In an article appearing in “Politics Daily,” Matt Lewis is said:
First, it is sad to see folks immediately politicize such a tragedy. If your first response to such an event is to think of Sarah Palin, something is wrong.
First of all, politicizing something is when you are using an event in the news, good or bad, for the promotion of a candidate or general political point of view. I am not doing any of that. Sarah Palin could be a Democrat or a Republican, extreme right or extreme left, right up the middle, it just doesn’t matter. What matters is Ms. Palin, and many others are promoting the rhetoric of violence, and we are now seeing the fruits of that rhetoric. Many reasonable Americans expressed a particular concern over the map of the U.S. with cross hairs as seen through a rifle, supported by such rhetoric as “‘Don’t Retreat, Instead-RELOAD!’”
Mr. Lewis ends his article by saying,
To be sure, it is possible for a politician to use words to incite violence, but putting a target on a congressional district is clearly not an example of that.
Mr. Lewis, putting a target on a congressional district, with the supported rhetoric of reloading a riffle is the most clear example of that. Although I am not making statements of absolute truth, when an unstable young man such as Mr. Loughtner, who is know for his anti-government beliefs, carries out the execution of a U.S. Congresswoman who appears under the bulls eye of Sarah Palin’s map, we can at least say that this kind of rhetoric is, at the very least, extremely dangerous.
It would appear that Sarah Palin agrees with that because several hours after the shooting, she pulled down any webpage under her control showing the bulls eye map. She also deleted her tweet shown in this image.
Filed under: Politics
Gina, I know you just can’t help yourself, but you may recall that after Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, premeditatedly murdered 13 soldiers at Ft. Bragg yelling Allah O Akbar! all we heard from the media was “…lets not jump to conclusions”, “…obviously deranged” and “…he acted alone”. Quite a contrast to the preferred narrative in this case. Vis: Right Wing, tea party, conspiracy, and Palin, Palin, Palin.
If you can put down your broad brush long enough for a rational moment you might read this.
http://tiny.cc/9ppcf
Please note it was also “taken down” after the tragedy, is that inculpatory too?
/b
As I said, this is not political. If the Daily Kos printed articles promoting violence, than, yes, they are also culpable.
I would not conclude that Major Nidal Hasan was not motivated by the violent rhetoric, just because he acted alone and was observed to be deranged.
After all, I am not that concerned that normal citizens are going to run out and assassinate people based on the violent words of a politician or campaign slogan. It is the unstable that worry me. Weather a person is shot by a deranged individual or an organized movement, they are just as dead.
Gina, I do not consider language inculpatory. It appears from his writing that Loughner was at least as delusional and deranged as the Unabomber.
What sets a person like that off is beyond reason, seldom external and therefore cannot be prevented. If its not one thing it’s another, or nothing at all.
When you claim: “What matters is Ms. Palin, and many others are promoting the rhetoric of violence, and we are now seeing the fruits of that rhetoric.”
You’ve arrived at a wholly insupportable conclusion. There is nothing I’ve read, excluding the left’s wild partisan speculation, to support the remotest causal link between any of Sara Palin’s words and Loughner’s actions.
Zilch.
So since there is no empirical evidence or logic behind your theory whatsoever, I can only assume it’s a product of your personal politics, subjective prejudice, or both.
/b
You might want to do a little research before you post. Even leaders of the right are agreeing with me.
Thanks Gina, but I’m very comfortable being my own man and don’t require anyone to lead, or even agree with me.
However I wouldn’t put much stock in those arguments even though they apparently make you feel better. After all, at one time every authority believed wholeheartedly the world was flat, didn’t they?
/b
Blair:
By zooming in on inconsequential detail, you miss the big picture.
Sarah Palin has worked hard to promote herself as rough and tumble, tough, a big hunter, likes guns, not much on educating her kids on contraception, but generally an aggressive politician. Whether there is a link between her site, her rhetoric, and Loughner is really not the point.
Palin has made herself a target by saying things like, “Don’t retreat, Instead – RELOAD” leaving her open to judgments that she is violent, and that she never learned basic grammar in school. When a politician goes to the lengths she has to promote a certain image (have you seen her “outdoor sportsman” show about her life in Alaska?), s/he should expect that people WILL paint them with a “broad brush.” Come on, Blair. You know she fashions herself a “tough cookie” who favors guns and would kill reasonable gun control legislation. She deserved the bashing she got, whether there is a link between her and Loughner or not. Should a politician be working to promote an image as someone who is “tough,” conservative, and aggressive (I’m being kind here) or should s/he focus on trying to promote an image of someone who is reasonable, thoughtful and considers each issue regardless of its polarity? You seem to be a fairly good writer and fairly educated, just a bit defensive and a tad unrealistic.
And speaking of not to being able to help yourself, comparing the Hassan incident to Loughner, and the subsequent focus on Palin is comparing apples to oranges. I’m SURE that if there were a U.S. politician promoting the benefits of religious jihad, the Hassan incident would’ve been linked to it faster than lightning.
Palin and her handlers immediately cleaned up her website because her party pressured her to do so. Gina is right – even Palin’s own party recognizes that in the wake of such a tragedy (that seems to be a random act of violence) the fact that people on the internet are tying her to the incident, along with the media, is politically dangerous. The left will take advantage of it, as well they should. Palin WANTS the image she is struggling to portray: extreme, conservative, and might just advocate violence if it suits her purposes.
It’s good that you’re your “own man” who doesn’t “require anyone to lead or even agree with you.” In 1942 I’m sure that Germany was filled with people who felt the same way you do and didn’t really see the problem with Hitler.
~*~
P.S. Oh, and “every authority” believed the world was flat because they didn’t have any information to the contrary. We do.