UPDATED: Palin talks "accountability," doesn't take any
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
UPDATED: Palin talks "accountability," doesn't take any
It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
Sarah Palin is a Daisy Buchanan for our time -- a careless person, indeed, who tosses around words or images with nary a thought as to their effect, before she retreats back into her money or vast carelessness or whatever. Her ill-timed and ill-conceived statement of resentment and self-pity -- on a day of national mourning for the victims of the massacre in Tucson, has accomplished its mission of calling attention to herself, particularly with her appallingly careless (how else to describe it?) use of the phrase "blood libel" to describe critics who have stated that her use of gun imagery and violence-tinged rhetoric had something to do with Jared Lee Loughner's insane actions.
The phrase "blood libel" has a long history and context in society's struggle against anti-Semitism which makes it a stunningly inappropriate use of language -- in addition to the loaded history, it is such a divisive term that elevates her alleged persecution in the media to the level of the murder of six people, including a 9-year-old girl, and that is simply unfathomable.
But I think there's something else. The perhaps predictable brouhaha over "blood libel" obscures the much broader -- and to my mind much more serious -- flaws in Palin's seven-minute speech, read from a Teleprompter, her first public comment or appearance since the tragedy in Tucson. The ex-half-term Alaska governor's talk touched greatly on the main conservative talking point since the events of 1/8/11, that the killings weren't about society or our national rhetoric but merely about the one unhinged person who did it.
In other words....personal responsibility.
Here is a key passage of Palin's talk:
President Reagan said, “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.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
Let's take a step back and remember the context here -- exactly why America was even interested in hearing from Sarah Palin at all this week. It was Palin's political committee that last March released a map of the districts that it was targeting -- including that of Tucson shooting victim Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- by using the image of rifle crosshairs. I don't know of any other map like that one, from other Republicans or from Democrats, and so when Palin talks of "maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle," I have no idea what she is talking about. If she is aware of a similar map to her rifle crosshairs map, she should produce it. If there is no other map, then we should call this what it is. Lying.
UPDATE: Apparently, as others have told me, Palin is referring to a 2004 mailer from the Democratic Leadership Committee. Fair enough. It's wrong for the DLC to use violent imagery, just as it's wrong for Sarah Palin's PAC. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What's more, Palin has long reveled in violent imagery, whether it's the multiple images of her wielding a gun (such as at top of this blog post, from her "reality" show) or her comment made on more than one occasion that conservatives -- in the face of their political losses in the late 2000s -- need not to "retreat, instead reload."
Ironically, Palin could have retaken the high ground this morning. For one thing, there's no evidence that the gunman Loughner even knew who Sarah Palin was, let alone had any awareness of the crosshairs map that featured Giffords (whom he'd been paying attention to since 2007, or before Palin became a national figure) or the other extreme statements that Palin has made. It is certainly right for Palin and her supporters (and her detractors, like me) to point that out.
That said, many public figures on the right and the left have taken the Tucson shooting as a time to reflect on their own words and actions, regardless of what can or cannot be learned about how public discourse influenced Loughner. A high-profile example of that has been a liberal commentator, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who reflected on his own contributions to the national dialogue on the night of the shootings and scrapped his feature called "the Worst Persons in the World." This was a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin to state something along the lines of, "Ya know, I had nothing to do with what happened in Tucson, but I've nonetheless taken some time to reflect on the words and images I use. I hate violence. I hate war (those last two sentences are what she purportedly said to Glenn Beck in an email) and so when I fight for my bedrock conservative values -- as I will -- I'm going to be extra careful that I don't glorify violence or war. And to the extent that I have in the past, I am truly sorry."
In other words, to stop being so careless.
To, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
To take personal responsibility for her past words.
But Sarah Palin didn't do that. Instead, she doubled down on the victim card today, using unnecessarily inflammatory language to do so, and she dishonored not only herself but the real victims of the tragedy in Tucson and her fellow citizens who are trying today to mourn and process that loss. The only solace is that I believe more people are starting to realize what should have been apparent from Day One, that Sarah Palin is a careless person who continues to smash up things and creatures.
Comments (221)
Comment removed.
pds— rysagr
Palin responds to the left's accusation that she is the trigger for a lunatics shooting rampage, an accusation that has no basis in fact, and you call it "ill-timed", "ill-conceived", and "appallingly careless". I don't even know what to say to that.— jmc- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- If you are talking about her map with the rifle crosshairs, it's still on her Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=373854973434 — redshoes
- Comment removed.
- Will would have us believe that Olbermann is going to tone it down. Is he shortening his show to 3 minutes? All he has are attacks, it's not like your ever going to get insightful political analysis from him. He doesn't seem too bright. Why don't you mention how Jon Stewart, the Edward R. Murrow of our generation, refuted everything the left's been dishing out over the last few days. Did you have to take Jon's picture down from your office wall, Will?— jmc
Good ol Will. Uses a word like "crusade" to refer to what he wants to do in the wake of the Tuscon massacre. The Crusades, you will recall, resulted in untold thousands of Jews murdered and Jewish towns destroyed. He points out the history of "blood libel," but takes no responsibility for using violent, anti-Semitic imagery and rhetoric himself. Why am I not surprised?- Comment removed.
- "If she is aware of a similar map to her rifle crosshairs map, she should produce it. If there is no other map, then we should call this what it is. Lying." Will, you really are a lazy sack. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser. Either way, here's your maps. http://rightlinksblog.com/2011/01/11/recent-comments-o-exploiting-on-memo-to-paul-krugman-and-rep-van-o-sarah-palins-on-memo-to-paul-krugman-and-rep-van-o-i-don%e2%80%99t-on-why-that-dlc/ And here's your Barry Mitchell ad using crosshairs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA— RG
- Will Mr. Bunch's apology and retraction maintain the original text with a strikethrough, or will he just delete that portion of his disgusting rant? Or will he pretend that his ignorant question remains unanswered?
— Mr. Smith - Comment removed.
- I love the dislike, of course the truth is hard to like when it conflicts with your preconceived notions. — RG
- Comment removed.
- And if your mother - Ms Palin? - uses a loaded expression "blood libel" then people like you immediately pick it up and parrot the words as though they were part of your vocabulary - yesterday.
Try this on for size:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson - Funny, I didn't hear Bunch complain when Obama said in Philly during his 08 campaign, "If they bring their knives, we'll bring our guns". Bunch is using this tragic event for political gain. Who is the one that needs to look in the mirror for personal responsibility?— awl
- Maybe if the liberal press and liberal bloggers like Will keep continuing to promote a lie by connecting Palin and the Tea Party and conservative radio to all this, then the public will eventually believe them. Palin had nothing to do with this shooting at all and she was well within her right to fire back at critics. The more I see the vitriol directed at her, the more I realize how powerful a force this woman has become and she may well have a shot at the presidential nomination. The liberals are doing everything in their power to control the narrative and it is failing miserably.— MattPSU
- Comment removed.
- The government is your enemy, liberals are traitors, health insurance for all is tyranny, Obama is a marxist or a muslim or a socialist or born in kenya or all of them, democrats are going to take your freedom or your guns or both, we need more assault weapons and everyone should be able to buy a gun easily and carry concealed without a permit. None of this has anything to do with 1/8/11. That was just another bad apple, lone wolf, deranged individual and the next one will be too.— brs50
- What do you suppose was the FIRST THING that Will googled after hearing the news that Congresswoman Giffords had been shot?— Mr. Smith
- Comment removed.
- Glenn Beck, Gabrielle Giffords — Mr. Smith
- ///she dishonored not only herself but the real victims of the tragedy in Tucson and her fellow citizens who are trying today to mourn and process that loss.///
Well now, I doubt we will ever have a better example of hypocrisy than this one. - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- What a crock of PC nonsense. Political parties have "targeted" specific opponents for as long as I can remember, and I've been voting for several decades. Has the rhetoric become disgusting over the past few years? Yes. The left was way off-the-wall during the Bush years. Perhaps I'm just more discerning than some -- I have little interest in what Sarah, Glenn, or Keith have to say.— Don M
- Comment removed.
- I don't know that Palin's anymore careless than others who have a singleminded focus on their industry that's proving lucrative. I do question how or even if she's planning on broadening her appeal to a wider audience. This self pity fest probably plays well to her devotees (there's really an almost cult like dynamic here) but it's going to be very hard to play this down to those outside her fan bubble because the bottom line is she is NOT a primary victim here.— GreyHippie
- In fact, she had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. Which is why it's mindboggling that the unified left has made the shooting about her. — Mr. Smith
- Have they blamed her? No. Have they pointed out the one of the real victims represented a district that was included in the crosshair map? Yes, and that was Palin's PACs map. She had the choice of expressing a wish that the map didn't exist or was graphicly presented in another way but she chose instead to double down with the victim card. As I said, that will probably play well with her fans but not so well with the rest of us — GreyHippie
- What's mindboggling is the repeated mantra from righties that this has somehow become "about her" due to left wing media. SHE made it about her like she ALWAYS does. Her hateful rhetoric was used as an example AMONG MANY OTHERS — amg
- Comment removed.
- But the crosshair map did exist and someone later put one of those targets in his real crosshairs(what would be a proper analogy for the rape charge that I hosted pool patrys for young boys who were later victimized?). She could have shown empathy for the real victims instead of focusing on her own sense of victimization. — GreyHippie
- Bunch's motto: Why let the truth ruin a good story.— palmyra21
- Palin is not a leader. Palin is all about money. Period. The nonsense that comes out of her mouth why do people listen. Palin is not responsible for the shootings but she is responsible for what she says and puts on websites. She did put the crosshairs on the map and said "don't retreat, reload".What does that mean ? I guess good old Sarah explained it all in her 8 minute web posting. "Ya betcha"— Jeff C.
- Quite a sloppy column, even by Will's standards. Oh, and Alan Dershowitz has no problem with Palin's use of "blood libel" and thinks it was a perfectly appropriate use of the phrase. I think he's got just a bit more cred on this than Bunch.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/— billyo516 - You Will, and your cohorts in the media, are unbelievably despicable people. The firestorm of of blame touched off less than an hour after the shooting by liberal pundits was America at its absolute worst. Naked political opportunism, grotesque lies, and a complete lack of respect. It is, in a word, disgusting. As a regular NYT reader, I am obvioulsy used to left wing bias and dishonest punditry. But this episode makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. The last few days have shined a light on the liberal though leaders, and its not pretty. Downright atrocious behavior. Truly the act of the lowest form of scum.— tjm333126
- many of these responses are as disjointed in their logic as some of the mentioned quotes. it seems the point of the original blog was lost-that one should take responsibility for creating a hostile atmosphere. instead it became a forum for the same self pitying that was noted to begin with. it seems ironic that many of the response comments are of the same type that the original blog shunned.— yantastic
Sometimes it's enough just to shut up and let the Rs talk. Like Palin, they disgrace themselves without even knowing it just by opening their mouths.— Hamlet- Has any evidence that the shooter followed Sarah Palin or what she spoke about been produced yet? Did he offer anywhere that he took this action because of something Sarah Palin said or did? If not, the media has been premature in blaming her for the horrible act that took place in AZ. Will, you would be part of that group. Let's face it though, there's nothing she could have said that you would have liked.— kmon
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I am not a fan of Palin's. I am a conservative. She is unelectable, and would be bad for the country. She is a media created tool, like Obama. She quit in Alaska when things got tough. That being said, the facts are making the left look like crass opportunists here. AS more information comes out, the worse Will and his compatriots look.— freak
- She has no accountability for what happened, any more than Olbermann, Chris Matthews, (insert any D name here). I guess that Will's posts about Glenn Beck contained no heated rhetoric? C'mon people!— Bush3
she is a firecracker....— dexter55- The best of the scores of pieces I've read on this topic; thank you!— Moi
- ===]]] Sometimes it's enough just to shut up and let the Rs talk. [[[===
Bingo. The spittle-flecked hatred flung Will's way - because he had the audacity to express his opinion - speaks for itself.
Just sit back and read the kind of comments written by those who are compelled to defensively react to criticisms of a politician who carelessly (giving her speech writers the benefit of the doubt) uses inflammatory language and who deliberately uses violent imagery, and provocative and vitriolic rhetoric to garner support from extremists.
— Talking point sleuth - This comment has been deleted. — Mr. Smith
- "To take personal responsibility for her past words" Sorta like how you took responsibility for blaming the census workers suicide on others?— RG
- WILL - The DLC (Democratic Leadershop Council) published a similar map in 2008 with rifle crosshairs. Palin was not lying, you just did not do your research. Please edit your "careless" column to reflect this fact.— kmjm22
- He won't. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. The DCCC also used the imagery. And an AZ Dem, that Will actually quoted, ran an ad with his opponent in the cross hairs. — RG
- Comment removed.
- Can you post a link? I haven't seen one with rifle crosshairs; targets yes, but not crosshairs. — GreyHippie
- My 3:53 post has the links. note the dislike as clearly this conflcited with someones talking points. — RG
- A serious question. Does anyone have an example of a pundit, or journalist, or politician, who actually said that Palin's use of the crosshairs, or anything else she did for that matter, "caused" the murders in AZ?
I mean there must be many examples, right? Because, you know, our beloved Attytood Republican toadies are simply "outraged" at how many times it happened.
There must be hundreds of examples.
Right?
Poor, poor Sarah. So victimized by sooooooooooooooo many journalists and pundits.
I.
Just.
Can't.
Stand.
It.
Any.
More.
It's soooooooo unfaaaaaaaaaaaiiiirrr!!!!!— Talking point sleuth - The bodies aren't even cold yet and you ghouls are using the tragedy as a stepping off point to attack Palin, despite the apparent fact that you realize nothing she said led to this tragedy. As Rahm said, why let a crisis go to waste? — RG
- ///A serious question. Does anyone have an example of a pundit, or journalist, or politician, who actually said that Palin's use of the crosshairs, or anything else she did for that matter, "caused" the murders in AZ?///
Example 1: "Shot Congresswoman Was In Sarah Palin's 'Crosshairs' Gawker.com (http://tinyurl.com/2g7r434)
Example 2: "Howard Stern blames Sarah Palin crosshairs map: 'they should lock her up"
(http://tinyurl.com/4z5bjsb)
Example 3: NBC News' Matthews Links Bachmann to Shooting
(http://tinyurl.com/45zoy75)
Example 4: Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin Innocently Implies Link between Tucson Shooting and Palin “Crosshairs” – Video 1/9/11
(http://tinyurl.com/4o7m99l)
I could keep going TPS, but you get the idea. Let me know if you need help on this Google thingy. Will can head right over to assist. - Sure did. For example, your first link in its entirety.
--snip--
Gabrielle Giffords, The Arizona congresswoman shot today outside a Tucson Safeway, was featured on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence?
Giffords, a third-term legislator, supported Obama's health care reform bill. This earned her a place on the map, posted to Takebackthe20.com by Sarah Palin's Political Action Committe, that literally put Democrats in the cross-hairs last spring after the bill passed. "Don't retreat, instead- RELOAD!" was how Palin introduced the map to her Twitter followers. Days later, a vandal smashed the glass door of Giffords' Tucson office. Giffords' father tells the New York Post that members of the Tea Party "always threatened" his daughter.
Shot Congresswoman Was In Sarah Palin's 'Crosshairs'Giffords' Tea Party opponent in the 2010 election, Jesse Kelly, went even further with the violent rhetoric. Kelly's campaign held an event called "Get on Target for Victory in November." Description: "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
There's no indication that the gunman who shot down Rep. Giffords was motivated by politics. But the Giffords shooting should at the very least underscore the fact that, as Matt Yglesias says, "gun imagery and electoral politics don't mix."
--snip--
Nowhere does anyone say that Palin was responsible for the AZ shootings. And neither do any of the other links.
C'mon, Bucky.
Give me four. That's all I'm asking for. Four examples.
Surely, you can come up with four.— Talking point sleuth - Are you even living in the same world as the rest of us? At least 4 articles in the NYT alone every day this week did exactly that.
And you seriously miss the point. Most of us are not outraged that "they did it too", but at the hypocrasy, and even more so at the fact that this is even an issue.— Mirror - One more thing - it is beyond hypocritical to suggest that Palin is using the tragedy to her benefit. SHE'S BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSSED OF BEING AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER BY THE LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS SHE SUPPOSED TO RESPOND? I personally have no interest in Sara Palin. Too much of a sideshow and too conservative for my taste. That being said, I thought her retort was appropriate (and suprisingly tempered). I know I wouldn't be nearly as mild if I had been wrongly accused of murder by a bunch of opportunists with a political axe to grind.
Krugman, the NYT editorial board, Bunch and everyone else who made these accusations should be ashamed of themselves. They've turned a true tragedy into nasty, underhanded political tactic. Shameful, filthy, disgusting, immoral behavior. Scum.— tjm333126 - Asking her to take some responsibility for and to reflect upon her constant use of violent imagery is very different than accusing her of being an accomplice to murder. I haven't and won't do the latter, but I think the former is appropriate. — GreyHippie
- And why single out Palin for this "self reflection?" Anyone who's been following this story knows that there are countless examples of violent imagery and heightened rhetoric from both sides of the isle, including from the president himself. The fantasy being pushed by liberals is that vitriol only comes from the right. This is a flat out lie. How soon we forget the derisive and violent rhetoric from the left during the Bush years?
This whole thing is travesty. If I were a true believer in leftist ideology, I'd have to think I'd be ashamed of the punditry representing me right now. It doesn;t get any lower than what we've witnessed these last few days.— tjm333126 - I don't think she should be singled out; we'd all do well to engage in some self reflection. But circumstances (ie that the Congresswoman representing a district in the crosshairs was shot) dictate that she has lead role here and she's not handling it in a way that speaks of leadership to me.
Also, I will take responsibility for what I say and do, and feel proud or ashamed as that dictates, but be ashamed of others words or actions because we share some views on policy matters? No, way beyond me.— GreyHippie - Why the heck is it her responsibility to take the lead role in something she has no connection to? Stop with the map bs, its beyond intellectually dishonest. Every midterm I hear about parties "targeting" vulnerable seats for a flip. — RG
- I said her lead role was thrust upon her by circumstances; her responsibility is to take that role and lead positively which I don't see her doing. And it isn't the targeting that's at issue; it's the use of the crosshair imagery. And part of that is that there is a record of it. Most Presidential candidates don't get questioned for weeks about their minister/priest/rabbi's sermons. But when there's a record and those comments are inflamatory then they are thrust into that role. — GreyHippie
- Comment removed.
- sigh, I inevitably disappoint. but I don't entirely disagree with your characterization of our 24/7 media gasbags as "lowlife, intellectually dishonest jackals". This was an easy angle for them because the crosshair map existed, of course they ran with it. But Palin ould have elevated the discussion to something meaningful and shown real leadership. But alas it wasn't to be. — GreyHippie
- But she IS being singled out. That's kind of the point here. Is she showing leadership? I don't know, nor do I care. I'd never vote for her anyway.
The bottom line is that the liberal talking heads and thought leaders have done a grave disservice to both the country and their ideology by leveling these grotesquely false accusations against thier ideological enemies for political gain in the (immediate) wake of such tragedy. This is the ultimate in "playing dirty." Its disheartening and disgusting. I can't even find the words to describe it.— tjm333126 - Gee, grey, I hope you ask video game makers, and action movie directors to do the same. Lest you be a phony. — RG
- I have - but they tell me that's what the buying public wants. Hard to get around that. — GreyHippie
- TPS - Do you know what the word "imply" means. I don get why you can't understand the implications journalists are making in bringing Sarah Palin's name into all of this— kmjm22
- Just when you think Will Bunch and his liberal ilk can't sink any lower...sigh..he truly is beyond the pale. I won't hold my breath waiting for apologies.— mdcd
- ===]]] TPS - Do you know what the word "imply" means. I don get why you can't understand the implications journalists are making in bringing Sarah Palin's name into all of this [[[===
kmjm, - I have heard many, many times that Palin has been accused many, many times of "causing" the AZ murders. She has been "libeled" right?
Surely, with all of those hundreds of times that pundits, journalists, and one would think Democratic politicians, said that she "caused" the AZ murders - you can provide me with, oh I don't know, at least half a dozen examples, right?
I mean clearly Sarah was very upset about being so libeled. It must have happened hundreds of times, right? Why else would she have been so upset.
I mean, she's such a tough hombre - you know, momma grizzly and all. It's not like she'd whining out of pathetic self-pity and cynical attempt to gain political advantage through victimhood, right?
There must be hundreds of examples.
I.
Just.
Can't.
Take.
The
Unfair
Treatment
Of
Our
Beloved
Sarah
Anymore!!!!!— Talking point sleuth - If there was no connection, then why the heck would Will and others be bringing her up so close to a tragedy? Crass political opportunism. — RG
- Comment removed.
- No she didn't. She put the district seat in the crosshairs. Get your facts straight. Second, that was months ago. Third, the shooters fascination with Giffords went back to 2007. The straight line is in your head. There is no connection. — RG
- Comment removed.
- So did Tim Pawlenty. What's your point?
I don't think there is anyone arguing whether it was tasteless or not. But like I've said many times before, it's a stretch to say it caused, even influenced, the shooter. There's just no evidence to back up the claim. - Say - did you boyz miss my posts?
I asked for some examples of where pundits, journalists, and/or politicians said that Palin was responsible for the AZ murders.
I mean, with the hundreds of time that it happened, the hundreds of times that she was sooooooooooooo viciously libeled by pundits, journalists, and politicians, you can give me with dozens of examples, right?
Or, maybe one dozen?
Or, maybe 1/2 dozen? Ok, let's settle at six.
Surely you can give me six examples?
Why else would you all be so outraged? Why else would she be so upset about being so viciously victimized?
IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED HUNDREDS OF TIMES. SURELY YOU CAN GIVE ME SIX EXAMPLES. IT IS UNFAIRNESS ON SUCH A MASSIVE SCALE I KNOW YOU CAN COME UP WITH SIX!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!1— Talking point sleuth - I'd prefer you answer why Sarah Palin was the topic of discussion, even though she has nothing to do with what happened in Tucson. If they weren't trying to imply that she was responsible, maybe someone can explain why they drug her name into it to begin with? — RG
- Comment removed.
- Save the fancy semantics argument ("caused"). You know damn well the left has implied that Sara Palin is the leader of the "Climate of Hate" that they claim has contributed to this tragedy. Of course, this has already been proven false, but why let the truth get in the way of a political opportunity? — tjm333126
- Comment removed.
- OK. I just gave you four. You want two more?
Example 5: "Paul Krugman Blames Giffords Shooting on Palin, Limbaugh and Beck"
(http://tinyurl.com/2wfc2bl)
Example 6, from our friends at Daily KOS: "Giffords, Loughner, Krugman, and culpability"
(http://tinyurl.com/4n77hbr)
We can keep going. - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I guess only Sarah Palin is allowed to invoke death images on other politicians: Death Panels nowhere to be found in the health care LAW (and it's going to stay that way tea baggers)— mick-of-the-moment
- I'm sorry, Bucky. You must have misunderstood my request.
I didn't ask you for links where Palin's use of crosshairs was factually reported.
I asked for examples of where pundits, journalists, or politicians said that she was responsible for the AZ shootings. You know, where she was "blood libeled."
Surely, there must be hundreds of examples. I'm only asking for six.
I mean she has been attacked sooooooooooooo viciously - blamed hundreds of times for the murders.
Please, bucky, I'm begging you. It is so important. Read what I asked for it again and put your renowned searching skills to good use.
FOR THE SAKE OF SARAH!!!!!!!!1!!!11!!!!! AND OUR COUNTRY !!!!!!11!!!!!— Talking point sleuth - palin derangement syndrome— rysagr
- I hope her next prepared statement includes the phrase "to spend more time with my family".....— SBL
- BTW - a recap of what Palin and Angle had to say today:
Vitriolic rhetoric towards libz and Dems does not increase the likelihood of violence.
Violent anti-government rhetoric does not increase the likelihood of violence.
It is only criticism of Palin and Angle that increases the likelihood of violence.
Please study that. I will be testing you all on the content with a pop quiz tomorrow.— Talking point sleuth - TPS - No one is saying Palin is responsible, so I don't know where you getting the idea that people even think to think that. What people are saying is that all these pundits, journalists are saying that her crosshairs map was "irresponsible". All i'm saying is that NO ONE KNOWS whether her map was any more responsible than a million other things that could lead to him doing this. So mentioning her name is a purely political move. Do you not agree? If not please let me know why— kmjm22
- Thank you, kmjm.
So - would you say that opining that the use of the crosshairs was irresponsible reaches the bar of being "blood libel?"
Does it match the level of victimhood that Palin is being attributed to Palin?— Talking point sleuth - Beyond that, iwhere was the outrage when Dems used similar maps and ads? Nonexistent. Instead they wait for a tragedy to drag a completed unrelated person's name in to the conversation. — RG
- ===]]] But like I've said many times before, it's a stretch to say it caused, even influenced, the shooter. [[[===
Right, bucky. I've heard that pundits, journalists, and Dem politicians have done exactly that hundreds of times.
Why hundreds of times they've said that Palin's crosshairs caused the AZ murders.
Right?
Oh, and btw, I was wondering if you could give me some examples of where they said that?
Maybe about six examples or so?
How about five. Surely you can come up with five.— Talking point sleuth - TPS keeps trying to claim the moral high ground by sticking to the word "caused."
It's a common, weak debate trait of his. If you don't find an exact sentence with that word, along with Palin and crosshairs, then it doesn't count in his world.
How weak and repetitive. You need to find another technique, TPS.
Meanwhile, there are TONS of examples who clearly say 1) government official was shot 2) right-wing rhetoric created the environment which led to it and 3) single out Palin and the famous crosshairs specifically as contributing to that environment.
Saying A causes B, and that B leads to C, is the same as saying that A leads C. - nov 6,2012 can't wait. i'll be voting for sarah palin for pres. for no other reason than to watch the left completely lose it. it will be a fun ride.— rysagr
- ===]]] So mentioning her name is a purely political move. [[[===
Her name is mentioned in the larger context that vitriolic rhetoric is destructive in the least - and potentially can contribute to violence.
We do have some examples where such rhetoric is at least arguably an influence to violent actions.
Is it political? Of course. So is her deliberate use of inflammatory imagery - arguably towards the goal of garnering support from extremists.
But let's be clear. You are stating that the claim that she has been accused of "causing" the AZ murders is only accurate in the sense of truthiness - is that right?
How would that be considered "blood libel" - a rather serious charge, don't you think?— Talking point sleuth - So Will calls her careless and thats his opinion, she says blood libel and thats a serious charge worthy of you spewing spittle all over your screen? The cognitive dissonance is stunning. — RG
- ===]]] it will be fun ride. [[[===
I agree. Watching her run for president will be absolutely hilarious. Kind of like RG's posts.
I'm already building an extra room to store all the popcorn.— Talking point sleuth - tps you know you and rg should get together and have a beer summit.— rysagr
- I'd prefer he simply explain why Palin is front and center of this discussion if she wasn't responsible or involved in any manner. — RG
- Because I don't want anyone to be caught unprepared for the quiz.
------
A recap of what Palin and Angle had to say today:
Vitriolic rhetoric towards libz and Dems does not increase the likelihood of violence.
Violent anti-government rhetoric does not increase the likelihood of violence.
IT IS ONLY THE CRITICISM OF PALIN AND ANGLE WHICH INCREASED THE LIKELIHOOD OF VIOLENCE.
Please study that. I will be testing you all on the content with a pop quiz tomorrow.— Talking point sleuth - Here's another recap: on the day of the memorial, you are more interested on focusing on what your political opponents are saying instead of the actual event. All while laughably trying to claim that you are "concerned" about rhetoric and vitriol. — RG
- palin derangement syndrome rg— rysagr
- palin derangement syndrome rg— rysagr
- palin derangement syndrome rg— rysagr
- ===]] You apparently didn't read the links, did you? [[[===
Sure did - except the broken Howard Stern link. For example, your first link in its entirety.
--snip--
Gabrielle Giffords, The Arizona congresswoman shot today outside a Tucson Safeway, was featured on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence?
Giffords, a third-term legislator, supported Obama's health care reform bill. This earned her a place on the map, posted to Takebackthe20.com by Sarah Palin's Political Action Committe, that literally put Democrats in the cross-hairs last spring after the bill passed. "Don't retreat, instead- RELOAD!" was how Palin introduced the map to her Twitter followers. Days later, a vandal smashed the glass door of Giffords' Tucson office. Giffords' father tells the New York Post that members of the Tea Party "always threatened" his daughter.
Shot Congresswoman Was In Sarah Palin's 'Crosshairs'Giffords' Tea Party opponent in the 2010 election, Jesse Kelly, went even further with the violent rhetoric. Kelly's campaign held an event called "Get on Target for Victory in November." Description: "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
There's no indication that the gunman who shot down Rep. Giffords was motivated by politics. But the Giffords shooting should at the very least underscore the fact that, as Matt Yglesias says, "gun imagery and electoral politics don't mix."
--snip--
Nowhere does anyone say that Palin was responsible for the AZ shootings. And neither do any of the other links.
C'mon, Bucky.
Give me four. That's all I'm asking for. Four examples.
Surely, you can come up with four?— Talking point sleuth - ///Nowhere does anyone say that Palin was responsible for the AZ shootings. And neither do any of the other links.///
Are you THAT DAFT? Read it again.
///Gabrielle Giffords, The Arizona congresswoman shot today outside a Tucson Safeway, was featured on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence?///
The writer is CLEARLY implying Palin as a cause. 1) Giffords was shot 2) Giffords was on Palin's Map 3) Palin's map targeted legislators who voted for healthcare 4) the map was criticized as an incitement to violence 5) the shooter committed violence.
It completes her logic circle.
If you don't see that, then you are either mentally handicapped, in which case I am sorry I keep whipping you in arguments. Or, you're just woefully ignorant. - sorry about the multiple posts a little computer glitch however let those be my next three answers. oh and by the way alan dershowitz came out today in support of sarah's blood libel usage. just saying.— rysagr
- No problem.
Say, you wouldn't happen to be birdie posting under a different name, would you?
He's been posting here for ages and still multiple-posts because of "computer glitches."
— Talking point sleuth - Too funny.
In bucky's land of partisan reasoning - the following constitutes saying that Palin "caused" the AZ shootings:
--snip--
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list. [...]
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers
--snip--
— Talking point sleuth - How feeble. So I guess Krugman was just mentioning Giffords as a "target", and then referencing Palin's "crosshairs" map, because he had to fill up another column inch, huh?
He's clearly saying that Palin's map contributed to the climate, and that the climate contributed to the shooting. But he tries to dodge the direct accusation, like Lamar Alexander did, but saying "well, we don't yet have proof..."
Yet his writing also includes this gem (odds are that it was [political]".
So that's the basis of his argument. Giffords was a target, Palin painted her as a target, and the proof is inevitable.
But sure Toothless, he's not saying she "caused" it. Whatever. Continue making yourself look like a fool, just like you did earlier when you laughingly claimed that Palin was using the phrase "blood libel" to refer directly to Giffords and not to journalists of media.
I would say that this type of ignorance is beneath you, if only for the reason that your hole of stupidity is so deep, it couldn't possibly get any deeper. But then you go and prove it is possible. Kudos. - Ok - three. I'm only asking for three.
Three examples of pundits, journalists, and politicians committing "blood libel" and falsely accusing Palin of being responsible for the AZ shooting.
I know you boyz can do it. Why there must be hundreds of examples and you all are geniuses with The Google.
— Talking point sleuth - You've been given examples. Krugman, Alexander, and several others. Heck, even Rauol can clearly see the connection (see his post in the thread). But keep trying to play games with semantics, Ta-Ta-Toothless.
- ===]]] oh and by the way alan dershowitz came out today in support of sarah's blood libel usage. just saying. [[[===
And I can give you examples of at least five Jewish advocacy organizations that disagree with Dershowitz. Just sayin'.
So - I take it you support her use of a term that describes anti-Semitic prosecution of Jews to describe the criticism of her campaign rhetoric?
See - that's EXACTLY why it's going to be hilarious to watch her run for the presidency.— Talking point sleuth - tps we are talking 3 days of ed, lawrence, chris, keith, and rachel gonna take some time be patient kick back watch some ed.— rysagr
- tps i know you really don't believe all you say. you just do it because you get such a rise out of some people and thats fine, hey it's a free country but did it ever occur to you sarah does the same to all of you on the left, just saying.— rysagr
- No doubt. Limbaugh and Beck are masters at it.
— Talking point sleuth 
Where was the outrage over this, Madame Palin? "In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country (such people as Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, George Soros, Michael Moore, Bill Moyers, and Noam Chomsky) is responsible for causing 9/11."- Aaaaiight - I'm out. But I will be checking back in later to read those three examples of where pundits, journalists, and/or Dem politicians said that Palin "caused" the AZ shootings.
I'm only asking for three boyz, and I know you're up to the task.
You can come up with three - right?
And don't forget - study for your quiz.— Talking point sleuth - the dif is we need to learn how to make a sh$%load of money off it. if i figure it out i'll let you know how.— rysagr
- go with god tps— rysagr
- Comment removed.
- Will- if you are going to discuss "accountability" and you want "credibility" and to be something other than tagged as a "left loon", why not ask the questions that really get to the issue of why this happened. Start with that Sheriff for some "accountability". I didn't even go to "J" school and I can figure that one out??!!! OK, I'm a nice person so I'll help you out. Mr. Sheriff, sir, "Why didn't you know about this guy? His schools knew, his associates knew, your officers must have known something, I mean they went to his home numberous times"?? "WHY, sir, WHY"??? or Mr. Sheriff, sir, "If you felt that, based on your words after the fact, that Gabby would be in the slightest bit of danger because of the reasons you stated (after the fact) why, WHY in the world wouldn't you have at least one.. ONE!!! officer at the event"??? Two very simple, yes, but very revealing questions that get to the heart of the matter and don't waste time on hate speech! You see Will, until you and the rest of the loons step up to the plate and ask real questions, (it's actually the media's job and they do it all the time on ..Fox LOL!!, is that why you hate them too???), you have no "credibilty" It appears that from your words you really don't care about the truth and the important reasons why this occured. Maybe if you did your job and tried to find those answers things like this, which have occured many times in the past and for many different reasons long before Palin was around, might have a chance to end once and for all. Because until you get off the Palin hate wagon people will continue to label you as anything but a "credible" journalist, perhaps you don't care or maybe that's what you want, sad!! Actually, 70% of the folks in the country already feel that way and more each day as you run down your path of idiocy with Palin. Sad, irresponsible and without a hint of "accountability" on your part.— sarah89
- rauol i'll watch it if you listen to rush's obama screwups on balance. that list is pretty amazing especially since he's the smartest guy ever.— rysagr
- Comment removed.
- you would have to join 24/7 he always plays the bamster stumbling over his words ah um ah er ah umum ah er... — rysagr
- "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.”
-- Glenn Beck, the May 17 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program— Hamlet - You want to play this game young Hamster, Uber Lefty Mike Malloy (who has serious anger management problems) talking about drowning former WH press secretary Dana Perino. Google it up champ.
- better uses for dana — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- that's pretty weak rauol — rysagr
- Rauol, to Swifty, insulting someone is the same as telling their followers to kill that person. The majority of right wingers - sane people who would never hurt anyone for their political beliefs, which is everyone on this site, except that creep that threatened Will with his Glock - wants to say that the left is doing the same thing the crazies on the right are doing, but they are clearly wrong. The violent rhetoric of the right is a threat to democracy and the sane Rs should recognize this. — Hamlet
- who threatened will? — rysagr
- has anyone here ever heard of metaphors? — rysagr
- Hamster, the guy with the Glock didn't threaten Will. Just like a silly twentysomething lib, you read things that aren't there. Will was talking about the high capacity magazines the shooter had. The posters point was that, being able to carry, he could have the same amount of ammo with the smaller magazines, obviously under a coat. And no, you probably would not know it. Get a life. You and LesIsMoron.
- ///I mean you have seen Michelle Malkin haven't you, pretty scary.///
Apparently Olbermann's e-mail about toning down the rhetoric went right to Rauol's junk folder. - Comment removed.
- Will, Will! Listen up! Have you noticed those Target stores with their bullseye logo? Are you outraged?— Falls Ed
- let's shut down target right now — rysagr
- let me run in and buy bunchs book first b4 we shut it down. oh that's right they don't carry it because it sucks lol — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- It gets worse. Target derives from Dayton's Department Store, the scion of the Dayton family being Mark Dayton, who also happens to be mentally Ill. And the Governor of Minnesotta. — Mr. Smith
- This is the saddest "memorial service" I have ever seen. With all the hooting and clapping it has all the feel of a high school pep rally.
- Comment removed.
- like the wellstone memorial — rysagr
- "Hey Bunch...I carry 46 rounds with my Glock 22 (15+1 and two 15's)....scary isnt it? I might be standing right next to you in the line at Wawa and you wouldnt even know it....have a nice day!
"— Hamlet - if someone tries to rob us i feel safer with you there. maybe bunch would give the robber a copy of his book. — rysagr
- I meant, "I put his alias in the comment" - having posting problems. And anyone who dosen't consider that a death threat must be a Tea Party Republican. — Hamlet
- what are you talking about???? — rysagr
- there is no threat in the wawa comment it just means gun owners are everywhere they don't have horns or anything — rysagr
- let's see would i rathebe standing in a wawa that's getting robbed with bunch or sarah and her ar15 let me think.hmmmmmm — rysagr
- rysagr, I take it we need to talk very slowly around you. Do you read American Sign Language? Semaphore? English doesn’t seem to be your strong point. How about Pig Latin? — Hamlet
- wow insults change we can believe in — rysagr
- so it's my fault i don't follow your, by your own admission screwed up posts ? — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- From Bob Beckel, noted liberal strategist and commentator, in today's USA Today:
"He [Krugman] suggested that certain conservative personalities were responsible for poisoning the political climate, leading to this tragedy."
But in TPS-world, this doesn't count, because Krugman didn't use the word "caused." Seriously. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up. - Comment removed.
- beckel also took credit for the dlc map with the crosshairs from severl years ago — rysagr
- ///You have gone far off the topic here, which is Sarah Palin acted inappropriate in the 2010 election cycle and then again today, by playing the victim and blaming everybody else for her bad behavior.///
Actually, Rauol, YOU'VE gone far off topic.
The TOPIC was that TPS wanted links to a pundit, journalist, or politician saying Palin caused the shooting.
Some of the links I posted were to summaries of articles, but they had links to the original source content. I made sure of this.
Try to keep up, Rauol, before hurling insults regarding staying on topic or not. - how can anyone hate bunch? he's an idiot but hate is a strong word — rysagr
- rauol i "hate" to break it to you but buck only sights usa today not any right wing link so your comment is factually wrong sorry sport — rysagr
- rauol do you like the way i slipped sight in there. that's a subtle gun ref. i know libs don't do subtle too well — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- that's why we love her — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- the one and only — rysagr
OOOOOOH well looky here Bunch is back to his usual BS blaming everything on Palin, Beck, Fox News and Conservatives in general. Well Bunch answer me this one little question, The shooter was a flag burning, aethist, devil worshiping, pot smoking marxist , WTF does he have in common with Sarah Palin, if anything he's more in tune with you and TPOS, hey Will maybe it was your violent rhetoric that tipped him over.— PAEnglish- Comment removed.
- if this is true rauol why doesn't the left love her as much as us??? — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- your problem with sarah is what? i'm missing your point — rysagr
- Comment removed.
- ===]]] i'm missing your point [[[===
Truth told, I think that Rauol's point is that he's had a few too many tonight.— Talking point sleuth - i'm with you tps — rysagr
I am still befuddled as to why the left wants to blame this horrible incident on a campaign post. The term "target" is used in sales also. Target accounts, sales targets, targeted revenue. Would it be idiotic to blame sales managers for for this vile act? Ahh, yea!By Will and the left's standard it would. Never waste a crisis. It is easy for the left to blame Palin or anybody but the "doer". Why? Because the meme for the left is that nobody is responsible for their actions.Always somebody elses fault. Bush, Pailn, Rush, Easter Bunny,Yosemitie Sam...amybody. It must be society's fault. Individual responsibility is an alien concept to them. Why not just admit that this guy was a bad seed? The answer-they can't make political hay out of it. The left LOVES victims-real or not. They will decide he is a victim. No..he is a criminal. Blame it on him. Stop scapegoating your political opponents. As for overheated rhetoric try this link:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
For you lefties with selective memory, it will be a good refresher course on hate speech.
Have a nice night!— georgel- Hmmm. The filter is acting up. Looks like I'll have to break this into multiple posts. Please bear with me, as I know you'll want to read them all.
===]]] He's clearly saying that Palin's map contributed to the climate, and that the climate contributed to the shooting. But he tries to dodge the direct accusation, like Lamar Alexander did, but saying "well, we don't yet have proof..." [[[===
Wow! You've been working on this for hours, and that's the best you can push out? Really? That's the best you can do? A statement on a blog from Krugman where he says that it's too early to say that the shooting was political?
Too funny.
(end of part 1).— Talking point sleuth - And where he says that creating a climate of hate results in violent acts -- just like Palin said today? Just like Giffords said, shortly before she was shot in the head, that vitriol has consequences?
That's seriously the best you could come up with?
I hope you didn't injure yourself pushing that one that huge hill.
Why didn't you just admit hours ago that you simply have no examples of ANY pundits, journalists, or Dem politicians guilty of "blood libel," blaming the AZ shooting on Palin or saying that she caused it, let alone dozens (as one would think with the amount of whining she did), let alone six, five, four or three as I finally asked for?
(end of part 2).— Talking point sleuth - And where he says that creating a climate of hate results in violent acts -- just like Palin said today? Just like Giffords said, shortly before she was shot in the head, that vitriol has consequences?
That's seriously the best you could come up with?
I hope you didn't injure yourself pushing that one up that huge hill.
(end of part 2).— Talking point sleuth - I will take pity on you and give you one you didn't find: Apparently Kos tweeted "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin" within an hour of the shooting.
There. That's one.
All you need to do is come up with two more and you'll have your three. Then you can begin wiping the egg off your face - because for all your ranting and raving about people saying Palin caused the shootings, you will actually have three examples if you come up with two more in addition to the one I gave you.
(end of part 3).— Talking point sleuth -