One of the most breathtaking opening lines of a column I’ve ever read, I read today in the Los Angeles Times.
Let’s call it “historic.”
There were written by Ronald Brownstein, a progressive journalist.
Here’s the first line he wrote in that column: “Let’s stipulate that Jared Lee Loughner’s mind is a dark and twisted maze.”
There is no need to stipulate: it’s a fact. The second line: “And that he was driven to violence by feverish compulsions, not a political cause.”
True. Well analyzed by Mr. Brownstein! Third line: “And that his conception of politics fits no recognizable framework.”
Brilliant!
And now Brownstein starts hitting: “Even so, Saturday’s rampage should encourage everyone in the political arena to look in the mirror.”
It took away my breath.
There is no logical, reasonable connection between the fourth line and the first three, but Brownstein feels there’s no reason he should be held back by logic and reason. And on he goes, line five: “Here’s one reason: Everyone who deals in hyperbolic political rhetoric was only a mouse click from disaster after Saturday’s attack.”
Really? Jared is a nutcase, didn’t listen to talk radio, didn’t watch the news, and may have never read a newspaper. He was a gamer, a 9-11 truther, a pothead, a conspiracy-freak and deeply mentally ill, but because of him “everyone who deals in hyperbolic political rhetoric” should have been on the brink of disaster last Saturday.
Line six: “Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from any incendiary language on the Internet (or elsewhere in the media).” Right! Nothing. Nada. Niente. Nichts.
And here comes the killer line: “But if he had, the source of that rhetoric (left or right) would pay an enormous political price.”
Jared hadn’t because he was not interested in politics but obsessed by nightmarish magic. Still, everyone uttering hyperbolic rhetoric would pay an enormous price, according to Brownstein.
It’s nonsense. But its printed nonsense. So it has the suggestion of seriousness.
Here are some variations:
“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from fashion statements on the Internet. But if he had, the source of those fashion statements would pay an enormous price.”
“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from statements by Al Gore on the Internet. But if he had, Al Gore would pay an enormous price.”
“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from my dog. But if he had, my dog would pay an enormous price.”
“Yes, there’s no evidence that Ronald Brownstein drew direct inspiration from clear thinking. If he had, he wouldn’t have written this piece of dreck.”
“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from Barack Obama’s 2008 statement ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,’ which he found on the Internet. But if he had, the source of that statement would pay an enormous price.”
Love The Los Angeles Times. Always brings a smile to my face.
There is no logical, reasonable connection between the fourth line and the first three, but Brownstein feels there’s no reason he should be held back by logic and reason.
Since when have progressives ever had any connection other than accidental with logic, reason, the truth or planet consensus reality?
Shun them! Shun the liberals/progressives. Let them babble to each other somewhere outside of polite society. This is political OCD. It needs therapy not argument. That would be like telling Jared Loughner to just ignore those voices he hears. The only one I’ve ever heard of being able to do so was John Nash, because he was a genius.
Surely Mr. Fuller’s death threat against a Tea Party member at today’s town hall meeting was compelled by the hate-filled rhetoric so long directed at that group. It was just a matter of time–and the loony left must pay an enormous price. I tell you, those loons have created a climate of rage and fear out there.
Nah… the left won’t pay a price for this. ABC will, quite helpfully, I’m sure, edit the tape to omit the offending threat, and voila! The narrative that only the right engages in violent rhetoric will be restored!
Interesting that the very first thing the local cops did was hustle the threatener off to the psych ward for evaluation. This certainly gives the appearance that *someone* wants to get control of the narrative this time around. Specifically, they want to make sure the guy is characterized – legally and in the press – as a troubled individual with NO political motivation for his outburst.
See, he doesn’t really hate the Tea Party. He’s just got PTSD from his nearly-fatal encounter with the *real* political terrorist, Loughner. (OK, so we publicly back-pedaled on our accusations that Loughner was motivated by hateful Tea Party rhetoric…but we ALL know the REAL truth, don’t we?)
Is it just me, or is everything politicians do these days really, really ham-handed and obvious? Wasn’t there a time when they could actually put one over on the bovine electorate, controlling the narrative without everyone knowing that they’re controlling the narrative? Or have experience and the alternative media simply made it harder to fool us?
The scary thing is, even though it’s so totally obvious that the political types are manipulating them, a lot of people still allow themselves to be manipulated. I think they KNOW they’re being manipulated, they KNOW the narrative is just propaganda, but they WANT to believe the narrative so badly that they just…sort of let it happen.
“Even so, Saturday’s rampage should encourage everyone in the journalism arena to look in the toilet.”
So what if he had claimed allegiance to the Tea Party? What if there were videos of him at a Tea Party event? I ask because no group can really police every kook and hanger on, so what happens when the inevitable next assasination occurs and some trail back to the Tea Party, Right, Conservatives, whatever, can be proven?
Have you been to those violent tea party rallies??
My god, the rioting in the street, the arrests that happen, those people need in control.
Think of the other anti government tragic events from the past–
Lee Harvey Oswald
Oklahoma City bombing
John Wilkes Booth
M.L.K shot and killed
Bath (Michigan) school bombing, 5/18/1927(“Google” it. It’ll shock you if you’ve never heard of it.
Kent State
The point is, these whackos aren’t committed to just the “right”. A socialist, leftist, anti-government 22-year old is responsible for the death of a nine-year old girl. Period. The Tea Party had nothing to do with that.
What will happen is that the Tea Party and the right will take a terrible political hit. The mob scene that started after the Loughner incident will continue, the left will squeeze every ounce of propaganda value out of the tragedy, and the Tea Party, the Republicans, and the right in general will have to do some serious damage control. Pointing out all the leftist whack-o killers in history won’t help because they’re ancient history. Whatever political capital the Tea Party has will vanish.
I hope it never happens, because it will be a terrible, terrible mess.
it will be a terrible, terrible mess.
Yes, it wil. Which is why I am so nervous about the fact that almost all conservative commentary stops at, there is no connection. There are many good explainations as to why it still would not matter but no one, and I mean no one, is giving them. Not good.
The source would pay a price in the same way that a rape victim, a murder victim, an incest victim pays an enormous price for the blood lust of the attacker. But, to continue the metaphor, it is not the victims debt or their own account or their fault.
Someone else nearly always pays the price for the lies, the slander, the immorality, the killing, the naked evil of the MSM, the Democratic Party and other sponsors of the Culture of Death. The 50 million babies aborted in the U.S. under the Democratic Partys abortion for any reason regime were slain in real violence, with real blood.
For those ripped from the womb,
and buried without a tomb,
for those who wrought their doom–
Lord hear our prayer.
(from Father Tom leads the Faithful in Prayer, by Timothy Murphy in Feb 2011 issue of First Things)
Much of the political blogosphere is simply incitement and inflammatory rather than rational. Many writers like to contradict, on the flimsiest grounds, anything someone on the other side writes. Readers come to believe that writers have no sense of proportion or legitimacy on what constitute a strong and convincing argument or a relevant point. Grasping at straws and being defensive about every minor point makes you look weak and unconvinced by your own beliefs. Maybe writers need to generate posts to keep their blogs going so they contrive issues to write about, but it isnt helping them convince anyone about anything.
The right is using the massacre as an excuse not to discuss the sorry state of political debate. The fact that the massacre wasnt caused by political rhetoric doesnt mean there is not problem with the current state of political rhetoric.
When writers focus on the side issues and ignore the fundamental issue at hand it looks like they are trying to distract readers from that issue because they cant make their point convincingly with facts.
Writers should strive to convince people who disagree with them. That would require writers to respect their opponents and stick to facts rather than descending to flimsy rhetoric and ridicule.
You are never going to convert the leadership of the left. They are cynical, chasing personal power, appealing to their constituencies by promoting leftist policies they know are ineffective. But many of their followers are simply ignorant. When writers use sarcasm and irony they lose their chance to convince the ordinary liberal because when they ridicule someone for the ideas he holds they reinforce his negative attitudes to conservative ideas and they harden his opposition.
Writers should stop preaching to the choir and start working to be part of the solution not part of the problem. Polarizing rhetoric simply makes things worse. It might make the writer popular with those who already agree with him, and further his career and other aspects of self-interest, but it doesnt change anyones mind.
Your points are all valid, I think. However, I’m wondering why the left gave itself permission during the eight-year Bush administration to engage in the most vile and hateful rhetoric, yet now they call on the right to stop causing all the trouble. Why is the Tea Party’s rhetoric a problem while Code Pink’s wasn’t?
Is it really as simple as believing “Our rhetoric was logical and justified while the right’s rhetoric is inspired by irrationality and hate?”
See, we’re in playground territory here. Everybody’s being an a**hole but nobody wants to be the first to admit it. It’s more satisfying to keep pointing the finger at the other guy. HE’s the problem, not ME! As long as people are functioning in this mode, I don’t see how we’ll ever get beyond the hateful rhetoric. The hateful rhetoric is just one more subject for us to argue about.
i“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from fashion statements on the Internet. But if he had, the source of those fashion statements would pay an enormous price.”/i
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Don’t worry, all of your readers have impeccable taste! Well- except me.
this liberal, ditch the word progressive permanently
is trying to equate road rage
or any rage for that matter
with the right, and/or the tea party
the good news, he is only preaching
to a quickly shrinking choir
“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from radical Islam. But if he had, radical Islam would pay an enormous price.”
Or, as Brownsteins pals said after Ft. Hood, Lets not jump to CONCLUSIONS, here! Of course.
Eric Fuller, on the other hand, is a leftist supporter of Rep Giffords and his threats to a tea party official is political and evidence of leftist hysteria.
So when some muslim jihadi terrorist kills people, were supposed to not assume all muslims are teh evil. But if someone on the right commits an act of violence, then everyone on the right is somehow equally guilty.
Got it. Thanks for clearing it up, oh, media elites! Because me being a dumb hick from teh sticks, I never wouldve lept to that logical conclusion.
@Elaine; Youre half right. There has been overwhelming evidence that Loughner was apolitical, did not listen to talk radio etc. He is making the astonishing leap that a mentally ill individual who has had a complete break with reality, is responding only to the voices in his head, should somehow be tied to the political rhetoric on the right. Perhaps we should buy him a medical dictionary, so that he can look up paranoid schizophrenia.
When someone commits and act of violence the liberal media tries to tie that individual to the right and then they spin the story so that all persons in the center or right are violent whereas all persons on the left, you know, dictators, oligarcs, kings, marxists, communists, socialists and liberal are just gentle flower picking peaceniks.
I come way from efforts like this from the Regressive press wondering, “Does Donald Brownstein really think like this or is he simply conforming to an agreed-upon journ-O-listic, Pravda-style strategy of keeping the proletariat inflamed? Essentially it is: 1)open with a sentence or two that sound reasonable and balanced; 2) segue into the rote of socialist cliche and perversion of truths; 3) wind up with invective and accusation. Trust the peons to blindly nod their heads in agreement and chatter in accord. The next step, of course, is to initiate legislation to prohibit something. This is what Socialists call responsible government.
Shun them? The Bownsteins don’t give a damn about what conservatives, independents or other infidels say or think. They are the imams of the coming of a new and improved Socialist Paradise.
When a complex system is in the process of breaking down, it begins to emit things which are puzzling and uncharacteristically incoherent. Loughner’s mind did this because it was a complex system breaking down. Our mainstream media and the political left is also doing this because it, too, is a complex system breaking down.
適切
“Line six: “Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from any incendiary language on the Internet (or elsewhere in the media).” Right! Nothing. Nada. Niente. Nichts.
And here comes the killer line: “But if he had, the source of that rhetoric (left or right) would pay an enormous political price.” ”
Ah, and now we come to it Brownstein.
There has been one particular political party that has been extremely successful lately. The Tea Party. Yes, it has been using pretty spicy language. Yes, it has been pretty confrontational. But above all else, it has been extremely successful while excluding the entrenched politicos and their media cronies.
This is nothing but the continuing effort to make TP’ers shut up or else be smeared as contributing to violence.
The frustrating thing is that conservatives keep turning back to the employees of The Ministry of Truth for daily news and opinion. Worse, they carefully and dutifully analyze in minute detail the 809 ways the story or opinion is wrong, is contradicted by yesterday’s MoT news/opinion, and never let all of the hard work and careful analysis influence their reliance on the same persons and outlets for daily news/opinion.
The Marxists in the media will call black as white and day as night, on command, at the will of the Party. They will call any law-abiding citizen the most vile and hateful name, coordinate with others to frame the innocent for their purpose, and all conservatives do is tell othet conservatives that the Left made this factual error and they are inconsistent with yesterday’s talking point.
Call the Marxists media members and the employees of the MoT what they are, shills for tyranny and conspirators in oppression. Don’t speak in mild terms and hint at their diabolical means and ends. These people are working to ruin this country and deserve no more respect than anyone on an airliner trying to open the door inflight to get fresh air. They are trying to kill this country and we are acting so as not to offend members of the Mayberry Ladies’ Auxillary.
Nobody on from the MoT will give you a bit of credit for speaking in mild tones or playing by the rules. None of the squishy moderates are impressed that we speak factually and the Left doesn’t. The Left’s shrill yells overwhelm the conservative facts and the squishy moderates just remember the loudest charge they hear most often.
We need to act more like the radicals that go on offense and take over offices and shout down people on stage and hassle the MoT employees with their Marxists conventional wisdom.
If you let this shooting in Tuscon tone down your speech and rhetoric you deserve to lose your country and your freedom. This country is worth a lot more than some rough language. Some times conservatives seem like the European Jews that thought if they just fully cooperated with the Nazis and didn’t complain too much they would be spared the outcome the Nazis had in store. “Get in their face and push back twice as hard.” Never let a commie-lib speak in public without making a rukus and refuting his point forcefully with no civility. Make him sorry he ever opened his mouth, so he won’t do it again when he’s tempted.
BRAVO! Well said, and so true. We are now inside the M$M’s OODA loop and need to deal them some serious damage. They and the party members have lost touch with reality – they still believe the narrative they have made up. Time to use that to set them up for other failures. And to focus on objective reality – in this case, if I can quote another DemonRat “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Well said, Scott. We cannot let the left use every incident to their advantage. This is how they play their little game of bait and switch. I truly think that more Americans are becoming wise to these socialists.
As a Tea Party member, I encourage all patriots to not give up. This is what the left wants and its obvious that satan is helping them with people like Jared Loughner. Remember, our country was built from Devine Providence. We are
experiencing spiritual warfare. There are many battles of truth to be fought in this war to maintain our freedom and the wonderful country that God gave to us.
If not for us, do it for our children.
God bless.
The only reason such people are in any danger is because of dishonest sophistry from douchebags like Ronald Brownstein.
Brownstein should add, “‘Cause conservatives just suck and should shut up, that’s whay!” if he were honest in his opinions.
Howza bout providing a link to the original column?? From the extracts above, it appears to me that Brownstein is merely pointing out that, in the future, a nutcase claiming support from someone in particular, or some ideology in particular, will affect the debate and put a spotlight on whatever (possibly random) basis the culprit gives for that attack. That doesn’t sound silly to me.
just like the duke rape case remember? guilty or not they still need to be punished…
As I understand it, he is making the observation that in today’s toxic partisan environment anyone who can by any means, however irrational, be linked to the madman’s actions will be tarred by the association, regardless of the irrationality of that association. This is an objective, not a normative, proposition and as we have seen quite accurately describes the situation that has played out. He is not making the association, but warning that it will be made.
“So, Pardner, I’m not a’sayin’ that I’d lynch ya’, but no tellin’ what some other folks might do, so ya’ might jus’ wanna’ watch what ya’ say.”
He is not making the association, but warning that it will be made.
Uh huh. It just seems a little self-serving that his side will be making the association against the other side.
“So, Pardner, I’m not a’sayin’ that I’d lynch ya’, but no tellin’ what some other folks might do, so ya’ might jus’ wanna’ watch what ya’ say.”
Well, ol Tex Concern Troll Brownstein sure seems to have our best interest at heart. Guess we better heed his warnin and shut up, if we know whats good fer us. The fact that this explicitly chills the free speech of the Tea Party types is purely coincidental. Purely.
If there were evidence that people drew inspiration from the violence portrayed in television and movies, Hollywood would pay a heavy price. Uh, wait…..
Oh, by the way, I wonder if those who get a thrill up their leg every time they throw around the word ‘teabaggers’ are taking a hard look in the mirror. Yea, I didn’t think so either.
Political corruption and current events had something to do with his anger, Jared Lee Loughner didn’t shoot up a Chucky E Cheese.
Intelligent Tetrapods Only:
A Coffee Time Must See! Tavis Smiley, Including A ***** 5 Star Panel Debate On Americas Future. View & Comment. http://c-span.org/Events/Is-There-a-Brighter-Future-for-the-Next-Generation/10737418885-1/
Respectfully,
A PATRON
“Yes, there’s no evidence that the alleged gunman drew direct inspiration from any incendiary language on the Internet (or elsewhere in the media).” “But if he had, the source of that rhetoric (left or right) would pay an enormous political price.”
Seems to me, the people on the right – who were not even the source of connected rhetoric, paid an enormous price already at the hands of the irresponsible, conclusion making left.
How preposterous….
xjsggg3byg writes…”Much of the political blogosphere is simply incitement and inflammatory rather than rational.”
How about instead of using politcal blogosphere, we easily change those words to “main stream media”. When the Ft.Hood jihad attack took place and it was learned that the shooter shouted, “Allah Ahkbar”, we were told by the MSM not to jump to conlusions. When the Jihadist tried to blow up times square, the MSM said not to jump to conclusions.
When we had recent incidents with non-muslims (Discovery building, plane flown into building, Arizona shooting), the MSM went into full attack mode, pointing fingers and crying this had all the earmarks of a right wing nut job, no doubt inspired to these dastardly deeds by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, talk-radio, GOP, etc etc. So exactly who was dialing up incitement and inflammatory rhetoric? From the DailyKos I would understand, but the Times? CNN? MSNBC? Katie Couric?
xjsggg3byg continues…..” Many writers like to contradict, on the flimsiest grounds, anything someone on the other side writes. Readers come to believe that writers have no sense of proportion or legitimacy on what constitute a strong and convincing argument or a relevant point. Grasping at straws and being defensive about every minor point makes you look weak and unconvinced by your own beliefs. Maybe writers need to generate posts to keep their blogs going so they contrive issues to write about, but it isnt helping them convince anyone about anything.”
Again, insert mainstream journalists or any MSM news network into place of “blogs” or “writers” and you can easily make the same comparison.
Lastly, the cream of xjsggg3byg’s blather….”The right is using the massacre as an excuse not to discuss the sorry state of political debate.”
Never mind how preposterous that statement is. The left has taken political vitrol to unimagined heights over the past 10 years but you have somebody right of center question Obama’s policies and he is labeled as a racist, hateful bigot that must be silenced.
How about this instead….”The left is using the massacre as an excuse to force about their radical agenda of absolute gun control and forcing the “Fairness Doctrine” down our throats in order to silence the few avenues that Conseratives have to send their message to the Amercian public.
I wonder if Rohm Emanuel ever said, “Never let a good massacre go to waste.”
““Even so, Saturday’s rampage should encourage everyone in the political arena to look in the mirror.”
I vote in every election, donate to political campaigns, read political articles, etc so I think I’m kind of in the political arena. I looked in the mirror and just saw my reflection. Did I miss something?
Just to play devil’s advocate here (I haven’t read the original) couldn’t Ronald Brownstein be saying that, regardless of the justice of the matter, any “hyperbolic political rhetoric” could destroy someone’s career if it was discovered that the merest connection existed between the rhetorician and a deranged attacker.
For example, our web browser’s histories contains addresses for thousands of web pages. People read a vast number of perspectives, many of which they don’t agree with. If a crazed attacker’s web history happened to contain, out of thousands of addresses, one address for one page with one “hyperbolic” comment by anyone, the press would surely declare that the random connection was in fact the cause of the attack.
By saying, we are all just a “mouse click” away from being linked to the actions of a mad man, Brownstein might be reminding us that we have no control over who reads what we write and that even a mad man leaves a data trail through cyberspace.
While I agree with you, I would like to point out that its Conservatives and Republicans that are a mouse click away from being linked to the actions of a madman. If you have a (D) in front of your name, that is grounds for a free pass.
Did the MSM crucify Al Gore over the Discovery Channel gunman?
Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
Change the name Al Gore with Dick Cheney and you would have had a frothing media running 24/7 with how Dick Cheney inspired somebody to such a criminal action. He would have been the new poster boy to replace Timothy McVeigh for the hard left.
Fair enough.
I think this is the beginning of the End of the MsM. They seem to be coming apart at the seams. I would be surprised if they last after the next election cycle~!!!
We need to make an obvious point clear to these well-meaning reactionaries.
We cant possibly live complete and fulfilling lives if we are required to respond to and react to every insane, even dangerous, person. We cant order society according to our fear of the one percent (or ten percent) who would hurt us if we ignore them…
blockquoteThe right is using the massacre as an excuse not to discuss the sorry state of political debate./blockquote
Someone is clearly out of touch with reality.
Heres the posts I found on a quick survey of PJMs front page regarding the sorry state of political debate in the wake of Tucson:
1. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/civil-discourse-a-one-way-street/ rel=nofollowCivil Discourse: A One-Way Street?/a
2. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/once-again-progressives-prove-willing-to-politicize-everything/ rel=nofollowOnce Again, Progressives Prove Willing To Politicize iEverything/i/a
3. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/politics-and-the-schizophrenics-language/ rel=nofollowPolitics And The Schizophrenics Language/a
4. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-feminist-look-at-palins-military-jargon/ rel=nofollowA Feminist Look At Palins Military Jargon/a
5. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/01/09/how-to-turn-a-tragedy-into-an-emetic/ rel=nofollowHow To Turn A Tragedy Into An Emetic/a
6. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/giffords-shot-now-a-word-from-our-gun-control-sponsors%E2%80%A6/ rel=nofollowGiffords Shot: Now, A Word From Our Gun Control Sponsors…/a
7. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gabrielle-giffords-and-the-progressive-creed/ rel=nofollowGabrielle Giffords And The Progressive Creed/a
8. a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/01/08/putting-the-narrative-before-the-horse/ rel=nofollowPutting The Narrative Before The Horse/a
And thats bnot/b counting the posts here on the Tatler.
Yeah, were really avoiding talking about it. (rolls eyes)
Just another reason the LA Times is only good to use as packing paper
I would have to agree that this article is only saying that anyone could be blamed if there were the slightest link to them. The main thing that has occurred to me as of late though, is that the left, since losing the mid terms has changed their tune about 180 degrees. Who was loud and obnoxious before that? Who was very matter of fact about how ignorant the main body of the electorate was? Who pushed through their agenda and told the other party to shut up and sit in the back? NOW which party is asking for civility and compromise on a more than daily basis. Oh, now we have to work together to find solutions, not when they had absolute power. The right are going to work with them now while they sit back and snicker at the American public because of what they have already accomplished openly and at what they can now sneak by with the weak right not realizing.
A line of deductive reasoning equivalent to “if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle”.
Its all very simple and obvious folks! Just like the theory of a parent that continually points his or her finger at the child and says you are a bad kid, when the kid is not bad, eventually the kid starts acting up. I believe the leftist, stateists,or whatever you choose to call them are trying to provoke one of us into reacting violently, thus giving credence to their accusations. They are fully aware that the other three fingers are pointing back at them, but if they achieve their objective it wont even matter!
In a country that respects human rights and freedom, any time one chooses to pick up a weapon to deal with a political issue they are clearly wrong. Most would agree that they are likely not to be of sound mind. This is definitely the case with the Arizona tragedy. Knowing the overwhelming evidence, you would have to be of unsound mind yourself to disagree. In the vernacular, Jared Lee Loughner is a dangerous nut.
It is possible that the political dialog would push a person already on the edge of insanity over the brink, and with means and opportunity, they might act. I dont think there is disagreement with this. It might happen.
But it is highly unlikely, and putting a damper on language used in political debate is more dangerous than the threat.
If we are going to do something to protect politicians from this sort of act, I would be far more concerned about groups ideologically, criminally, or theologically focused to be the ones taking up arms.
Politicians should also know, though, that they are accountable for their actions. They need to accept responsibility for what they do. Any time a member of congress votes on a bill, there are going to be consequences, both good and bad. It is important that they understand their job is to choose the course of action that will bring the most good and the least bad, and that fits within the constitutional framework of this nation.
If and when there are troubles with the Constitution itself, these need to be brought to light and debated. If the consensus is to make a change, then the process for constitutional change should be followed. It is always possible that one branch of the government or another will overstep its bounds. We have seen both the president and the congress overstep their bounds in the past. Many would also agree that the judicial activism of the last half of the 20th century is a similar overstepping of bounds, but the congress has not yet gotten around to recognizing the need to ammend the constitution, and the Supreme Courts policy of considering all past decisions as decided law prevents even them from overruling past bad decisions.
I guess all advertizing companies should shut their doors since imagery and words all of the sudden have no impact on people.Campaigns are basically informercials for candidates and people such as Levin,linbaugh,fox news etc have been fanning the flames of this heated rhetoric.Why are these people and certain politicians using such rhetoric if it has no impact.Im sure it has been polled and studied and they have found out that their getting favorable bumps from this political hate speech.Just because u conservatives swallow down everything the right wing has to say without a drink.Can u folks at least admit that this type of rhetoric is dangerous if only because some deranged person could get the wrong messege.Its not the first time that political hate speech has resulted in the killing of a politician here and around the world.
Why thank you for your well thought out ad-hominen attack on those right-of-center that disagree with you.
It’s really pathetic how these regressives try to take some sort of self-imagined high ground of morality when posting drivel like this. Oh tell me Mr. Anonymous, why is that when Bush was in office it was okay for the typical anti-war/Bush rallies to feature people showing posters of Bush getting shot or his head cut off? Bush burning in effigy. Why, a “What-if” move of Bush’s asassination was made and shown at some film festival in Toronto.
Where was one word from anybody in the MSM or the leadership of the Regressive Democrats to denounce this ugly, violent imagery? No where to be found. They loved it, they thought it was great! I’m sure you personally got a good laugh from it too! No need to talk toning it down at all, it’s your patriotic duty to protest as Billary once cried out.
Now once again, a non-muslim suspect involved in shootings doesn’t pan out to be the “right-wing” nut job you prayed to Gaia that it was. Another nut-case, but not your new Timothy McVeigh. So now when the right protests this disgusting smear job, you come along and complain we don’t want to talk about the “hate” rhetoric!
If I didn’t know any better, I would say you were Chris Matthews posting. If you’re not him, well then I know where your schitck came from.
Liberals want to connect with the very young and impressionable children. An undeveloped mind tends to liberalism. This was a teachable moment for our children to shun conservatives and embrace the mensheviks.
heyharv
lancaster, taxifornia
push 1 for english only in the USA
viva illegal alien drug gang sanctuary cities.
Ha — And the liberals really believe that they are the “educated” ones. This stuff is truly outrageous — My lib friends all say they hate Palin because she is uneducated — What universe am I living in? Somebody tell me please.
We are walking into a trap.
What if Loughner was a devoted Rush fan, a Sarah Palin devotee and attended Tea Party meetings. Would that mean those parties were in *any* way responsible for his actions?
Yes, point out that he had no connections to the right. But then also point out that individuals are responsible for their own actions and that guilt by association is wrong.