Okay, ENOUGH.
I’m sick and tired of the liberal pundits and partisans claiming that it’s “the climate of hate” by conservatives that somehow led to not only the Arizona shooting, but to the poisoning of civil discourse in America.
Most of the political violence today (and the actions that supposedly foster violence) emanate from the vituperative left. And finally we have a compendium of these “progressive” incidents to review.
Kudos to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin for posting up this VERY LONG blog entry detailing in word, photos and videos the frightening hatred and violence of the progressive movement. It’s mind-numbing.
Where has the national press been on these incidents? Where’s the periodic national outrage at this despicable behavior? Few such incidents have received national attention (mainly pie throwing). And, in particular, look at the examples of the liberals showing the killing of Sara Palin, John McCain and anyone else they despise.
One might quibble over an example or two that Michelle presents, but the body of evidence is overwhelming. Yet the press largely ignores this left wing “climate of hate.”
Comments 19
“Most of the political violence today (and the actions that supposedly foster violence) emanate from the vituperative left.”
Care to cite your source on that one, Richard?
That list is kinda stretching. A chimp pooing on McCain’s head? Really? A peaceful sit-in in front of a military vehicle? WTF? An attempt at insurance fraud? In one case, she cites a loony YouTuber for threatening Eric Cantor, ignoring the fact the guy had also threatened Obama, Biden and Pelosi.
It would be a far better list if she hadn’t included student pranks or assumed that every attack on a Republican came from the left. That was the biggest mistake of the left during the first hours after the Tucson shooting: Assuming that because Giffords was a Democrat, the shooter must’ve been a right-winger.
To that extent, I agree with you that I think there’s little connection between what happened in Tucson to conservative rhetoric, and recently called out Bob Filner for baiting the Tea Party.
But, if we are going to talk about the heated rhetoric, the question we have to ask is how much has violence entered the way that our leaders speak about violence. Many point to Sarah Palin’s remarks about “Reload” and her crosshairs map. Others point to the guns-n-ammo imagery in many tea party candidate political ads.
That was perhaps the most surprising thing about Malkins list. There seemed to be few (if any) examples of mainstream Democratic elected officials or leaders using violent rhetoric. There was Madonna and Sandra Bullock, but they’re hardly in the same class as Palin and Angle.
But to reiterate, I don’t think it’s appropriate to scape goat the right for what happened in Tucson.
What I will say is that I hope that, moving forward, language like “reload” will be considered poor taste all around.
I appreciate so many from “the left” coming out against blaming a lunatic’s actions on “the right” even if it means they are standing against those they normally support. But one thing that sticks in my craw is the “going forward, I hope that…” at the end of their statement.
Either you believe the guy was influenced to shoot someone by Palin saying “don’t retreat, reload” or you don’t. Why include that you hope in the future people no longer use the kind of language that didn’t have anything to do with this shooting in a comment that clearly states you do not believe it had anything to do with the shooting?
It gives the appearance of a lack of sincerity towards your stance. And to conservatives, it appears as talking out of both sides of your mouth.
It is reminiscent of “the left” when they say that abortion is perfectly OK and should remain legal…but we sure want a whole lot less of them. At least that is how the Democrat Party’s stance on abortion reads. I guess it isn’t THAT ok.
So, let me get this straight….you don’t think it would be in incredibly poor taste for a politician to say “Reload! Let’s get these Democrats out of Congress” right now, considering what’s happened?
They may not be related retroactively, but the term “reload” certainly carries a connotation now that renders it inappropriate.
Michael,
Just because the overheated personal rhetoric had nothing to do with this attack (and count me as one who is convinced it didn’t) doesn’t mean it is appropriate. In fact it is counterproductive to having the type of spirited political discourse that this country needs.
As for your abortion example, try this one: I don’t think stupid postings should be illegal, but I sure wish there were a whole lot less of them.
Connotations aside, Thor asked me to relay to you that he considers himself very pro-choice when it comes to reloading. He would never defend himself with an AK 47 (he prefers a hammer), but believes everyone has a right to decide on their own.
Speaking of guns…
http://sdrostra.com/?p=12032
Maassive, why would saying “reload” be in poor taste “considering what happened” if what happened had nothing to do with Palin saying “reload”? That is my point. Either you are saying that the figurative language used by politicians, candidates, etc caused an insane man to kill or it did not. If it did not and you really believe that one had nothing to do with the other then changing language that had no connection with a horrible incident because a horrible incident happened makes no sense.
It is either in poor taste or it is not, but with no connection, the “in light of what happened” is out of place. It sounds like you are acknowledging that there was no connection. My only point is that if you really are, if you end your writing with a “buuuut…” it makes you appear insincere. Even reluctant.
I am not saying this language or this rhetoric or these colorful war metaphors are good or bad. That has nothing to do with my point. If I had to judge I would say I like colorful speech like when a football coach says “we’re gonna rip the other player’s head off” or when a former governor says “don’t retreat, reload” or even if Obama once said “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”. It doesn’t incite violence. People…even violent people…are responsible for their actions. My tender ears have heard worse in my day and somehow I am still able to remain a decent person. But most important…the insane need no external motivation to act in an insane way.
One more example of someone sounding insincere because they are talking out of both sides of their mouth would be Alger writing about how overheated personal rhetoric is inappropriate and counterproductive to spirited political discourse…and then calling me stupid because he doesn’t agree with my opinion during a political discussion. Nice work!
Gee, does this mean I can no longer keep my powder dry, euphemistically, when referring to my political opponents, because it may be not be PC?
Author
Well, you certainly wouldn’t want to say that “Republicans have Democrat X in their sights” (but its okay with the parties reversed, as everyone knows that Democrats are using a metaphor).
Or that you want to get “the biggest bang for your buck.”
Let’s have no talk of the folly of bringing “a knife to a gun fight.”
And don’t say you want to “zero in” on anything.
Or have a target “bracketed.”
And no firing of a “warning shot across their bow.”
Don’t declare that “you won’t go down without a fight.”
Or that this is “a life of death struggle.”
I wouldn’t recommend even “firing questions” at an opponent.
And for Goodness sakes, don’t use “a shotgun approach.”
Indeed, to keep the rhetoric down, lets drop such inflammatory boxing phrases as “going toe to toe, delivering a roundhouse right” (or even a left), or “going for a knockout.”
I’d even be cautious about killing two birds with one stone.
Author
Couple other taboos come to mind:
1. Don’t say you’ll “strangle” your opponent the next time they bring up an unpleasant issue.
2. Don’t talk about having to go into “hand-to-hand combat” with your Congressional opponents.
OOPS! MY BAD! The first statement was made by VP Joe Biden last year. And the second was made by President Obama in discussing the new GOP congress.
Most be okay after all.
Author
Sarah Palin cross-hairs on political maps supposedly are in poor taste. No Democrat would do that — today (now that they have targeted Palin for that graphic).
But during the 2004 Presidential election campaign, the Democratic Leadership Council used a “Targeting Strategy” map against President Bush — complete with bulls-eyes. The caption beneath the map read, “BEHIND ENEMY LINES: President Bush won nine states by single-digit margins. These states should be ripe targets for Democrats.”
Author
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/10/12/how-about-those-violent-democrats/
It is worth noting that conservative reaction to Obama and Biden’s statements has been relatively muted. As for the Manchin ad (showing him using a scoped rifle to shoot a law), the reaction has been more …grounded in amusement than in anger.
Not for a moment did conservatives actually think Joe Manchin would come to Capitol Hill with a rifle and start shooting his colleagues.
Not for a moment did conservatives actually think President Obama was going to punch John Boehner in the nose.
And not for a moment did conservatives actually think Joe Biden was going to strangle any Republican. Biden needn’t have said his remark was a figure of speech.
Conservatives, unlike far too many liberals, know what a figure of speech is when we hear it.
Author
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/more-violent-democrats-congressman-paul-kanjorski-on-florida-governor-rick-scott-put-him-against-the-wall-and-shoot-him/
More Violent Democrats: Congressman Paul Kanjorski On Florida …Governor Rick Scott: “Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
Now — imagine that Rand (or Ron) Paul had made such a statement concerning a Democrat governor — indeed, ANY GOP Congressman had said that. The national press would have gone bonkers. The “climate of hate” stories would have been endless.
How many people even know of this story? Did ANY national press do a story on the incident, let alone go into a tizzy over it?
Author
Maassive, obviously my assertion about the more vituperative left is my opinion. Nothing more.
But you might want to review the long Facebook discussion I had with Shane (your ally). Both of us posted up examples of what he liked to call “violence-speak.”
It is my OPINION that the results clearly show the left more violent than the right. Of course, you would disagree.
But a poll of the objective souls gathered here on this website would overwhelmingly prove that I’m right!
So to speak.
Whoa there, Richard Rider. And Michael A. Schwartz, I just accepted your friend request on Facebook.
Here’s what I’m saying: Loughner ruined that metaphor for you. Just like Ted Stevens’ death probably ruined “crash and burn” for political cartoonists covering the Alaskan Senate race. I mean, politicians can feel free to try to use rifle imagery and see if it has the same impact it did before. Will it energizes voters, or just makes them sad or angry?
I’d like to see it retired and swapped out for something less violent—Democrats included. Using the Tucson tragedy to score political victim points is beyond poor taste.
http://lastblogonearth.com/2011/01/17/for-hipechick-and-michelleincal-a-few-criticisms-of-filners-recent-tv-appearances/
Now, normally, I’m a connoisseur of poor taste. I loved Ricky Gervais as host of the Golden Globes. I bought Butt Trumpet’s first album simply because the band’s name was Butt Trumpet.
I especially like conservative poor taste. I have three different fake $1,000,000 bills in my office, one with Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton (with his pants down), another with Al Gore, and another with Barack Obama. All I’m missing is John Kerry.
At Comic-Con, I bought a ton of political stuff from Antarctic Press, including “President Evil” (Obama, Sarah Palin, John McCain and Hillary Clinton fight the zombies), The Goverrnator (starring Arnie) and Rogue Warrior, a collection of some pretty sensational illustrations of Sarah Palin.
http://lastblogonearth.com/2010/07/30/antarctic-press-politixploitation-and-how-i-spent-my-money-at-comic-con/
In 2008, I was as guilty as anyone in terms of spreading memes of violence:
http://swingstateofmind.com/?p=824
Honestly, I don’t think I’d post that video again, considering what happened. It would be in too poor of taste. I’ll be thinking twice about what I put out there after scrolling through Malkin’s list.
There was a lot on that list that made me smirk. There were others where I thought to myself, “what an a-hole.” But there were a few instances that I found shocking.
So, yes, I will be keeping a keener eye out for violent rhetoric on the left.
Now, do you know where I can get a $1,000,000 bill with John Kerry’s face on it?
Also, who the heck is Shane? I have no Facebook friends named Shane.
But I shall counter your flimsy data with my own flimsy data.
Google Results:
“Kill Barack Obama” = 253,000 results
“Kill George Bush” = 173,000 results
“Kill Bill Clinton” = 4,950,000 results.
Of course, that means absolutely nothing.
Hell, “Kill Richard Rider” elicited 193,000 results. Which means he is more popular than George Bush.
You have to put it in quotations. It produced 4 results.
And it’s not about our Taxfighter, but the crimefighter Nova from Marvel Comics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(comics)
Darn, that means my data is even flimsier than any of yours. For the record, though, “keep your powder dry” — in quotes — achieved 577,000 results. One of the first, ironically, was this one, on Facebook…
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/keep-your-powder-dry/173299843434