybe not this President, but the Left didn’t seem to have any problem with it as long as the President was a Republican named Bush.
Lying hypocrite.
January 11, 2011, 6:55 pmJakeD says:
Barbara:
I would also argue that Brady is incorrect as to his legal opinion (Professor Volokh doesn’t even think that the Secret Service would likely visit Palin based on something like that).
http://volokh.com/2011/01/11/speech-that-is-criminally-punishable-vs-speech-that-triggers-an-investigation/#comments
January 11, 2011, 7:09 pmMDT says:
Hyphenated American,
BTW, Obama says hi to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two terrorists from the 60s.
That’s not a point I meant to make, but it’s interesting, yes? I can’t think that current political rhetoric is unprecedentedly violent when there’s 60s and 70s political rhetoric right there to look at. And I don’t mean the way Dohrn got off on the way the Manson cult stuck a fork in Sharon Tate’s stomach, particularly; I mean that in those decades people really were apt to take their political convictions to the lethal level.
And yet there’s still that nostalgia for idealism lost that seems to come over everyone when discussing the 60s. (The 70s, not so much.) We had, in the space of two decades, a President assassinated; a Presidential nominee assassinated; the greatest civil rights leader in modern US history assassinated; and a bungled try at assassinating another President, along with numerous political murders, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks. The assassins: A Marxist; a Palestinian nationalist; a racist; a Manson groupie. But it’s just now that political rhetoric has apparently gotten murderous.
January 11, 2011, 7:19 pmrichard40 says:
Since when do leftie dems need anything as inconvenient as evidence for their statements or legislation. Never let a serious crime go to waste, when you might have an opportunately to silence the speech of your opponents.
January 11, 2011, 7:23 pmrichard40 says:
And I wonder, if this contemptable legislation actually passes (doubtful), who will decide when the speeech is considered threatining? the New York Times? We know how they will decide.
The present supreme court standard is just fine. It requires an actual intent to incite iminent physical violence, not just speech that somebody thinks is “over the top”, or that some nut job might misinterpret it.
This reminds me of the controversy about video shooter games inciting violence. Same false reasoning, holding peoiple responsible when some nutcase does something violent.
January 11, 2011, 7:29 pmProfShadow says:
The First Amendment’s protection of speech allows speech and discussion before action.
If this protection is diminished then more will only have action to resort to instead of speech.
Bad all around.
January 11, 2011, 7:35 pmJakeD says:
richard40:
Luckily for us, Speaker Boehner has already indicated that he will not support a strict gun control measure — set to be introduced by a House GOPer and backed by gun control advocates — that would make it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a public official, a Boehner spokesman confirms. I doubt that he would support any other contemptable legislation either.
January 11, 2011, 7:36 pmCarl N. Brown says:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shooting-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html
Some guy from Chicago posted in a comment to the UK Daily Mail article that the crosshairs on the poster do not resemble rifle sight crosshairs (which are crosshairs within a circle touching at the middle) but more closely resemble the reticle of a surveyor’s telescope (crosshairs through a circle with a gap in the middle).
I went to pobonline.com Point of Beginning a surveying website and an ad pops up for transit device using the gapped crosshairs through a circle, the Tribble S8 Total station.
Maybe Palin should have used the same bullseye icon used on the democratic map.
January 11, 2011, 8:05 pmrpt says:
Why do you believe Rep. King is offering this legislation?
January 11, 2011, 8:15 pmrpt says:
Why do you believe Rep. King is offering this legislation?
January 11, 2011, 8:15 pmDebrah says:
Stellar points and ones I haven’t seen highlighted in this hyperbolic and melodramatic discussion.
As you illustrate, the current journalists, talking heads, and opportunistic pols seem to have forgotten events of recent history.
This really does put Tucson into perspective and makes the “expert” kibitzers look very foolish.
January 11, 2011, 8:22 pmRagebot says:
SDS, SLA, BP (the real Black Panthers, not the wussy New Black Panthers who only have the stones to stand in front of polling places with night sticks) all used phrases like “burn baby, burn”, riots in Watts (which was kind wimpy), riots in Detroit where the National Guard used APCs with 50s to take out rioters. Guys like Rush and Sharpton would be laughed out of town for pussy-footing around.
January 11, 2011, 8:23 pmShelbyC says:
It’s hard to see how that’s less silly. Many reasonably educated folks, myself included, talk that way. (James Carville comes to mind). We’re all trying to appear less educated than we really are, and acting just like George Wallace? That’s simply another example of how this debate consists of offensive, butt-stupid drivel instead of serious commentary.
January 11, 2011, 8:29 pmShelbyC says:
And speaking of George Wallace, I don’t see anybody complaining about how harsh anti-Jim Crow rhetoric caused him to get shot, do I?
January 11, 2011, 8:34 pmRagebot says:
A point I sorta touched earlier when I said I was a qualified marksman in the Army and did GIS/GPS work and the thing Palin used was not really like any reticle in a telescope on top of a rifle or the one used by surveyors. The bullseye the dems used was not like any bullseye I used as a target.
January 11, 2011, 8:47 pmOwen H. says:
It is so wonderful to see so many showing that nasty, vitriolic rhetoric and demonizing the other side couldn’t be to blame or even a factor in this tragedy, by using as much nasty, vitriolic rhetoric and demonizing of the other side as they can manage.
January 11, 2011, 9:28 pmHoward says:
Well, that would break my little heart. So while I’m really not interested in dragging out the question of who grumbled about what for how long, here’s the short answer:
Although Democrats were (in my view rightly) appalled by the Supreme Court decision, and although they may have grumbled about it for ever so long afterwards, they did not: (1) form a cult of people dedicated to unmasking the truth about the election (2) advise soldiers that they should disobey orders from Bush because he was not really Commander-in-Chief (3) Shout from the House gallery that Bush wasn’t really the President (4) Well, here I can’t even imagine what would be equivalent to introducing a bill in Congress requiring that all candidates produce birth certificates.
Yet in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that they were defeated decisively when the American people went to the polls, Republicans have done all those things. And even you yourself are hedging, although no reasonable person could believe at this point that Obama was not born in the U.S.
So I really think it’s time for Republicans to say, “Although we have them beat in many ways, in this respect the Democrats behaved better than we did, and it’s time for us to follow their example.” I know it will be like swallowing ipecac for you to say it.
January 11, 2011, 10:00 pmHoward says:
So calling what I say “offensive, butt-stupid drivel” counts as “serious commentary”? I’ll pass, thanks. No, o serious one, first of all I was interpreting what I thought someone else meant. Second, you must surely be butt-intelligent enough to see that saying that some people put on particular accents for political purposes is not to say that everyone who talks that way is dong so. It’s the difference between “some” and “all,” you see.
January 11, 2011, 10:14 pmHoward says:
Well, what a relief to know that politics today is not as bad as Watts and Detroit in the 60s. I feel better.
Sure. You think that people are trying to exploit this tragedy for political gain? Your evidence being, I guess, that they are leftists and therefore never mean what they say. So in spite of the fact that Giffords was concerned about the violent atmosphere in her district shortly before she was shot, Democrats couldn’t possibly be sincerely concerned, because Democrats are ipso facto insincere. (I’m not sure whether that applies to blue dog Democrats or not.) Maybe we should just stick to “Jumping to conclusions is bad.”
I’m not sure what this is an allusion to, but it appears you couldn’t resist the temptation to get one last zinger in.
On Krugman: Not really what I’d recommend, but it sounds more like something the size of a voodoo doll. If you want to have a private party and stick pins in a voodoo doll of Obama, I will regard that as tacky, but not a cause for concern.
BTW, I can’t find that link you posted to your music. Can you post it again?
January 11, 2011, 10:54 pmMDT says:
Howard,
You may find a bunch of politicians with guns to their heads in Michelle Malkin’s compendium. Some are Bush, and some are Palin. Who knew that the Left was so well armed?
On Krugman: Not really what I’d recommend, but it sounds more like something the size of a voodoo doll. If you want to have a private party and stick pins in a voodoo doll of Obama, I will regard that as tacky, but not a cause for concern.
If you have a party with thirty or so guests and throw written copies of all the ideas you hate and images of all the living people you hate into a fire pit, wouldn’t that be maybe slightly violent? slightly threatening? slightly “if you were here right now, it would be really cool to see you burn alive?
(No? Then possibly Palin’s celebrated map wasn’t literal instructions to her army of deranged PalinBots as to who needed killing, either.)
There’s no link to my music, because I’m not a composer. I’m a music critic, though; see here. The last item there is a review of a two-disc compendium of Lisa Bielawa’s music over the past decade, published today. Enjoy. (Since I moved to Oregon I’ve been limited to CD reviews, and not so many of those, but go back a year or so if you want to sample concert reviews.)
January 11, 2011, 11:33 pmRagebot says:
So you agree with me that my post supports the part of my post that you snipped out, reproduced here:
“MDT: MDT says:
Hyphenated American,
BTW, Obama says hi to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two terrorists from the 60s.
That’s not a point I meant to make, but it’s interesting, yes? I can’t think that current political rhetoric is unprecedentedly violent when there’s 60s and 70s political rhetoric right there to look at.”
In case you miss the point, it is that the 60s were more violent, and that Obama has supporters with a history of direct violent action, while the current left wing pinko commie creep objection to Sara Palin using Jedi mind tricks to get sleeper bots to act violently is a very obtuse argument.
January 11, 2011, 11:53 pmJohn Herbison says:
Comparisons between Sarah Bailin’ and George Wallace are indeed unfair –- to Governor Wallace, who actually completed four terms as governor of his state and who, as I am always careful to point out when I write of him, in later life admitted he was wrong, repudiated racial segregation and repented of his earlier demagogy. I have seen nothing to indicate that the narcissist from Alaska has that kind of integrity.
The similarities between the two, however, go well beyond affected speech patterns. Each is/was a faux populist rabble rouser. Each has pandered to and fomented hatred and resentments. Neither Palin now nor Wallace in his segregationist heyday appealed to the better angels of their supporters’ human nature to promote civility and tolerance in our society.
Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon, knew whereof he spoke when he observed that Palin crowds reminded him of Wallace crowds. When Shelby C. tries to reduce the subject to non-standard speech patterns, he or she acts true to an old Southern maxim: the hit dog hollers.
January 11, 2011, 11:55 pmDave N. says:
Yes, I see people acting in bad faith in this. When the evidence destroys the narrative, we still have people saying it is those right-wing Republicans fault. That is sickening and disgusting. I thought you asked your question in good faith. I see I was mistaken.
January 12, 2011, 12:15 amShelbyC says:
Well, then that portion of your comment wouldn’t be offensive, butt-stupid drivel, would it? However, the portions of your comments where you claim your political opponents are engaged in over the top rhetoric while rationalizing the comments of the guys on your side are butt stupid drivel. Comments along the lines of, the other side is so dishonest, etc., while my side isn’t… almost always are butt-stupid drivel. And the fact that you do it to try to place blame for a mass-murder on your political opponents makes it offensive butt-stupid drivel, and places you in a category with people like birthers, truthers, people who think god created AIDS to kill gays, etc.
January 12, 2011, 12:45 amjukeboxgrad says:
slim, thanks.
mike:
See here:
http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/libertarianism-and-the-reliance-interests-of-people-who-depend-on-government-programs/#comment-1110454
not anonymous:
Actually, he did lie:
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
And there are a few more here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1232737537.shtml#522716
And some other helpful facts can be found via here:
http://volokh.com/2010/08/31/debating-the-invasion-of-iraq-three-questions-for-the-pro-war-blogosphere-six-years-later/#comment-931181
You probably also think that the WMD will be found any day now.
January 12, 2011, 1:32 amjukeboxgrad says:
mdt:
My aunt is my uncle. Or would be, if she had balls. Your statement is nonsense. What makes Rush significant is the size of his audience. We learn something important about American politics by noticing that a large number of people are happy to absorb crap.
You seem to be arguing that Rush does not have a lot of influence over what his audience does. This is also nonsense. We know that Rush has a lot of influence over his audience because if he didn’t, other GOP leaders would not be so concerned about offending him:
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
As has been explained, there’s a big difference between doing something in your home, as compared with doing something in front of millions of people (on TV and/or the internet).
Most or all of Malkin’s examples are about “rank-and-file activists” behaving badly, not about “sitting lawmakers and leading political candidates” behaving badly. Big difference. This has already been explained, but you’re working hard at pretending otherwise.
There are nuts everywhere, and there are nuts in both parties. But in the GOP, the nuts are in charge. Palin’s success is a reflection of this. There are plenty of sane Republicans who realize this and are horrified. But she’s going to win the nomination anyway.
Debrah:
So what? No one said posing with a gun is a problem. The problem is posing with a gun and also putting crosshairs on a political adversary (as Palin did). Or posing with a gun and also promoting a campaign event as follows:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php
As Kelly did. I already explained this, so you should explain why you’re making a fuss about a picture of Giffords holding a gun. No one has claimed that such a thing, alone, is a problem.
January 12, 2011, 1:33 amjukeboxgrad says:
Stitch Jones:
The DCCC map is fairly comparable to what Palin did, but the DLC map is not. The DLC map is here:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
If you actually pay attention to the map and the article that contains it, you’ll see that it does not target individual Republicans. The article is talking about winning those states in the next presidential election. So the focus is not on Republican officials in those states. Unlike Palin’s map, which did indeed ta