Althouse: "There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés."

January 9, 2011

"There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés."

"And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.... [I]f you're using this event to criticize the 'rhetoric' of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the 'rhetoric' and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"

Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal.

ADDED: Remember when liberal NYT columnist Charles Blow said this about Sarah Palin: "She’s like the ominous blob in the horror films: the more you shoot at it, the bigger and stronger it becomes." AND: Why did I add that? Just as one example of what I think are many, many expressions of violence aimed at Sarah Palin. This attempt to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting is one of the most ridiculous and despicable political arguments I have ever seen.

99 comments:

jayne_cobb said...: Apparently Bob Brady is attempting to ban bullseyes and targets from political maps:

“Representative Bob Brady of Pennsylvania told The Caucus he plans to introduce a bill that would ban symbols like that now-infamous campaign crosshair map.

“‘You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,’ Mr. Brady, a Democrat, said, and his measure would make it a crime to do so to a member of Congress or federal employee, as well.

“Asked if he believed the map incited the gunman in Tucson, he replied, ‘I don’t know what’s in that nut’s head. I would rather be safe than sorry.’”

I can say that when I was imagining how this was all going to play out in the political arena I didn't quite figure that this was all somehow going to become a First Amendment issue.; 1/9/11, 8:25 PM
Big Mike said...: They're Democrats. They start with being contemptible.; 1/9/11, 8:28 PM
The Dude said...: b; 1/9/11, 8:33 PM
Skyler said...: In the future, all people must be wrapped in bubble wrap and other packing materials just in case they trip and fall.; 1/9/11, 8:33 PM
hombre said...: In the "New Congress," House bills supposedly will require specific Constitutional authority.

What provision do we suppose Rep. Brady will offer to override the First Amendment?; 1/9/11, 8:35 PM
the wolf said...: I wouldn't call it so much a vicious lie as wishful thinking.; 1/9/11, 8:37 PM
Unknown said...: This is a theme Insta has been developing and he makes his point devastatingly. Anyone who wants to stand up to the ongoing Leftist assault on Free Speech (it started, after all, with the idea of hate speech) should have a copy of the piece with him or her.; 1/9/11, 8:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: Imagine that. A new law that would forbid pictures implying murder by firearms. That will put an end to most TV, almost all Hollywood films and every single video game. Heck, why not?; 1/9/11, 8:50 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Do Congress critters like Bob Brady get paid more for each dumb law they pass? Perhaps he could also ban the word "target" from the English language?; 1/9/11, 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Suppose the bill will ban Hollywood films depicting the assassination of George W.?

Nah, I didn't think so either.; 1/9/11, 8:54 PM
cubanbob said...: What will the lefties do when Palin is sworn in as president? it never occurs to them the door swings both ways.; 1/9/11, 8:54 PM
Palladian said...: "Apparently Bob Brady is attempting to ban bullseyes and targets from political maps"

Yes, because as we know, laws keep bad people from doing bad things!; 1/9/11, 8:57 PM
Robert Cook said...: "What will the lefties do when Palin is sworn in as president?"

That will never happen, so the question--whatever its point may be--is moot.; 1/9/11, 8:59 PM
David said...: AP:

"At an event roughly three years ago, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords took a question from Jared Loughner, the man accused of trying to assassinate her and killing six other people. According to two of his high school friends the question was essentially this: "What is government if words have no meaning?"
Loughner was angry about her response — she read the question and had nothing to say."

He had the same question on one of his recently posted web pages.; 1/9/11, 9:00 PM
Caroline said...: There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés.

No; it starts as a large low-pressure system from immature, insecure people who are shocked and enraged by dissenting opinions.

It builds into a storm fueled by the hot-air of hate-mongers, who will then make use of the man-made climate crisis to push their agenda.; 1/9/11, 9:04 PM
DADvocate said...: Here's a small hatefest from a local blogger in Tennessee. A lot of the same stuff you see from Alpha and his ilk.

It's interesting how they excuse in lefties what they condemn in conservatives.

Anonymous2: This guy is just as likely to have read the article in The Daily Kos earlier this week "My Congresswoman voted against Nancy Pelosi. And is now dead to me". (since removed) You can't put it all on one side.
This guy will turn out to be as nutty as Hinckley.

metulj: Funny. Glenn Reynolds posted that exact same thing to katie's facebook page. What's it like having a snout ring? Political violence is wrong. Hell, violence is wrong. And DailyKos diarists are not the mainstream of centrist Democrats.

rikki: If you think some desperate scrap from Daily Kos balances out an actual shooting with multiple fatalities, your sense of balance is broken, badly.

And, my favorite because it so concisely shows the hypocrisy and hate of the left.

Bbeanster: That's just stupid.
"You're dead to me" is an old, brutal figure of speech. Do you think cutting you dead means I stabbed you?
Or that knocking your block off means i beheaded you?
This guy is not a garden variety loon. He's a loon who is obviously influenced by far right wing rhetoric. That's who talks about this gold standard stuff. Doesn't Glenn Beck advocate buying up gold and even advertise gold dealers?
Not as clear-cut as the guy who shot up the Unitarian Church -- but you wingnutters denied he was of your ilk, too. Or tried to, which was difficult, considering his very specific suicide note.
Arizona is a hateful place.
And Say-rah's dancing daughter is moving there.
That's double funny, since she's moving away from her babydaddy to be with her boyfriend while collecting money to promote abstinence. These Palins are making a bundle off the nutter fringe.

Just a small sample of how "mainstream" "progressives" think. With a lot of hate.; 1/9/11, 9:05 PM
Jim Gust said...: Any chance we could get Professor Reynolds to run for high office?; 1/9/11, 9:07 PM
MayBee said...: Professor Reynolds definitely has a gift with the written word.

I did hear David Gergen today recommend that other CNN pundits tamp down their speculation about this having to do with teaparties or Sarah Palin. After all, he pointed out, we have no idea what triggered this guy's anger.

He then went on to speculate it could have been movies or video games.
This event has become a Christmas tree upon which everyone can hang their favorite cause.

We do live in a violent culture, John King agreed.; 1/9/11, 9:20 PM
Goju said...: Will the bill also ban depictions of Bush with a gun pointed at his head?

Or depicting Bush's likeness and the phrase "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him?"

Probably not. Wouldn't want to get too carried away with this, right?; 1/9/11, 9:20 PM
Hagar said...: Will it still be all right to have crosshairs in our theodolites?

How about the Target trademark symbol? Their and other firms' promotions superimposing crosshairs on targets?

Wv: cyclople - married cyclopses?; 1/9/11, 9:23 PM
MayBee said...: “‘You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,’ Mr. Brady, a Democrat, said, and his measure would make it a crime to do so to a member of Congress or federal employee, as well.

So what about private citizens? Is he going to leave them unprotected?

We should probably just make a blanket law that if you can't say it/do it to POTUS, you can't say it/do it to a citizen.

Then, we'll all be safe.; 1/9/11, 9:25 PM
Mark O said...: Right now, based on the evidence available, including the shooter's rants against illiterate members of his Congressional District and his characterization of the Congresswoman as illiterate, I can see where the motive was the letter from Giffords that misspelled the shooter's name.

So far, at least to me, it is the only theory that draws from every part of the record.

Giffords failed to respect him.

Isn't it odd that someone would know the number of his congressional district? But, if you read a letter from that district that misspells your name every day for two years, you'd be on top of it.

When one fires 31 rounds and hits 20 people, that's not a political assassination; that's undiluted, crazy anger. The kind that springs from hearing---what did he say, himself?-----bad grammar.

The left will use anything to restrain speech. Anything. Most interesting is to watch how the left uses this. Almost as if Glen Beck knew what he was talking about.; 1/9/11, 9:28 PM
DADvocate said...: I did hear David Gergen today recommend that other CNN pundits tamp down their speculation about this having to do with teaparties or Sarah Palin. After all, he pointed out, we have no idea what triggered this guy's anger.

Good for him. Yesterday Wolf Blitzer was struggling to find a way to connect the right with this. He kept asking questions if anyone had found links between Loughner and the right. Not questions about connections between Loughner and any extremist groups but only the right.

From what I watched, the usually on the tip of the left wing MSNBC was being much more even handed than Blitzer.; 1/9/11, 9:37 PM
Rialby said...: The real culprit for this crime and others - deinstitutionalisation.

Put the nuts back in the can.; 1/9/11, 9:45 PM
William said...: This malignant pustule had more in common with a spree shooter than with a political assasin. Even his choice of targets was bizarre. The Congresswoman was obviously a kind, decent person. Whatever your feelings about a particular position, she was a nice lady. Nothing about her should inspire resentment or rage. I can imagine a tea partier, perhaps, voting against her, but she's simply not the sort of person you get angry with. The shooter's craziness exists in a dimension beyond politics. And more than crazy, he was evil.; 1/9/11, 9:46 PM
Kirby Olson said...: The Reynolds essay is a masterpiece. I can't understand how he caught the zeitgeist so quickly and so perfectly. I'm in his debt, and in awe.; 1/9/11, 9:47 PM
Ann Althouse said...: ""Apparently Bob Brady is attempting to ban bullseyes and targets from political maps""

What about Target, the store? How is that acceptable anymore?; 1/9/11, 9:48 PM
Rialby said...: After I wrote that - put the nuts back in the can - I thought, I cannot have been the first one to write that. Someone else must have said that about the severely mentally ill before.

1) I'm not the first one
2) All other instances are of Leftists talking about religious Christians

Talk about a climate of hate.; 1/9/11, 9:49 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Glenn Reynolds is getting a little crazy here. The phrase "blood libel" is loaded and well understood by those who have heard it, and does not compare well to the simple-minded claptrap that Paul Krugman and his fellow travelers have spewed about how complaining about Obama leads to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. One of these two lies describes politicos being perhaps too metaphorical in their disagreements on policies. The other describes Jews killing children for religious rituals. Wait, let's see...I'm really finding it difficult to distinguish between the two!

GR is merely cheapening the term "blood libel". It's a corollary of Godwin's Law.; 1/9/11, 9:53 PM
Chef Mojo said...: The real culprit for this crime and others - deinstitutionalisation.

Bingo!; 1/9/11, 9:54 PM
D.D. Driver said...: People: We need to tone down the rhetoric or else those crazy, right wing bigots are going to shoot everyone!; 1/9/11, 9:56 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "What about Target, the store? How is that acceptable anymore?"

Duh.

As long as you pronounce it 'Tarjay,' it's still ok.; 1/9/11, 10:03 PM
jayne_cobb said...: "As long as you pronounce it 'Tarjay,' it's still ok."

That had better be a soft "J" in there or there's going to be some angry rhetoric.; 1/9/11, 10:12 PM
Trooper York said...: If they really want to cut down on the number of spree killings they should just shut down the post offices.; 1/9/11, 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: That will never happen, so the question--whatever its point may be--is moot.

Kookie, since you are a reliable gauge of absolute incompetence in all things political, and completely out of touch with everything American, these words, I guarantee you these words will come back to haunt you.

I think we can guarantee that Palin will one day be President. You are the gold standard of error.; 1/9/11, 10:37 PM
AST said...: The NYTimes blames it on the state of Arizona. I guess they don't have shootings in NYC.; 1/9/11, 10:40 PM
Anonymous said...: The wildest, most irresponsible editorial appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times:

We can’t say we weren’t warned about shooting

Who was it that should have been warned>

Overwhelmingly today, the fear-mongering and demonizing flow from the right, aided and abetted by cable TV and talk-radio hosts. They may represent only the irresponsible fringe of conservatism in America, but they are drowning out the thoughtful voices of the vast majority of conservatives.

I'm sure that the Sun-Times is very concerned with the "vast majority of conservatives."; 1/9/11, 10:48 PM
Ralph L said...: Tonight, NBC News reported the shooter had connections with "far right groups" but gave no specifics nor mentioned his known political leaning in 2007.; 1/9/11, 10:53 PM
Mikio said...: Reynolds left out in typical right-wing oversimplified black & white fashion a third viable in-between option:

(c) asserting that it's not known now or possibly ever there's a connection between the Palin/conservative/Tea Party gun related rhetorical attacks and this shooting, but that it's plausible it did play a role and it's worth talking about and not letting people like him weasel out claiming it's off the table; 1/9/11, 10:54 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Ralph,

Fox had a leaked memo that tied the guy to the American Renaissance.; 1/9/11, 10:55 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Though, I just googled it and I landed on a white supremacist site (called: white reference) that said the Fox claim was hyped. I wouldn't trust either source. So, who knows.; 1/9/11, 11:00 PM
Irene said...: "What about Target, the store? How is that acceptable anymore?"

On Thursday, people notice that Target, like Starbuck's had changed its logo by dropping the Text.

Less acceptable. Timing.; 1/9/11, 11:03 PM
shana said...: Mikio, there's a fourth option: the violent rhetoric of Democratic politicians and the progressive commentariat may have led to this incident, which is equally as plausible as your notion and equally worth discussing.; 1/9/11, 11:09 PM
Beth said...: What about Target, the store? How is that acceptable anymore?

Only until someone goes off in public with a bow and arrows.; 1/9/11, 11:17 PM
Fen said...: Exactly Shana. If the shooter were Muslim, the Left would be all about "root causes" and "why do they hate us so?" and "little eichmanns had it coming"; 1/9/11, 11:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Reynolds argument is weird.

It consists of an explicit argument that the media jumped to conclusions, which my own personal experience is duh, followed by, that's been pretty much walked back, and a vague impression that if the media was right all along, than Reynolds might be okay with free speech restraints.

If it turns out that Loughner was motivated by Palin, the implication of Reynolds argument is that Reynolds will have to agree to limits on free speech.

And if not Palin, then if he was motivated by any group's speech, right, left or center, then the implication is the same.

If he doesn't feel that way, than I think in this op-ed he should've made the positive case as to why Palin's speech, or any other group's speech, is either not incendiary not inflamatory not inciting or a necessary evil of free speech.

Personally, I think Ann, a more interesting post would examine Tammy Bruce's nonsense that the famous Palin map is marked with surveyor's marks and not crosshairs and bullseyes.

If you want to be a free speech proponent, then call them what they obviously are, crosshairs and bullseyes and explain why you think that's fine.

Pretending that most people would understand those marks as surveyors marks is beneath you, Ann.; 1/9/11, 11:26 PM
Mikio said...: ADDED: Remember when liberal NYT columnist Charles Blow said this about Sarah Palin: "She’s like the ominous blob in the horror films: the more you shoot at it, the bigger and stronger it becomes."

Conservatives & libertarians spend 99.9999% of the time accusing us liberals of being 2nd amendment hating, anti-gun wusses and then when there's a shooting, suddenly we’re gun lovers too (or at least no longer anti-gun). How convenient.

And so whatever gun related comments of ours they can find where we, say, compared Sarah Palin to a B-movie horror blob suddenly somehow carries equivalent seriousness to their gun related rhetoric.

Nice try, but not equivalent whatsoever.; 1/9/11, 11:36 PM
Revenant said...: and then when there's a shooting, suddenly we’re gun lovers too (or at least no longer anti-gun). How convenient.

Most of the handgun homicides in America are carried out by Democrats.; 1/9/11, 11:55 PM
Penny said...: "Most of the handgun homicides in America are carried out by Democrats."

And you know they are registered voters because...?; 1/10/11, 12:00 AM
DADvocate said...: Most of the handgun homicides in America are carried out by Democrats.

For obviously politically incorrect reason, that statement is probably correct.; 1/10/11, 12:16 AM
Revenant said...: And you know they are registered voters because...?

I don't, nor did I say I did.; 1/10/11, 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vll-t0H6A

On the Mindless Menace of Violence
City Club of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio
April 5, 1968

Robert F. Kennedy

This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity, my only event of today, to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

...; 1/10/11, 12:38 AM
Alex said...: 27183 - talk about an imaginative troll name. Let me guess that took all of 3 seconds to think up?; 1/10/11, 12:46 AM
LoafingOaf said...: I realize Althouse's blog is often at the service of InstaPundit (and she makes money off this relationship). And, more generally, that the blog has become a tool of the Tea Party movement.

I also realize that, since Althouse has been arguing for a long time that all worries about violent and/or hateful stuff spewed by the Tea Partiers is part of a smear campaign against the Tea Partiers, she will be amongst the slowest to admit those worries have ever had any validity at all. Actually, it would take a lot more violence for her to ever admit there's a problem going on at all.

But can it really be "ridiculous" and "despicable" to discuss the issue in the wake of this horrific shooting when the target of the shooting herself, Congresswoman Giffords, was asked how afraid she was of being violently attacked at the time Sarah Palin and company started putting their gunsights on her?

For example, view this YouTube: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs

Whether or not Althouse has any legitimate points to make on this subject, for her to call all the folks she is disagreeing with on this matter "ridiculous" and "despicable" when most of them are merely pointing out that it is disturbing these concerns about Congresswoman Giffords and others in relation to Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin were brought up well before the actual shooting and maybe we should have a conversation about it, is extremely ridiculous and despicable on the part of the Tea Party blogger.

Perhaps it also reveals a Tea Party blogger pushing back a little too hard because she she is afraid that concerns about Tea Party rhetoric had some valdity after all, and she was too caught up in that political movement to notice it, and she would rather continue to pretend it's all been a lefty lie.; 1/10/11, 2:37 AM
Opus One Media said...: Well that clears it up.

Reading Mr. Reynolds indicates to me that Ms. Palin contributes nothing to the "national debate and climate of debate".

Thank you very much.; 1/10/11, 2:52 AM
Revenant said...: I see Oaf's still trying to push the "Palin caused the shooting" meme.

It doesn't seem to be catching on in the press, though.; 1/10/11, 4:18 AM
DaveW said...: I think immediately after the shooting it was more understandable that people were ranting about Palin since her targeted district map included Giffords' district. After all the examples of Dems using the same or similar graphics came out it became fundamentally dishonest, especially with this nut's writings demonstrating he's not a right leaning type guy.

At this point for people to keep beating that drum makes them liars and the worst sort of political ghouls.; 1/10/11, 4:38 AM
rhhardin said...: Climate change of hate.

Global warming is doing it.; 1/10/11, 4:56 AM
rhhardin said...: "Ironically, Christina was born on 9/11 2001, amid another climate of hate.." - Huckabee morning update

Nothing is overlooked in pandering deep thoughts to eager soap audiences.

Or look at the current memeorandum front page for the thousand mindless deep opinions.

Now we have a national moment of silence scheduled.

This is national playing house.

I would not go with this or that being reprehensible, but with being unserious.

Bad things happen when unserious takes over all the terrain.; 1/10/11, 5:02 AM
Ipso Fatso said...: Something tells me that if the victim in this case was a conservative Republican Congressman, we would not be hearing anything about over the top rhetoric or watching the MSM try to tie the actions of the gunman to the SPLC or other left wing groups.; 1/10/11, 5:23 AM
Anonymous said...: did hear David Gergen today recommend that other CNN pundits tamp down their speculation about this having to do with teaparties or Sarah Palin.

Yeah, he was saying it while a political reporter was practically shouting "Palin cross-hairs map"

So informative, that CNN.; 1/10/11, 6:18 AM
Anonymous said...: But can it really be "ridiculous" and "despicable" to discuss the issue in the wake of this horrific shooting when the target of the shooting herself, Congresswoman Giffords, was asked how afraid she was of being violently attacked at the time Sarah Palin and company started putting their gunsights on her?

Hysterical.

Alternatively, one can see that wasn't a serious question.

Further, the number of violent incidents perpetrated by Tea Partiers remains at zero.

You are a bad parody.; 1/10/11, 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Mikio said...
(c) asserting that it's not known now or possibly ever there's a connection between the Palin/conservative/Tea Party gun related rhetorical attacks and this shooting, but that it's plausible it did play a role and it's worth talking about and not letting people like him weasel out claiming it's off the table

I love watching you ignorants in action.

Note how it is always "plausable" and "worth talking about" when it smears your opponents.

No mention by you of the fact the shooter was described as a leftist.

You are pathetic.; 1/10/11, 6:23 AM
Crimso said...: "and then when there's a shooting, suddenly we’re gun lovers too"

That's just silly. I don't expect people of your apparent political leaning (safe to assume you're neither conservative nor libertarian?) to resort to guns. I expect them to get in people's faces and punch back twice as hard.; 1/10/11, 7:10 AM
D.D. Driver said...: Oaf: We had that psycho lefty professor in Huntsville go on a rampage last year. Then that lefty nut at the Discovery Channel that wanted to liberate all the fluffy bunnies. Now this guy in Arizona is shaping up to be Satanic, leftwing, pothead. If I were an asshole I would say we need to "have a conservation" about violent leftwing politics.

But I won't because the last thing I need is to be forced into another stupid conversation.; 1/10/11, 7:20 AM
virgil xenophon said...: Loughner's statement: "What is government if words have no meaning" is not as crazy as it sounds. Have we not been held in the throes of the "deconstructionist," post-modern" "critical thinking" movement for the past quarter century in the halls of academe? Where one can "un-pack" an authors writing and attribute to it pretty much any meaning the reader wishes?
And has not the SCOTUS and advocates of the "living constitution" twisted and distorted many parts of the constitution (and therefore our laws) all out of recognition? (think commerce clause and necessary & proper clause) via usage of concepts like "penumbras" and words like "emanations?"

I'd say our man, like many crazies and idiot savants alike, was, on this score at least, tracking a more subtle spoor than many are willing to admit. This is why he had listed as one of his favorite books "Alice in Wonder-land." where the Red Queen decides on exactly what words mean according to her whims. Is this any different than the EPA arbitrarily deciding Co2--which is vital to all living things and which each of us exhale with every breath, a "pollutant?" Or despite Congressional laws against, and court decisions stating the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet,the FCC proceeds to do so anyway by bureaucratic Kafka-esque fiat claiming the very laws Congress says inhibit them instead, contrary-wise give them permission & authority. After that, what good is electing representatives and writing laws if bureaucrats decide they are empty vessels devoid of meaning into which they can pour their own? Seen in this light can we indeed have a "government" if "words" are infinitely malleable?

This guy may be insane--but just maybe not crazy..; 1/10/11, 7:22 AM
HipsterVacuum said...: "It is plausible and should not be taken off the table..."

Translation: I really really really want it so so so bad to fit my premature assumptions about this tragic event so that it confirms my sanctimonious political views.

Every option needs to be considered as long as it fits into the narrow minded paradigm of juvenile lefty tantrum throwers. Why not just come right out and say, "Oh please let this guy be a tea bagging right wing Palin loving nut so I can celebrate with glee my alleged concern and outrage on the internet." Hey Mikio, do something useful with your life and gain some depth to your soul, you cretin.; 1/10/11, 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sarah Palin is practically an accomplice to this murder. Her original "crosshairs" ad had 20 targets. 18 of them either resigned or lost election.

Two were left and one of them was Giffords.

Many people pointed out the ad as being particularly violent and dangerous. And Palin laughed it off.

Sorry - but Palin is laughing about this incident now. As his Glenn Reynolds I might add. After all, the Democrats are attacking their "freedom".

But I suspect that none of you will be truly happy until you get your real target. Sickening.; 1/10/11, 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: And I love how Ann thinks that it's great for Presidential candidates to publish ads that call for the murder of elected officials.

But when people condemn those ads for (rightly I might ad) suggesting that it might lead to violence - well Ann thinks that kind of speech needs to be stopped.

And she calls herself a law professor?; 1/10/11, 8:17 AM
Sprezzatura said...: "well Ann thinks that kind of speech needs to be stopped."

She's probably warming up so that she'll be ready to be BHTV's favorite Palin apologist, again.; 1/10/11, 8:45 AM
Widmerpool said...: Wow DTL.

So brave. Speaking truth to power and all that.

Gets the compadres stiff as tire irons, I'd imagine.; 1/10/11, 8:46 AM
jayne_cobb said...: Oh look, Deetle has shown up to accuse everyone he disagrees with of supporting murder and make a "you a law prof." comment.

All we need is for him to make a Nazi comparison and I think this topic will officially be over.; 1/10/11, 8:47 AM
tree hugging sister said...: If I may, let me just quote from my post last night...

"NBC’s Lester Holt also made sure he spent tonight’s Weekend News telling us the kid reportedly had association with “right wing extremist” groups and then exclusively used footage of Tea Party events to illustrate extremist rhetoric for that segment of the broadcast."

We have no way to balance the message that actually gets out. Holt can speak with impunity ~ just a line tossed out and nary a single fact to back it up ~ and there's no counter balance for the lie. And there it hangs as a "truth", forevermore.

It's sickening.; 1/10/11, 8:48 AM
Rialby said...: So, the Democrats hope to use this to knock Sarah Palin off the political map. That's fine. Go ahead. The candidate that comes up behind her will DEFINITELY have a better chance of beating your beloved BHO.

Bye bye Sarah, hello President Mitch Daniels.

Wv: harkin. If memory serves me correctly that might refer to the fake war hero Senator from the Hawkeye State.; 1/10/11, 8:53 AM
Rialby said...: Let me just revisit the theme I tried to kick off last night -

Why are we not talking about the real problem here? We have KNOWN crazy people who should be put away but we refuse to. Go read the blog/diary entries of the woman who was in his CC class. She was afraid this whacko was going to come to class with a weapon.

In the old days, they would have come to take him away in a straight-jacket. Thanks to Ken Kesey and his Boomer acolytes, we've decided that all nut jobs are full of wisdom. NO THEY ARE NUTS.; 1/10/11, 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sarah Palin is practically an accomplice to this murder. Her original "crosshairs" ad had 20 targets.

Laugh out lound funny.

This shooter is a liberal. He believes 9/11 is an inside job and he got that idea by watching Fahrenheit 9-11. Michael Moore made that movie and after that movie he sat in a box at the DNC with Jimmy Carter.

Therefore Jimmy Carter has blood on his hands for this.

Also, the Daily Kos put a "bullseye" on Giffords and had a diary saying "My Congresswoman is DEAD to me." Said Congresswoman was giffords.

When will liberals stop perpetrating violence on their poltical adversaries?; 1/10/11, 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: it's great for Presidential candidates to publish ads that call for the murder of elected officials.

Too bad no such ads were ever made.

You do have a spittle flecked meme going, however.; 1/10/11, 9:00 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Many examples of left-wing hatred:

http://tinyurl.com/2aucavx; 1/10/11, 9:04 AM
jerryofva said...: Downtownlad:

Did you know that Markos Moulitsas also had Congresswomen Giffords in the "crosshairs" during the 2010 primary season? She was blue dog who just voted against Pelosi.

Did you know that Loughner has been ided as a Daily Kos poster?

Didn't think so.

Jared Loughner is a character right out of Dostoyevsky driven to madness by the kind of people that Solzhenitsyn ridiculed in the 1970s. He is product of post-modern nihilism reinforced by the drug culture.; 1/10/11, 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: The ad absolutely was a call for those Congressmen to be murdered. What the hell do you think "Don't retreat, RELOAD" meant?

Even Giffords herself expressed concern about the ad.

And you all laughed at her when she raised that concern.

And now you're all laughing at her now that she has a bullet through her head.

And you're all so proud that a Teatard lunatic is able to buy a semi-automatic at WalMart - no questions asked.

America #1! Fuck yeah!; 1/10/11, 9:11 AM
Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...: Looks like we've got a combination of "vicious lie" and "contemptible" here, ladies and gents.; 1/10/11, 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no evidence that he was a dailykos poster. Why do Republicans always lie?

All I know is that Sarah Palin had an ad with 20 crosshair targets. It was pointed out to her that it was in bad taste and should be taken down, less people resort to violence and her response was "Don't retreat, RELOAD!"

One of those concerned was Congressman Gifford.

And no one of those targets has a bullet in her head.

THOSE are facts my friend.; 1/10/11, 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: This is what is even more disgusting. If Sarah Palin were to repost her ad, this time with only one target remaining (the rest are no longer in office - well unless you count Gifford who's pretty much down for the count) and Sarah Palin were to say "RELOAD AGAIN! - ONLY ONE LEFT!", we know that Ann Althouse would be saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. in fact the ad is commendable, an ad to be lauded, a true expression of free speech.

And those that called that ad dangerous and disgusting would be attacked by Ann Althouse.

Just sayin. . .; 1/10/11, 9:21 AM
X said...: why is dtl expressing an opinion? did this have a NYC connection?; 1/10/11, 9:23 AM
Phil 314 said...: The real culprit for this crime and others - deinstitutionalisation.

Bingo!

He was never in an institution. And though he was banned from Pima Community College until he had proof of having received mental health, thus far there's been no evidence that he then or ever was in mental health treatment.

Are you suggesting some force actively surveil the populace for mental illness and incarcerate?; 1/10/11, 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no evidence that he was a dailykos poster.

Um, nobody said he was.

But given that he is a liberal, it is likely he read the Daily Kos.

And then took action.; 1/10/11, 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: The ad absolutely was a call for those Congressmen to be murdered.

Yes, and I guess that's why the FBI, DHS, and any other federal agency didn't react.

Your hysteria is pathetic.; 1/10/11, 9:25 AM
Phil 314 said...: Most of the handgun homicides in America are carried out by Democrats.

This catharsis process is working well!; 1/10/11, 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: All I know is that Sarah Palin had an ad with 20 crosshair targets.

All I know is the Daily Kos had Giffords on a "bullseye" list.

And now you're all laughing at her now that she has a bullet through her head.

Yeah, we're just all here laughing it up don't you know...; 1/10/11, 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: The ad absolutely was a call for those Congressmen to be murdered.

And yet nobody but you is asserting this.

And yet there is no evidence this shooter ever saw such an ad or was affiliated with the Tea Party.

And yet the number of violent incidents perpetrated by Tea Partiers remains at zero.; 1/10/11, 9:29 AM
Rialby said...: "Are you suggesting some force actively surveil the populace for mental illness and incarcerate?"

No, that's what you and I and the members of his college class are for. And THEY already did the surveillance. They already reported him. There was no additional government agency required. The men in white coats should have taken him in and put him in a rubber room.; 1/10/11, 9:46 AM
jerryofva said...: Downtown:

Do you deny that Moulitsas target her? Perhaps you should look here:

http://patterico.com/2011/01/08/markos-blames-palin-for-giffords-shooting-but-theres-just-one-problem-daily-kos-put-a-bulls-eye-on-giffords-too/; 1/10/11, 9:48 AM
Jenner said...: "All you people blaming Palin are really making me MAD. I feel like you are inciting me to violence. You better stop it, or you're going to be responsible for my actions."

How you like them apples?

How about a little personal responsibility here?; 1/10/11, 10:52 AM
Jenner said...: I just cannot believe anyone HONESTLY thinks crosshairs and targets MEAN "go kill these people." Therefore, these people are dishonest and only using this for political purposes. Disgusting.; 1/10/11, 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/10/11, 12:12 PM
Gene said...: And you know they are registered voters because...?

Liberal activists tell us so. They complain that depriving ex-cons of the vote reduces black influence in the political process.; 1/10/11, 3:14 PM
MDIJim said...: Let me stipulate that I am no fan of Sarah Palin. Here is what happened.

There is no question that Sarah Palin drives liberals and the media bat shit crazy. The evidence seems to be the young Jed was a leftist in 2007. In 2008 Sarah Palin is presented to the public as his running mate by Arizona's senator. From then on liberals and the media go nuts whenever she is mentioned or says something.

Therefor, Sarah Palin drove this nice young man crazy and directed him to assasinate Rep Gibbons.

If you don't believe that, you are a right-wing kook.; 1/10/11, 3:31 PM
furious_a said...: Andrew Sullivan has finally found a new schtick -- obsessing about Sarah Palin's contribution to the level of poltical vitriol rather than about her reproductive system.

Just as silly, but not as icky.

Oh, and turns out Jared Loughner was a 9-11 Truther...right up there with skulls and shrivelled oranges in the Tea Party manifesto.; 1/10/11, 3:45 PM
furious_a said...: I just cannot believe anyone HONESTLY thinks crosshairs and targets MEAN "go kill these people."

The same sort of people who think Tolkein's depictions of Orcs were racist.

I believe the Guardian has weighed in, as well, with their own
uninformed speculations as to the root cause(s) of the Tucson shooting.; 1/10/11, 3:53 PM