Tea Party & Bernie Sanders Using Tucson Tragedy For Fundraising

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Money, tea party

I bet you never thought you’d see those two in the same headline. I’m a bit surprised myself. Bernie should know better.

From The Weekly Standard comes the text of the email from Sanders…

Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at www.bernie.org. There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me. Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated.

And from The Daily Caller comes the Tea Party email…

TEA PARTY WON’T BE SILENCED FOLLOWING ARIZONA SHOOTING

This weekend we all were horrified to hear the news of the violent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Arizona.

One thing that surprised us was how many in the news media and liberal political figures and organizations immediately launched into an attack on the tea party movement – assigning blame for the shooting to our grass roots, Constitutionalist movement in general, and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular.

Friends, this is outrageous.

It is quite clear that liberals are trying to exploit this shooting for their own political benefit, and they used deception and dishonesty to try and smear all of us and our beliefs.

You know what the truth is? The truth is that the shooter, Jared Loughner is the one responsible for this atrocity. But liberals are trying to place the blame on society for embracing the tea party movement.

We here at the Tea Party Express find that disgusting and revolting.

This isn’t a new concept for liberals. Let us harken back to the words of Ronald Reagan when he called out the Left for similar behavior in years past: “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” – Ronald Reagan

If Jared Loughner does have a definable political ideology it is that of a far Left anarchist. Loughner is a mentally disturbed young man who sought his ideological fulfillment from the Communist Manifesto – hardly the Bible of the Tea Party movement. He posted videos of flag burning on his YouTube channel – again, antics more consistent with Blame America First liberals, not the tea party movement.
In fact, Loughner’s interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date all the way back to 2007 when he confronted her with a question he had, and received an answer he found unacceptable. You read that right – Loughner’s interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date back to 2007 – well before the tea party movement had even been launched.

This was all an effort to try and demean us and diminish support for the tea party movement, since the Left could not beat us at the ballot box. Sadly way too many people in the media cooperated with this smear campaign.

The media didn’t tell you that the left-wing website, DailyKos, had targeted Congresswoman Giffords, putting a BULLSEYE on her, did they? But that’s just what happened.

Instead they tried to blame Gov. Sarah Palin. Friends, their hypocrisy and double standards are appalling.

This kind of media bias is a large part of why our tea party movement exists – because the voices of We The People have not been represented fairly by the news media, and listened to by our elected officials.

Well guess what: to those liberals in the news media and on the political Left who think you can silence us, you are wrong! Your efforts to try and smear us and shut us up will fail.

We have nothing to do with this awful, tragic event in Arizona. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and the victims and families of this massacre.

But we will still fight just as passionately for this country we love, and the vision of our Founding Fathers as outlined by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

We’re taking our country back through the ballot box and in the public square – through peaceful means. And we will prevail, because our ideas and ideals are stronger than the scare/smear/defame tactics of the leftists we face.

We ask you to please stand with the Tea Party Express and show your support for our efforts.

You can make a contribution online right now to the Tea Party Express – CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE.

As always, if you prefer, you may also make a contribution via mail, by sending a check to:
Tea Party Express
8795 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 103
Sacramento, CA 95826-3720

Listen, both of them are inappropriate, but the Tea Party email is pretty egregious since it never would have existed if this tragedy hadn’t happened. Basically, I can buy that Sanders would have sent out a “hey, how ya doing?” email to his constituents since the shooting isn’t the basis for the email itself. So yeah, while it doesn’t make it right or in good taste…it certainly doesn’t make me want to take a bath like the Tea Party one does.

Your thoughts?


This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 11th, 2011 and is filed under Democrats, Money, tea party. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

60 Responses to “Tea Party & Bernie Sanders Using Tucson Tragedy For Fundraising”

  1. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Tea Party & Bernie Sanders Using Tucson Tragedy For Fundraising -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MS. MS said: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Tea Party & Bernie Sanders Using … http://bit.ly/i6OUG3 – Freedom! [...]

  2. kranky kritter Says:

    Seems to me that the tea party is actually using the progressive blamestorming narrative in response to the Loughner incident as their fundraising vehicle.

    Not the shooting itself.

    And I must say, those progressives who kneejerked in response to Loughner’s killings richly deserve the clobbering they are now taking. The only folks who are buying the inciteful rhetoric hypothesis are reliable liberals. Predictably, reliable conservatives reject it. But more importantly, among independents it’s not getting much traction.

    Whoever thought that Tea party folks would meekly accept blame for Loughner was WAY off.

  3. Tillyosu Says:

    Listen, both of them are inappropriate, but the Tea Party email is pretty egregious since it never would have existed if this tragedy hadn’t happened.

    Wrong. As KK pointed out, it never would have existed if you and others on the left hadn’t exploited this tragedy to try and paint the Tea Party as responsible. Heaven forbid they try to raise money to defend themselves.

    It’s Sanders’ mailer that’s more egregious, because what in the world does this have to do with him?

  4. WHQ Says:

    I can’t stand the Tea Party’s simplistic, populist positions. But I can’t see much to distinguish the two e-mail based on the quotes above, other than Sanders’ being more non sequitur.

    I mean, “Blame America First liberals” is a goofy thing to write, IMO, but it’s consistent with what the Tea Party does under all circumstances, so, within the context of the Tea Party, their e-mail is quite sensible. They’re responding appropriately, or at least as appropriately as they respond to anything, to unfair and/or poorly based attacks.

  5. blackout Says:

    @Justin: “I can buy that Sanders would have sent out a “hey, how ya doing?” email to his constituents since the shooting isn’t the basis for the email itself. ”

    But the question is not whether he’d have sent out a newsletter, but rather whether he’d have included a rundown of Arizona’s alleged hostility to Democrats if the shooting hadn’t occurred. Had there been no fundraising element this would be just status quo politicization, regrettable in its own right, but there was. While it’s a different principle, this is right up there (down there?) with Joe Wilson fundraising on the back of his execrable “You lie!” moment at the SOTU.

  6. blackout Says:

    I haven’t read any other comments here, but I can only imagine the cries of, “But, Kranjorski!” this morning. lol

  7. Tillyosu Says:

    Think about it this way. Would the Tea Party still have been able to send out this appeal if the left hadn’t tried to identify them as culprits in this attack?

    Somehow I think “donate because there was a shooting in Arizona” doesn’t have the same fundraising appeal as “donate because there was a shooting in Arizona and the left is trying to blame it on us.”

  8. blackout Says:

    @Tillyosu: “Would the Tea Party still have been able to send out this appeal if the left hadn’t tried to identify them as culprits in this attack?”

    Exactly. Just as Sanders doesn’t likely speak to the alleged hostility toward Dems in AZ in his newsletter without the shooting. Now, without the Left’s attacks I think the TPM solicitation of donations would probably have been more along the lines of “They’re gonna take our guns!” — witness the uptick in the purchase of glocks reported in AZ since the shooting — but this is a far better excuse.

  9. blackout Says:

    @KK: “Whoever thought that Tea party folks would meekly accept blame for Loughner was WAY off.”

    Does that person (group) exist? I doubt the willingness of the TPM to accept blame was factored into the finger-pointing, much less expected. lol

  10. Tillyosu Says:

    Now, without the Left’s attacks I think the TPM solicitation of donations would probably have been more along the lines of “They’re gonna take our guns!” — witness the uptick in the purchase of glocks reported in AZ since the shooting — but this is a far better excuse.

    Speculation. And poorly founded speculation at that. To my knowledge, Second Amendment rights is not a major policy priority for the Tea Party. Though I will readily concede that the vast majority of them do believe in an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment (as does the Supreme Court, I might add).

    And couldn’t the uptick in glock purchases reflect Arizonans heightened fear of crazy, atheist, Marx reading, leftists just as easily?

  11. blackout Says:

    @Tillyosu: “Speculation. And poorly founded speculation at that. To my knowledge, Second Amendment rights is not a major policy priority for the Tea Party. ”

    Well, charging me with poorly founded speculation when you don’t really know yourself is interesting. As stated in another thread, I spent some time at Cincinnati TPM meetings this year, and was surprised at the number of folks who were there to express their worries over the perception that Obama represented an outright threat to their 2nd Amendment rights (among others of course). Now, that’s just Cincinnati, but we’re not exactly hunting country, or subject to excessive crime rates (at least not as defined by the rates we’ve come to accept), so I was surprised. Regardless, it’s not “poorly founded speculation” to propose that the TPM would frame fundraising around the handiest threat to constitutional rights. Speculation? Of course. But then so is your every expressed reservation about the repeal of DADT. Do you want to be pot or kettle? lol

    As for your last question…I’ll assume that’s humorous.

  12. mdgeorge Says:

    I can’t believe I’m defending the tea party, but I actually agree with them on this one (except for a paragraph or two in the middle about daily kos and blame american first liberals). While I agree that putting crosshairs on people and other heated rhetoric devices are in bad taste, I’ve found the linking between the tea party and/or palin and/or anyone else with this shooting to be in EXTREMELY bad taste.

  13. Thomas Says:

    The Tea Party material is also egregious because it indicts Left sources for blaming the shooting on the Tea Party and then turns around and tries to blame the same event on liberals.

  14. blackout Says:

    @Tillyosu: “the vast majority of them do believe in an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment (as does the Supreme Court, I might add).”

    I’m sorry, was someone disputing that? I’ve read back through the thread and can’t find anything relating to interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, whether by citizens or the SCOTUS…

  15. Simon Says:

    Thomas Says:

    The Tea Party material is also egregious because it indicts Left sources for blaming the shooting on the Tea Party and then turns around and tries to blame the same event on liberals.

    No it doesn’t. Which paragraph are you extracting that from? If it’s the one that begins “[i]f Jared Loughner does have a definable political ideology,” that doesn’t blame liberals for the shooting, it shows that it’s absurd to blame the shooting on a political grouping with which Loughner demonstrably had neither affinity nor association.

  16. kranky kritter Says:

    @ blackout

    I think the rapid and righteous leap by some progressives to blame the right for the shootings was originally predicated in part on the idea that TPers et al wouldn’t be able to say boobecause it was their fault.

    Even as the facts emerged quickly and the hypothesis evaporated, there was still a tone that suggested that the right wing had no legs to stand on anyway.

    Many progressives in this debate have had a “you can’t possibly disagree” tone, and they seem to have been utterly unprepared by how quickly and vehemently they were pushed back.

    That’s what I was alluding to in the comment you excerpted.

  17. gerryf Says:

    How can I get on the GOP talking points fax/email list? It would be so much easier to read it all directly than have to wade through all the comments on Internet blogs.

    Hardly an original thought in these comments…

    It’s not that the right is correct–that the shooting had nothing to do with the rights violent rhetoric–it’s just that the right has successfully buried the point with an avalanche of noise as they always do.

    If the left originally came from the stance of “you cannot possible disagree” that the political discourse was a contributing factor, the right is now walking around smugly assuming it did not.

    The left’s ultimate goal was two-, perhaps three-fold; yes, they were looking to assess blame, and there is probably a good deal of “I told you so, see what happens when you’re partisan rhetoric takes on such a nasty tone?” But there was/is also a good deal of, “Can we please stop this kind of thing?”

    The right’s aim–as exemplified by Sarah Palin–was simply to deflect any criticism, ignore culpability and justify future garbage. All the while hiding behind the mantra of personal responsibility when in truth they are hiding behind a crazy man.

    Loughner may not be a card carrying member of the right’s lunatic fringe (or he might be–we really don’t know yet), but anyone who disputes that the far right’s behavior in recent years gives license to the crazies out there to act is ignoring reality.

    The right has done an awesome job of drawing false equivalency to the few examples on the left, but there aren’t any examples they can point to where violence erupted like Loughner or those who went before him like Donnie Baker, Joshua Cartwright and Scott Roeder.

    Oh, but those are only three (more) crazies acting on their own…

  18. kranky kritter Says:

    It’s not that the right is correct–that the shooting had nothing to do with the rights violent rhetoric–it’s just that the right has successfully buried the point with an avalanche of noise as they always do.

    No. It’s that this particular time the right IS correct.

    The shooting had nothing to do with the right’s “violent” rhetoric.

    Polling shows that not even a majority of democrats believes that conservative partisan rhetoric is to blame. Independents reject it by almost 2 to 1. Reliably, few conservatives give the idea any credit.

    Let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy-it did not- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

    –Barack Obama, last night. Emphasisnot mine, but rather his. This line is not in the text, but I saw the speech live, and he said it. With particular emphasis. Our President gets it. Regular folks get it. Only a minority of liberals don’t.

  19. blackout Says:

    @KK: ” they seem to have been utterly unprepared by how quickly and vehemently they were pushed back.”

    But that doesn’t answer the question of whom you’re speaking about specifically. I don’t spend follow politics on the internet (outside of this and one or two other sites) or cable news, so who are these progressives? And if this is primarliy a progressive issue, and you’re speaking of the Daily Kos and their ilk, I’m not sure it’s particularly meaningful. If you’re willing to disregard the impact of Palin’s and Angle’s rhetoric on the political maionstream, why should progressives preaching to progressives be of note. I think it’s noteworthy that in my travels the last few days I’ve encountered little of the finger-pointing and rush to judgment that’s being attributed to the Left. I don’t exactly live in a bubble, so I have to wonder to what degree it was influencing much of anything.

  20. blackout Says:

    @KK: “Our President gets it. Regular folks get it. Only a minority of liberals don’t.”

    That’s an incomplete narrative. And “regular folks”? Well, aw shucks, Kranky. You’re just a hop, skip, and a jump from Real America.

  21. Rich Horton Says:

    No Simon, Thomas is just saying he cannot see a difference between the Democrats and far-left anarchists. ;-)

  22. Mike A. Says:

    @ KK: “The shooting had nothing to do with the right’s “violent” rhetoric.”

    Nothing? No influence? None whatsoever? Talk about jumping to conclusions. You must know the mind of this man well enough to understand what did and did not influence his actions.

    I don’t subscribe to the rights violent rhetoric, but I drive to work everyday and see bumper stickers that are meant (maybe metaphorically, maybe not) to incite violence against the president, to take up arms in a bloody revolt. I watch cable news and see people ranting, with straight faces, our government wants to kill our elderly and are intentionally destroying the country. I am bombarded with oblique references of why Obama is “not like us” or why he could be a terrorist sleeper cell. Do I believe this? No. Does it influence my daily thoughts? Absolutely.

    Do I believe this batshit crazy man was directly influenced by the right’s violent rhetoric? No. Do I claim to know it had absolutely no influence on his behavior? Again, no, and I question anyone who does.

  23. Simon Says:

    I smell desperation in their air… As the lie collapses, as it becomes ever more clear that the public isn’t buying it, the adherents just won’t punch out, instead flailing ever more desperately for even the most tenuous connection (“do I believe that the sun made him do it? No. Does it influence our daily thoughts? Absolutely.”)

    Mike, like Olberman, Kos, Krugman, all of them—just admit that you called it wrong. You’ll feel better and look like a bigger man. But this desperate attempt to cling to the sinking hull of the S.S. [i]Get Palin[/i] is unbecoming and unproductive. It’ll take you to the bottom if you don’t let go.

  24. blackout Says:

    @Mike A.: “Do I believe this batshit crazy man was directly influenced by the right’s violent rhetoric? No. Do I claim to know it had absolutely no influence on his behavior? Again, no, and I question anyone who does”

    I wouldn’t put too much stock in what you’re reading here, Mike. The regulars from the Right, with the assistance of the resident standard bearer of “objectivity”, have decided the narrative is:

    1) Shooting
    2) Rush to Judgment
    3) Rejection of rush to judgment
    4) Just some crazy guy, nothing to see here, no further discussion brooked

    I wouldn’t let it get you down. It’s just one comments section and a rather small, incestuous one at that. I’ve been taking the pulse in other places and plenty of “regular folks” agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss this tragedy in the context of an objectively toxic political climate. You’re hardly alone, and your views are perfectly reasonable. Those responding to you have demonstrated their inflexibility and unreasonableness many times over.

  25. Mike A. Says:

    @ blackout:

    No worries. I’ve read enough of Simon to understand and not take seriously.

  26. kranky kritter Says:

    Mike, you’re quite right. I neglected to explicitly include the qualifier “as far as we know.” My bad, I guess, for presuming that I’m regarded as a reasonable enough person that folks would know that it was implied. Honestly, I think it’s obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence who understand that you can’t prove a negative. Logic 101.

    But, yes, for the record: Innocent until proven guilty is indeed not the same as innocent. I said this:

    The shooting had nothing to do with the right’s “violent” rhetoric

    I should have said this:

    There’s no evidence that the shootings had anything to do with the right’s “violent” rhetoric.

    OK? I was wrong. You were right.

  27. kranky kritter Says:

    plenty of “regular folks” agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss this tragedy in the context of an objectively toxic political climate.

    I’m not sure exactly what in the context of is signifying here. Sometimes folks use that phrase when they are either not themselves clear, or are trying not to be clear, in order to be nice. Let’s simply notice that, at this writing, there has not been any demonstrable evidence connecting Loughner’s violence to the political climate. If anyone here wants to, for the first time, craft a substantive argument that the two are somehow connected even though there’s no evidence, please be my guest.

    I think the President made a far better case for civility on its own merits, without regard for trying to develop the case for the causal relationship that some keep insisting upon. Let’s review it again:

    Let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy–it did not– but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

    That’s our President, talking about civility, granted, in the context of the shootings, but saying the one need not be connected to the other in any causal way. In essence, he is saying that civility should be discussed in the general context of Americans facing our challenges in good faith and NOT in the specific context of the shootings.

    Blackout, your #4 is a blatant straw man. It’s quite different from the simple conclusion that there is no reason to think that violent right wing caused the shootings unless some evidence to the contrary arises.

    Oh, and “ooh, ooh, ooh?” Am I the “resident standard bearer for ‘objectivity’” at the incest pool? I sure hope so. Even with “objectivity” in quotes and obvious sarcasm, I’d still be proud of that title. I hope and dream of someday taking the temperature at other blogs. And wearing big boy pants.

  28. blackout Says:

    @KK: “Blackout, your #4 is a blatant straw man”

    I wish it weren’t. Sift through your posts the last few days and honestly weigh the degree to which you’ve sought to dismiss or minimize certain veins of conversation, to define the “real narrative”. You’ve allowed your vigorous distaste for one reaction to the tragedy (progressive attacks on violent rhetoric from certain conservative figures) to lead you to assaulting all comments regarding this figures and their comments. Rejecting those groups assigning direct blame to (in particular) Palin and Angle does not entail rejecting those who wish to address the manner in which irresponsible rhetoric can lash those employing it to tragic events. Bottom line, if you draw crosshairs on an opponent’s distric and they get shot, don’t be surprised when people comment on it.

    The deeper issue is philosophical, however, as in post after post you’ve professed to know how “regular folks” (I’m not sure what that makes the rest of us) feel about this, and have insisted on what constitutes the appropriate reaction to these events is. Pointing to the speech of a President, however graceful and eloquent, is disingenuous. What is he supposed to say? Are we surprised that he didn’t invoke partisanship, or speak to issues of gun control, or the shooter’s mental condition and it’s implications? of course not. That’s neither the purpose of the address nor is such an address the final word on what is or isn’t appropriate discussion around the events. You seem offended by the inevitable messiness of the discussion that follows such events, and there’s a clear trend on your part to control, or at least guide, the narrative that’s unbefitting.

    So yes, you get the sarcasm quotes for objectivity this week because you’ve crossed the line from opinionated to sanctimonious. You catholically seek to hold yourself above the fray but seem oblivious to the fact that what you’re posting has actually placed you smack dab in it. It’s your prerogative to sit on the high horse of impartiality, but it is not your place to lecture anyone from that perch. As this is coming from someone who’s often lauded the content and tone of your opinions here I trust you’ll take it in the spirit with which I intend it, as a gentle reminder that the only person for whom you’re responsible is you.

  29. blackout Says:

    @KK: ” If anyone here wants to, for the first time, craft a substantive argument that the two are somehow connected even though there’s no evidence, please be my guest.”

    You seem to be really hung up on this. As I said, If you draw crosshairs on an opponent’s district on your website and they’re a victim of a shooting shortly after, don’t be surprised if it arouses comment. If you’re a TPM candidate and make irresponsible remarks about 2nd Amendment “remedies” and a year later a Dem rep who won a squeaker (~4000 votes) over a TPM “rising star” is shot, don’t be surprised if it arouses comment. No one’s saying there’s a causal link here, but it’s worth commenting on both the coincidence or even irony of the situation and for those who deplore such rhetoric it is absolutely worth revisiting it. Your implication seems to be that it shouldn’t be discussed because some have attempted to exploit it for political gain, and some folks can’t draw such nuanced distinctions. Neither is a good enough reason to chill discussion, and of course it’s no one’s obligation to demonstrate to you the validity of their concerns or defend their wish to discuss these events in any way they want. Perhaps you should lock the doors, pull the shades and set the President’s call for civility on loop. lol

  30. blackout Says:

    Happened upon this by coincidence, for those who believe in coincidence. While I wish that he had better expanded on this:

    “Why should Jared Loughner change the discourse, when there’s no evidence as yet that he was affected by the discourse?

    The answer, of course, is that there’s murder in the discourse, and everyone knows it.”

    and this:

    “But while it is the rare assassin who can boast of political coherence, it is also the rare assassin who exists in a political vacuum”

    it does serve as a stab at articulating what some of us have been speaking to. Like the Fox viewership, perhaps it simply serves to make us feel “less crazy”. lol

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-speech-tucson-4859658

  31. Simon Says:

    “I’m not saying that there’s a causal link, I’m just saying that it’s worth talking about the connection.” How can you seriously say this—amounting to “I’m saying there’s a causal link, I just don’t have the nerve to say it outright”—and expect to be taken in good faith? You are saying there’s a causal link. You have said so repeatedly, hoping that no one will notice when it’s smuggled in as the unspoken premise rather than the stated conclusion. Why you would persist song after everyone has noticed is beyond me; I’ve assumed it’s brass-balled cynicism, but I guess you could be sincere but dumb? I mean, you really don’t see it? Really?

  32. blackout Says:

    @Simon: “You are saying there’s a causal link.”

    No, clearly I’m not. If you want to deny a connection between Palin and Giffords, and an adversarial one at that, by all means proceed. I’ll wait.

    I’ll suspend attributing your inability to make the distinction between connection and causality to any specific deficiency (it’s one of them), but I’m amused that you have the chutzpah to refer to the arrogance and brass-balled cynicism of others. But then, from a psychological standpoint the ideologue often unconcsciously applies labels to their opponents that are best applied to them.

  33. kranky kritter Says:

    Blackout, that’s a really nice and well-thought out rant which even has some good points in it. But

    Just some crazy guy, nothing to see here, no further discussion brooked

    is not even close to resembling what I have said. And you’ve failed to refute that.

    Sift through your posts the last few days and honestly weigh the degree to which you’ve sought to dismiss or minimize certain veins of conversation, to define the “real narrative”.

    Happy to do so. I count one. It’s the same repeated assertion you called out in your next post.

    ” If anyone here wants to, for the first time, craft a substantive argument that the two are somehow connected even though there’s no evidence, please be my guest.”

    You seem to be really hung up on this. As I said, If you draw crosshairs on an opponent’s district on your website and they’re a victim of a shooting shortly after, don’t be surprised if it arouses comment.

    Nicely done. And that’s how one ignores the request for the demonstration of a real casual link by saying that folks had every right to be aroused to comment.

    I am QUITE happy to agree that folks had every right to be “aroused to comment.” Are you just as happy to agree that when such folks arousals led to claims that were unsupported by actual evidence, they should be every bit as aroused to admit that?

    FWIW, I use the phrase “regular folks” as a shorthand reference to all those people who are not policy wonks or obsessed with political debate like the folks here. Sorry if that troubles you. I’m happy to acknowledge that I often take it upon myself to speak for such folks, and am untroubled by any insults that accrue on my account with you (assaulting; rejecting; disingenuous; sanctimonious; oblivious; on my high horse; unbefitting) because of it.

    You catholically seek to hold yourself above the fray but seem oblivious to the fact that what you’re posting has actually placed you smack dab in it. It’s your prerogative to sit on the high horse of impartiality, but it is not your place to lecture anyone from that perch.

    That’s not an entirely unfair description, funny even. But that’s just the old logical platform problem, sort of like “can you hate hate, or must you love it?’ Either you think that people are capable of enough metacognition to see a larger world of which the partisan political fray is only part, or you don’t. If you do (and I do), then you can easily see that as an obligation to try to get others to see it too.

    So I reject that last bit about “you can’t lecture from your high horse.” Sure you can. Lots of folks don’t like it. But you sure can do it. The only reason you would do it is because you felt that the folks you were watching might benefit from that perspective.

    We’re easily into 5 digits on this. If folks on the left who jumped from correlation (crosshair map-death) to causation (this is Sara Palin and the TPM’s fault) would have the grace to acknowledge that, we could have saved all those pixels.

    As this is coming from someone who’s often lauded the content and tone of your opinions here I trust you’ll take it in the spirit with which I intend it, as a gentle reminder that the only person for whom you’re responsible is you.

    Well, if you’re worried that I’ll think your post was crafted in bad faith, I won’t. But that last bit is more of a rebuke than a reminder. “Worry about yourself.” :Mind your own business.” Clearly, I’ve chosen not to.

    When it comes to helping folks see a world outside the reflexive insanity of the partisan fray, I am happy to try to be my brother’s keeper. I take it for granted that it’s not always welcome, and that by persisting, I am likely to be accused of being assaulting, rejecting, disingenuous, sanctimonious, oblivious, on my high horse; unbefitting, and so on. I’m good with that.

  34. blackout Says:

    @KK: “I count one. It’s the same repeated assertion you called out in your next post.”

    Well, I did say “honestly”, so I have to wonder how hard you tried. How about citing something off site then? On your own blog you rail against the fact that the rhetorical debate is “sucking up all the bandwidth”, leading to “the loss of a legitimate opportunity for a broad spectrum of Americans to focus in a meaningful way on how to recognize truly serious mental disturbance…”

    So basically it’s okay to dismiss and derail any discussion of rhetoric, its possible effects, etc. because YOU want to discuss something else?Disturbing implications which are then made clear by:

    “So I reject that last bit about “you can’t lecture from your high horse.” Sure you can. Lots of folks don’t like it. But you sure can do it. The only reason you would do it is because you felt that the folks you were watching might benefit from that perspective.”

    I sincerely assumed these recent posts were a momentary failure of humility and modesty on your part, but apparently not. “I often take it upon myself to speak for such [regular] folks”? The self-appointed spokesman for Regular Folks. You and every demagogue. So much for my being Simon’s brass-balled cynic.

    I don’t say this as if I expect it to carry any particular weight with you (why should it?), and sincerity generally invites derision, but I find myself unexpectedly disappointed in you. I thought you were…more than this. Carry on then.

  35. Simon Says:

    blackout Says:
    January 14th, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    @Simon: “You are saying there’s a causal link.” No, clearly I’m not.

    Yes, you clearly are.

    If you want to deny a connection between Palin and Giffords, and an adversarial one at that, by all means proceed. I’ll wait.

    I deny both its existence and its relevance to Loughner. What do you mean you’ll wait? You’re not… LOL… You aren’t seriously asking me to prove a negative, right? Man, that’s funny.

    I’ll suspend attributing your inability to make the distinction between connection and causality to any specific deficiency

    This bit of bravado might be more convincing if you had made any real effort to define precisely what connection you are asserting, instead of simply asserting that there is or may be one. As it is, you simply make the accusation and let it hang in the air, casting a pall of guilt by association. So feel free to define this supposed non-causal “connection.”

    the ideologue often unconcsciously applies labels to their opponents that are best applied to them.

    “Projection” is the word you’re reaching for, and as I’ve pointed out several times this week, it has been your stock in trade throughout this incident. Also, as I’ve shown, the accusation that I’m an “ideologue” is very silly, while you have demonstrated neither ability nor inclination to refute it as applied to yourself, which makes me suggest that your accusation of projection is, ironically enough, projection.

  36. blackout Says:

    @Simon: “Yes, you clearly are.”

    Continuing to say it doesn’t make it so. I guess it’s my turn: No, I’m not.

    I’m not sure what definition of connection you’re using, but let’s try “a relationship or association.” It’s not exactly heavy lifting to point out the association between the two (Gifford’s being targeted on a Sarahpac map) while also simultaneously agreeing that that connection is not the basis for Gifford’s being shot, and has nothing to do with Loughner’s actions. There is no pall of guilt. I simply find it interesting that the Sarahpac map exists, that Gifford had even referred to it after her office was vandalized and that then, coincidentally (NO CAUSAL LINKAGE. REPEAT, NO CAUSAL LINKAGE) a few months later she was actually shot, embroiling Palin in the mess.

    Clearly there’s a connection between Sarah Palin and Gabby Giffords. Clearly that connection did not cause Jared Loughner to shoot Gabby Giffords. Clearly if Sarahpac had not put a target on Gifford the chances of Palin’s name coming up in relation to this tragedy would be vastly reduced because, wait for it, there would be no connection between the two.

    You may deny the relevance of the connection between Palin and Giffords. You may not deny its existence. It is documented. You and I are connected by comments here. If you got shot tomorrow it would not be my fault. That will not erase the fact of our connection. It would not be untoward of people to mention our comments in the context of your being shot. Some people might imply that my comments were to blame. They would not be everyone who mentioned the comments.

  37. Tillyosu Says:

    @ Blackout:

    No, clearly I’m not. If you want to deny a connection between Palin and Giffords, and an adversarial one at that, by all means proceed. I’ll wait.

    Obviously there was a connection between Palin and Giffords: Palin “targeted” Giffords for defeat in a peaceful election, and rallied her supporters to that end. But that’s not really what you’re saying is it? You’re saying there’s a connection between Palin and the the Giffords shooting. It’s a fine, but very important distinction.

    And of course, there is no “connection” there. If you can establish one (as others have urged you to do), then by all means, let’s hear it. But “coincidence” and “timing” are not enough to assess blame.

    Consider this, if I yell at my neighbor everyday that he’s evil and someone ought to kill him (an obvious hyperbole of the “adversarial” connection, or “violent” rhetoric you allude to), and then someone who is totally unconnected to me, whom I’ve never met, and whose motivations are totally different from my own actually does kill my neighbor, am I to blame? Of course not! And no honest person (yes, I’m talking to you) can implicitly or explicitly make that argument without first establishing a connection between myself and my neighbor’s assailant.

    Oh and by the way, speaking of “violent” rhetoric, why don’t we examine Palin’s actual “reload” comment in it’s full context:

    “Don’t retreat, reload! And that’s not a call to violence!

    Speaking of honesty…

  38. kranky kritter Says:

    So basically it’s okay to dismiss and derail any discussion of rhetoric, its possible effects, etc. because YOU want to discuss something else?

    Right. THAT’S what I did and said. Sure. I’ve made it sparkling clear multiple times that my problem is with the causation argument. You continue to ignore that.

    If anyone wants to discuss civility and rhetoric, I have zero problem with that, which is why I have not once said that I have a problem per se with that discussion. Only with claims of a causal connection between negative right wing rhetoric and the Arizona shootings.

    On your own blog you rail against the fact that the rhetorical debate is “sucking up all the bandwidth”, leading to “the loss of a legitimate opportunity for a broad spectrum of Americans to focus in a meaningful way on how to recognize truly serious mental disturbance…”

    Thanks for reading. I sure did say that. And I stand by it. When a socially gripping negative current event occurs, I think it makes sense for that event to be used as a vehicle to discuss the most closely related issues. In other words, if the Arizona shootings trouble us, and we ask why, let’s talk about the most proximate causes. Not the tiny, possible, maybe spit-in-the-ocean distant causes.

    The aftermath of the Arizona shootings presents a much more sensible opportunity to talk about serious mental illness than to talk about political rhetoric motivating executions. Especially since it allows us to, as our President mentioned, avoid using the episode as an another occasion to turn on one another across the partisan divide.

    I sincerely assumed these recent posts were a momentary failure of humility and modesty on your part, but apparently not. “I often take it upon myself to speak for such [regular] folks”? The self-appointed spokesman for Regular Folks. You and every demagogue.

    Oh, untwist your panties. There’s no harm in anyone saying that they are speaking on behalf of regular folks, if they feel that perspective is absent. All it ever requires when I say that “regular folks think x” is for listeners to make some sort of reasonable judgement about whether or not what I say has any ring of truth. And if not, to challenge me.

    So unless you think people are incapable of performing such high calculus, where’s the harm? Every time I presume to speak in such a way, feel free to ask me why I think so. And I’ll be happy to explain. From time to time, you might even catch me having unwittingly pulled an opinion out of my rectal cavity. It happens.

    If you want, I’ll be happy to start a thread over at crankster on “rhetoric and its possible effects.” Just ask. Or you could do as Simon suggests, and make a serious effort right here to define precisely what connection you are asserting, instead of simply asserting that there is or may be one.

    You know, something more substantial than ” a stab at articulating what some of us have been speaking to… .” Can you do better than saying that folks have a feeling that these things are connected and really need to “speak to it,” and that anyone who asks for coherent specific description of the connection is just a big blue meanie?

    You’ve spent quite a bit of time slagging at those who keep asking for a coherent statement of the connection you are describing. And you have used several emotional appeals to conceal this avoidance. Why not just state the connection now? What is its nature? You’ve told Mike that its perfectly reasonable for regular folks to feel this way. So give us a perfectly reasonable description of the nature of the connection.

  39. blackout Says:

    @KK: “If anyone wants to discuss civility and rhetoric, I have zero problem with that, which is why I have not once said that I have a problem per se with that discussion. Only with claims of a causal connection between negative right wing rhetoric and the Arizona shootings.”

    I’ve made that clear. You, like Simon, seem incapable of understanding that “connection” does not imply anything but that, an association. If you have a website targeting opposing politicians’ districts for campaign purposes you have a “connection” with each and every one of those politicians. If something happens to one of them that negative connection will almost certainly be discussed, especially if you’re a high profile and polarizing figure like Sarah Palin. She wasn’t sending Gabby Gifford a birthday card.

    It’s reasonable to assume that, considering Palin’s normal rhetoric and status as a lightning rod for progressive rancor, there would be a progressive contingent who tried to link her to this tragedy even if she hadn’t targeted Gifford by name. The difference between that scenario and reality is that in that scenario I wouldn’t be discussing her. Perhaps that penetrates at long last.

    If you want to discuss mental illness, discuss mental illness. No one’s stopping you. You were the one who spoke to ignoring incivility. Instead, try ignoring discourse that is tangential to your concerns rather attempting to quash it. When you move past discussing your concerns to chiding other people for theirs you overstep your bounds. I think there’s more bandwidth than you imagine, which makes your behavior even more petty.

    Your explanation of the regular folks remark is absurd — perhaps you should blog on self-aggrandizing rhetoric and its effects — though I’m sure they take great comfort in your speaking for them.

  40. Simon Says:

    I simply find it interesting that the Sarahpac map exists, that Gifford had even referred to it after her office was vandalized and that then, coincidentally (NO CAUSAL LINKAGE. REPEAT, NO CAUSAL LINKAGE) a few months later she was actually shot, embroiling Palin in the mess.

    Yet again, you fail to actually state the connection. You have stated two facts (or collections thereof); now: Precisely how are they connected, “associated” (your latest attempt to pass off a restatement as an answer) or related? If the connection you’re making isn’t causal, just what is it? KK puts it well, and it’s worth repeating since your reply to him was nonresponsive:

    Can you do better than saying that folks have a feeling that these things are connected and really need to “speak to it,” and that anyone who asks for coherent specific description of the connection is just a big blue meanie? ¶ You’ve spent quite a bit of time slagging at those who keep asking for a coherent statement of the connection you are describing. And you have used several emotional appeals to conceal this avoidance. Why not just state the connection now? What is its nature? You’ve told Mike that its perfectly reasonable for regular folks to feel this way. So give us a perfectly reasonable description of the nature of the connection.

  41. blackout Says:

    @tillyosu: “You’re saying there’s a connection between Palin and the the Giffords shooting.”

    No, I’m not. Using your example, I’m saying exactly the same thing that you are. We agree that you are not to blame for your neighbor’s death. Now, consider the behavior you’ve outlined. Wouldn’t you consider it odd if no one referred to it, perhaps even condemned it? After all, your neighbor is dead and you said a lot of nasty stuff, and publicly. If you said you wanted his house to burn down and then some stranger burned it down, do you think people might ask, “Isn’t that weird? After all this time of tillyosu saying he wanted his neighbor’s house to burn down, someone went and burned it down. I wonder how he feels about saying that.” Under the circumstances, it’s a lot more likely that you’ll come up in discussion than people who didn’t go around publicly saying they wish his house would burn down.

  42. blackout Says:

    @Simon: “Yet again, you fail to actually state the connection.”

    It’s official. This many logic fails means that by the unofficial rules of the internet you have just conceded. Congratulations, and play again. I win! lol

  43. kranky kritter Says:

    Your explanation of the regular folks remark is absurd

    Pleas explain why you think so, or I shall simply assume that it was in fact cogent and spot on, and that you lack anything resembling a decent refutation of it.

  44. kranky kritter Says:

    It’s official. This many logic fails means that by the unofficial rules of the internet you have just conceded. Congratulations, and play again. I win! lol

    Step 1: Repeatedly avoid all pleas to answer the same simple direct question.

    Step 2: Look like complete jack@ss.

    Step 3: Declare victory.

    Well played?

  45. Tillyosu Says:

    “Isn’t that weird? After all this time of tillyosu saying he wanted his neighbor’s house to burn down, someone went and burned it down. I wonder how he feels about saying that.”

    Sure maybe, only problem is this scenario doesn’t serve your purposes very well. The difference is that Palin wasn’t saying someone should shoot Giffords, and the left didn’t just say “oh geez what a coincidence” or “isn’t that weird?”

  46. gerryf Says:

    So, in a toxic political environment ginned up by violent and nasty rhetoric from the right, a politician who was specifically targeted by said right was shot at a political event and this has nothing to do with the aforementioned violent and nasty politics.

    The people who created the violent and nasty rhetoric respond by quickly removing evidence of that rhetoric, then call for civil discourse and say the left was doing it too–but, oh no, that is not tantamount to an admission of guilt.

    Now the right is saying the toxic political environment has nothing to do with the shooting because the shooter didn’t stand up and yell “THE RIGHT’S RESPONSIBLE” in the 3 seconds between running out of bullets and being clubbed to the ground by the victims of that shooting and then carted away by the police where he has been holed up ever since.

    Sure.

    Meanwhile, the Advocates of the Right Wing who demand an absolute incontrovertible connection between Sarah Palin and Jared Laughner like, say, an engraved invitation to Trig’s 1st birthday party, are perfectly happy saying Laughner is a left wing kook based on a book found on his desk and the fact that some right wing bimbo who knew him tangently in high school four years ago says she always thought he was a leftie.

    Hypocrisy.

    Your standards for the left are astronimically higher than they are for yourselves.

    Seriously, I used to think we on Donklephant came here for discussion, but the right wingers who come here have proven time again they are not about sharing ideas. They are here to obfuscate and nothing more.

    There was actually a time here where I thought I was learning something from some commenters here, and I while I grant you that I have also gotten irritated I looked forward to some of the insight people offered.

    The election of a Democratic majority in 2006 and Obama in 2008, however, has driven the right so bat crap crazy though that they no longer can make a cogent argument. They hide behind false equivalencies and meaningless, twisted “logic” that makes sense only to themselves.

    Basically, and this is a thread that is a perfect example of it, the right has rendered itself incomprehensible to the left and center. What could have been a “slap the forehead” moment of “Geez, we really need to change our game” has become “cover our butts and cloud the issue.”

    The issue is simple: the right has created a a toxic environment that gives license to lunatics and its fringe element to act in violent and erratic ways. And yes, the left has responded in kind in some ways to this toxic environment.

    Anyone who thinks this is both sides is either not paying attention or is fooling him- or herself.

  47. Simon Says:

    So, in a toxic political environment ginned up by violent and nasty rhetoric from the right, a politician who was specifically targeted by said right was shot at a political event and this has nothing to do with the aforementioned violent and nasty politics.

    Correct. Most of the left (not all) have now received the memo that blaming the shooting directly on Palin doesn’t work, and they should instead push the same theme in a different way, by disclaiming causal links and making vague and generalized insinuations about “connections.” (That’s sarcasm, by the way; I’m sure there was no actual memo.) It amounts to the same thing, and it’s telling that those who claim there was no causal connection have repeatedly failed to articlate just what the connection was if not causal. Since Blackout has effectively renamed him/herself “Strikeout,” perhaps you’d like to give it a go?

    The people who created the violent and nasty rhetoric respond by quickly removing evidence of that rhetoric, then call for civil discourse and say the left was doing it too–but, oh no, that is not tantamount to an admission of guilt.

    No, it was a snap judgment made after the left–within minutes of the shooting–started trying to pin this on the GOP. I think it’s fair to say that at the time, a lot of us believed that the lie would stick, that the media would pick it up and run with it and it would congeal into a conventional wisdom. Happily that didn’t happen; by midweek, polls were showing that only the most committed hard left partisans believed the lie. I also think it’s fair to say that team Palin’s reaction in pulling those images was fearful, futile, and unfortunate (ironically, it demonstrated a retreat mentality rather than a reload mentality), and I wish they hadn’t done it. It sent precisely the wrong message. But it was a snap judgment made in the circumstances that I just described, and it’s dicey for us to sit here and second guess it after the fact.

    Now the right is saying the toxic political environment has nothing to do with the shooting because the shooter didn’t stand up and yell “THE RIGHT’S RESPONSIBLE” in the 3 seconds between running out of bullets and being clubbed to the ground by the victims of that shooting and then carted away by the police where he has been holed up ever since.

    No, we claim it has nothing to do with the shooting because the shooter’s motives are clear. He was a lunatic who thought the government was controlling us through grammatical manipulation and whose beef with Giffords was that she failed to accord an adequately loony answer to his loony question about how government functions when words have no meaning. It is abundantly clear that this guy had neither affinity for nor association with the people whose rhetoric you’re blaming, and so there is no connection. You’re a Democrat, right? Palin’s rhetoric has no effect on you, right? You don’t feel any incentive to do her bidding, verbalized or implicit, right? You have about the same relation to Palin, then, that Loughner did. You might as well blame Palin’s rhetoric for your choice of wheetees over big bran this morning.

    the Advocates of the Right Wing … demand an absolute incontrovertible connection between Sarah Palin and Jared Laughner….

    We demand one that makes any kind of sense in the slightest, and no one has yet produced one.

    Seriously, I used to think we on Donklephant came here for discussion, but the right wingers who come here have proven time again they are not about sharing ideas. They are here to obfuscate and nothing more.

    Read the comments from your side. This is nothing but projection.

    The election of a Democratic majority in 2006 and Obama in 2008, however, has driven the right so bat crap crazy though that they no longer can make a cogent argument. They hide behind false equivalencies and meaningless, twisted “logic” that makes sense only to themselves.

    More projection. Mutatis mutandis, this is a perfect description of Democrats during the Bush years.

    Basically, and this is a thread that is a perfect example of it, the right has rendered itself incomprehensible to the left and center.

    This isn’t so much projection as a total lie, an inversion of reality. You are defending an incoherent, irrational position, one that polls show a majority of the center (and a significant number on the left) believe to be fraudulent. I say position, of course, but that is undue flattery when none of you have been willing to be pinned down to an actual position. Instead, you’ve thrown up a smokescreen of rhetoric and refused to say exactly what you’re saying. It’s deeply unattractive, and the sad thing is that everyone can see through the smokescreen. We know what you’re saying, we know it’s a lie, and we know that no one believes it. Why persist, then? Why not just come clean? Why not just “slap [your] forehead[s]” and say “Geez, we really need to change our game”?

    The issue is simple: the right has created a a toxic environment that gives license to lunatics and its fringe element to act in violent and erratic ways.

    Any issue can be made to appear simple with a liberal application of lies, obfuscation, and generality manipulation.

  48. blackout Says:

    @KK: “Pleas explain why you think so”

    It follows from the explanation I gave in response to your admission. Simply asking me to repeatedly re-explain (see The Connection) what I’ve already explained is an elegant defense, but it does indicate your inability to actually defend yourself. And I’m the one who looks like a jack-ass? I think I’ll weather that charge coming from you. lol

  49. blackout Says:

    @KK: “Step 1: Repeatedly avoid all pleas to answer the same simple direct question.”

    It’s been answered multiple times. Under the unofficial rules of the internet (and logic) there are a finite number of times you can ask before you’ve lost.

  50. blackout Says:

    @tillyosu: “Sure maybe, only problem is this scenario doesn’t serve your purposes very well. The difference is that Palin wasn’t saying someone should shoot Giffords, and the left didn’t just say “oh geez what a coincidence” or “isn’t that weird?”.”

    Two problems. Palin doesn’t have to say “shoot Giffords”, she simply has to have an adversarial connection where she specifically “targeted” her (we’ll save the crosshairs vs. surveyor’s symbol another beating), which she does. The connection on that score is further reinforced and made concrete due to Gifford’s reference to it in an interview following the vandalization of her headquarters. The other problem is that you apparently can’t conceive of anyone who is not a liberal raising this connection. My discussion of it is separate from whatever progressive finger-pointing you continue to rant against.

    I wouldn’t even have known Giffords’ name if not for the interview I referenced above, where she called out Sarahpac’s targeting of her. Again, you can debate the relevance of the connection, but you cannot debate the connection. And if the connection is there, Palin being who she is, it will arouse comment. That tickle in your brain is Kranky’s metacognition firing up. lol

  51. blackout Says:

    @gerryf: “The issue is simple: the right has created a a toxic environment that gives license to lunatics and its fringe element to act in violent and erratic ways. And yes, the left has responded in kind in some ways to this toxic environment.”

    For the record, this is exactly the sort of argument I am not to be confused with.

  52. blackout Says:

    @Simon: “Why not just “slap [your] forehead[s]” and say “Geez, we really need to change our game”?”

    Does lightning hurt when it strikes you? And do you have a degree in hypocrisy, or are you just a talented amateur? lol

  53. Chris Says:

    Oh simon is far beyond being an amateur hypocrite.

  54. blackout Says:

    I just got done watching Washington Week, which did a nice job of recapping the blamestorm, the lack of causality in conservative rhetoric and the shooting, and was capped off with this from Charles Babington of AP (cue attack on AP):

    “And also Gabriel Giffords did a t.v. interview with MSNBC less than a year ago when she talked about that site [Saraphpac], mentioned Sarah Palin by name, and said that she worried about the consequences of these kinds of actions. Granted there seems to be no connection [between Loughner and Sarahpac], as far as we know, Loughner maybe didn’t even know about Sarah Palin, or certainly that ad, but once you have a member of Congress talk in front of a t.v. camera about “I worry about the consequences of this kind of thing,” and lo, and behold she gets shot in the head, then, there’s, then you’re going to have to address that issue, and it’s somewhat complicated. You’ve got to then explain to the reader or the listener, that there doesn’t seem to be a connection between these two things [Sarahpac/Giffords relationship, Lougher shooting Giffords].

    Ifill then points out, correctly imo, that this didn’t happen for a couple of days, the panel then differentiates MSM from other media and points out that it’s only part of the reporting in the complicated political conversation in which we find ourselves, yadda, yadda.

    Suffice to say, I’m not alone in pointing out the complicated nature of the association/relationship/connection between Palin/Giffords in the context of the shooting and it can be discussed in the same breath that causaility is denied.

  55. Justin Gardner Says:

    blackout,

    It doesn’t need to be complicated, but if whoever is watching/reading you is predisposed to think you’re trying to casually tie Palin to the shootings, then you’re going to have a fight. That’s what happened to me, even when I clearly stated that she wasn’t.

  56. Tillyosu Says:

    Two problems. Palin doesn’t have to say “shoot Giffords”, she simply has to have an adversarial connection where she specifically “targeted” her (we’ll save the crosshairs vs. surveyor’s symbol another beating), which she does.

    Well, if that’s your standard, then couldn’t a stronger argument be made that Kos’s “adversarial” relationship to Giffords is more deserved of “comment?” I mean, Kos also “targeted” Giffords for defeat in an election, just like Palin. Add to that that the gunman has been described by friends as a “leftist…quite liberal,” and apparently hated Bush. Makes more sense to me that if a “connection” is to be drawn, Palin isn’t the strongest candidate on that list (no pun intended).

    The other problem is that you apparently can’t conceive of anyone who is not a liberal raising this connection.

    Actually, it’s not that I can’t conceive of it, it’s that it isn’t true. As has already been pointed out, only a minority of liberals are still hanging on to this rapidly deteriorating line of attack, you among them. At this point, it’s more amusing watching you guys shift, and obfuscate, and try to find a way out of the corner you’ve painted yourselves into, as the evidence and public opinion mounts against you.

  57. michael mcEachran Says:

    Fun tidbit: Bill O’Reily on his show Jan. 13th (Im paraphrasing):
    “Obama chastises the Left for trying to link the shooting to Right-wing rhetoric, but some on the Left don’t get the message”.

    Bill O then shows clips of Durbin and Clyburn making statements implying causality from JAN 9th – 3 days before Obama’s speech! “Didn’t get the message”? The dates are even clearly posted in the upper left hand corner of the clips – Jan 9th! Incredible. Two points here: 1) Bill O and the Fox Party want to keep the “causality” debate alive as a distraction, here Bill is fibbing to his audience to imply that the Left insists on pointing fingers despite all evidence to the contrary and despite their own president chastising them, and 2) this is another small bit of evidence of the right-wing’s war on logic. I don’t think Bill O’s audience is stupid, btw, I think they are complicit in pulling the wool over their own eyes to avoid ever having to concede the moral high ground – ever. Exhibit B: The new Republican health care “analysis”. Chalk full of slippery facts designed to confuse distract and fib their way to repeal (good luck, btw.)

  58. Mike A. Says:

    @Justin “It doesn’t need to be complicated, but if whoever is watching/reading you is predisposed to think you’re trying to casually tie Palin to the shootings, then you’re going to have a fight. ”

    That’s because this discussion has had nothing to do with what’s right or wrong, whether we should have civil discourse or not. It’s all about the fight.

  59. blackout Says:

    @Justin: “It doesn’t need to be complicated, but if whoever is watching/reading you is predisposed to think you’re trying to casually tie Palin to the shootings, then you’re going to have a fight.”

    Of course. To be honest, this is more an exercise in testing the honesty of both sides. As we see, the Left is still tying the two together (the mind reels) and the Right is so invested in denying causality that they can’t even acknowledge the clear connection between Palin and Giffords, presumably because of slippery slope paranoia. Considering the continued statements by liberals I’m honestly not surprised, but that doesn’t excuse the failure to distinguish between what I’m saying and what they’re saying, or the by now involuntary reaction by cons to label anyone who breaks with their version of events a liberal. Bit of a litmus test this one.

    And woe betide he who fails to recognize the place of non sequitur in our national conversation. Look no further than the way the discourse meme has infected the post-tragedy coverage and elicited pledges to improve on all sides.

    You should do some posts on Tunisia, Justin. In the long run the situation there may have a far greater impact on the U.S. than this tragedy will. Cross your fingers that this revolt holds, builds and yields fruit. Just as with Iran we need to be watchful and supportive of the revolutionary elements. They need our encouragement.

  60. blackout Says:

    @tillyosu: “Actually, it’s not that I can’t conceive of it, it’s that it isn’t true. As has already been pointed out, only a minority of liberals are still hanging on to this rapidly deteriorating line of attack, you among them. At this point, it’s more amusing watching you guys shift, and obfuscate, and try to find a way out of the corner you’ve painted yourselves into, as the evidence and public opinion mounts against you.”

    If I tell you I’m not a liberal and you ignore it that’s hardly a reflection on me. Just as it’s only an exposure of your own ideological myopia that you continue to confuse my posts with a line of “attack”.

    As for public opinion, as I pointed out above, the civil discourse meme is in full flight and is among the primary takeaways from the tragedy. The lack of direct connection between Palin’s website and Loughner’s actions hasn’t stopped a lot of folks from revisiting, or examining for the first time, the nature of the Palin/Giffords connection and not liking what they see. Loughner seems clearly to be a bogeyman for the Left, the nightmare they imagine follows from extreme rhetoric, and the more responsible (or simply more savvy) members on the Right also see him as a nightmare scenario. I know a lot of responsible conservatives who are just as troubled as I am by the sort of things we’ve heard from Palin, Angle and Michelle Bachmann (especially Bachmann) the last two years. Appeals to insurrection, and the fueling of anger rather than channeling it, are anathema to them. Watching Tim Pawlenty having to walk back even his mild remark regarding the Sarahpac crosshairs (“not my style”) was instructive to say the least…

    As for Palin, it would appear to be a win-win for both her and her detractors. On the one hand she’s been put in the absurd position of having to defend herself against spurious charges from progressives, but on the other she gets to remain relevant as a major and polarizing figure in contempo politics, playing the role she and her most avid followers play best: The Victim.

    It’s amusing that you feel you’re winning something though, tilly. Go, Partisan Wars! lol

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: