It’s a tight contest:
Unfortunately for Clyburn, Kerrey is making a strong run for the championship himself, as RCP again captures. Kerrey says that the perp was “mentally ill and deeply troubled,” and therefore Kerrey said he would demur from making too much of his political beliefs — right after Kerrey announces that the attack was motivated by the upcoming vote to repeal ObamaCare.
Well, at least no one is blaming Bush. Yet.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, we have a new contender:
The attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords really did rattle Washington. It took an entire day before someone reacted by proposing new, horrible legislation.
That someone is Rep. Bob Brady D-Pa., who told CNN Sunday that he’d draft a bill making it a crime to use words or images that looked violent or threatening to public officials. “You can’t put bull’s eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” Brady said. “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down.” The solution: Expand Title 18, Section 871 of the U.S. Code so that more public servants would be protected from written threats.
Would it be rude to point out the problem with this? There’s no evidence—none—that violent pictures or words inspired the violence in Arizona.
Gee, what was I saying the other day? Oh, right:
As usual, the event will be used as an excuse for everyone to saddle up their political hobby horses. In the coming days, we can count on renewed demands to do things that either wouldn’t have prevented this, or would so restrict our freedom and way of life as to have allowed this particular terrorist to win.
Right on cue.
Palin is the new Bush.
“Well, at least no one is blaming Bush.”
Yeah, they’re too busy blaming Palin. I haven’t seen a coordinated attack of this magnitude in thirty years…
They are not blaming Palin. They are asking a reasonable question, which is “do you think all this ‘reload’ and ‘revolution’ rhetoric is really necessary or appropriate?”
For the record, I do not support Bob Brady’s bill. It’s obviously unconstitutional.
I do think that people need to take responsibility for what they say. So far, Palin’s response has been almost entirely about Palin, not the victims.
“They are asking a reasonable question, which is “do you think all this ‘reload’ and ‘revolution’ rhetoric is really necessary or appropriate?”
yes by all means trash the 1st amendment
I do think that people need to take responsibility for what they say. So far, Palin’s response has been almost entirely about Palin, not the victims.
Really? You seemed to be against the part of the Patriot Bill that allowed survellience of people who called known terrorist phone numbers. I simply don’t believe you mean what you are saying now.
I think people should take responsibility for their actions. For instance, the Pima County Sheriff, who was notified of previous death threats made by Jared Loughner. His response to ordinary citizens? Jared is receiving adequate state provided mental care, and further complaints regarding a child of a state civil servant may cause problems.
So Gerrib, where is you claim of leadership responsibility for the Sheriff, who had legal justifications for stopping this shooter in advance? The Sheriff is claiming, like you, others should be held accountable for what they say. Yet, when given the opportunity, he didn’t hold Jared Loughner accountable for what Jared said. And now, neither are you, Gerrib.
Newrouter – my 1st amendment rights include the right to question and challenge what you say. My rights also include pointing out that just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should.
“You can’t put bull’s eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” …
But it’s ok to put one on the peons! That’s it, write yet another law to protect the political elites and bureaucrats.
What’s next … bar arrows pointing to them?
“So far, Palin’s response has been almost entirely about Palin, not the victims.”
bullsh*t
Palin is not his leader. Even following along with the moronic supposition that ordinary citizens slavishly adhere to pundits, you have to make the assumption that Palin is his leader. Or, you have to consider the much longer list of violent rhetoric coming from almost every direction in society.
Is he on her Facebook page as a friend? Gosh, I think we would have heard that by now. Have her books on the shelf? Buttons or pins? Gadsen flags? His animosity to this leader in particular goes back to 2007.
The Sheriff has presupposed that “those right-wingers” are responsible – while acknowledging in the same freaking sentence “No, I have no evidence to support that.” This is not a calm “No comment until I’ve assembled every single thing” sort of sheriff. We’d hear about supporting evidence, probably accompanied by banging the table.
You’re asking for the French to apologize for a Russian attack because both dislike Germany. And can’t seem to grasp that (a) Germany uses exactly the same rhetoric, or (b) Russia is a separate country.
Or you’re imposing the stock double standard. National Journal “the speaker wants to aim before he shoots”, or any of a hundred “militaristic” analogies or allusions.
Underpants Gnome Logic.
The sad part is the notion that Sarah Palin put either bull’s eyes (people really need to learn what those are before they use that term) or cross hairs (closer, but that’s not what was on the map) on a person is absurd. A map with cross hatch marks (used by surveyors, engineers, other technical people needing to pinpoint a location) was produced to identify areas in the US to direct fund raising dollars.
Anyone wonder what Congressman Bob Brady thinks of his Democrat Congressmen colleague Harry Mitchell, whose campaign and supporters put out an ad with actual crosshairs (stadia marks and all) on his opponent, JD Hayworth? I guess when it was 2006, and Democrats wanted to take control of Congress, that was all fair game.
Leland – yes, Loughner made death threats, and the sherrif’s office visited Loughner. They also arrested him for pot. I’m not a lawyer, but the lawyer on this site says simple threats are not unlawful without some additional act, normally a physical act. If the sender isn’t in the US, this isn’t going anywhere. Not sure what Dupnik’s actions have to do with the “personal responsibility” of Loughner, or Palin for that matter.
If the government gets a warrant to monitor a phone number, then they can monitor it. If they don’t get a warrant, no they can’t. Also not sure what that has to do with anything.
“They are not blaming Palin.”
They don’t have to. Their water carriers in the press are doing it for them.
“They are not blaming Palin. They are asking a reasonable question, which is “do you think all this ‘reload’ and ‘revolution’ rhetoric is really necessary or appropriate?”
For the record, I do not support Bob Brady’s bill. It’s obviously unconstitutional.
I do think that people need to take responsibility for what they say. So far, Palin’s response has been almost entirely about Palin, not the victims.”
So Chris, are you going to agreee Obama shoud also take responsibility for his incindiary rhetoric?
If he’d been running around arguing for “revolution” and talking about “second amendment remedies” I’d be upset. He hasn’t, nor has he been suggesting people bring guns to his rallies.
I don’t recall Palin doing any of those things either. Do you have any evidence to back your assertion?
Twitter uses wish death on Governor Sarah Palin
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/11/twitter-uses-wish-death-on-governor-sarah-palin/
Palin’s response… to what?
Could it be her response has been to all the vapid attempts to place her on the grassy knoll during the shooting?
If the entire media-Democratic Party axis began accusing you, Chris, of being responsible for murdering a nine-year-old girl and nearly assassinating a member of Congress, do you honestly expect us to believe you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?
That you fault Palin for merely defending herself is just plain fascist.
For an ridiculously narrow definition of “they.”
Not sure what Dupnik’s actions have to do with the “personal responsibility” of Loughner, or Palin for that matter.
Fine then. Quite being a hypocrit blaming political rhetoric for Loughner’s crime. For days now, you have been saying Palin should be held responsible as a leader in relation to this event. Now, you want to claim Dupnik’s actions have nothing to do with Loughner? It’s still early in the story, but if it is true that he added the implied threat of retaliation from Loughner’s civil servant parents; then the Sheriff will need to explain himself.
“Stupidest Politician
It’s a tight contest:”
Not really, I think the Sheriff wins.
Even mentioning Palin is indefensible without the slightest modicum of evidence even hinting that the shooter was influenced by anything she did. Ditto music, video games, movies, other political metaphors involving violence, gun rights, football, the cancellation of Firefly. etc.
I think it’s pathetic to point fingers at her for some obscure graphic this guy probably never saw. Pathetic. Palin is not the most impressive political figure ever, but this unreasoned and unrelenting campaign against her is silly. She holds no office and is unlikely to be a serious contender for the presidency. Our tolerance for inexperienced candidates has almost certainly been all used up.
The guy was a total lunatic. Hard stop.
Still waiting for that evidence Chris………..
+1 to Puckett’s request for evidence.
“They are not blaming Palin”
Seriously? I must have misread all those comments and tweets and blog posts specifically parroting the line that “Sarah Palin has blood on her hands”.
You did see those things, didn’t you?
…
In one comment thread, Loughner put forward his theory that the entire space program was a hoax and that space shuttles were unable to support life, another poster soon questioned Loughner’s grammar. “This is sad to bring grammar into the argument,” Loughner said in response. “Get out of my face you miscreant with misconception!”
Speaking of hypocrisy, Rep. Peter King, the long time prominent terrorist apologist, is apparently now proposing strict gun control laws:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html?ref=tw
If anyone needs to STFU on gun control, it is Peter King.
yes, Loughner made death threats, and the sherrif’s office visited Loughner. They also arrested him for pot.
And having a drug arrest and making death threats is not sufficient for the Sheriff to confiscate his weapons? Restrict him from acquiring more? I’m not familiar with Arizona gun law, but it seems just a bit unlikely that the Sheriff has no ability to restrict the access to weapons of someone who’s made threats of violence against a public figure.
And if he could…and didn’t….well, that sure explains the frantic ass-covering blaming of “violent rhetoric” now, doesn’t it?
Gee Chris, why do you always dissappear right when you paint yourself into a rhetorical corner?
He’s probably still looking for evidence. I suspect it will be awhile. Particularly since doing a Google search will just lead to lefty blogs repeating the same claim while not actually producing evidence.
M Puckett – I do have a day job which involves something other than arguing on blog posts. If you can’t google “Sarah Palin don’t retreat reload” I don’t have time to do it for you.
Carl Pham – apparently not under Arizona law. It is a Constitutional right, after all.
McGehee – the issue is not and “was this guy a Palin / Sharron Angle fan.” The issue is “is all this talk of ‘Second Amendment remedies” and calling democraticly-elected officials “fascists” really necessary? Is it helpful? It’s obviously not true.
Carl Pham – the quotes I’ve seen from the sheriff were that Loughner had NOT threatened Giffords. Read Volokh about the difficulties of arresting people for “non-true” threats.
Really Chirs, are you saying “Don’t retreat, reload equals the conditions you set forth?
“If he’d been running around arguing for “revolution” and talking about “second amendment remedies” I’d be upset. He hasn’t, nor has he been suggesting people bring guns to his rallies.”
How does “Dont’ retreat, reload” constitute either a call to bring guns, a second amnendment remedy or a call to revolution?
Or is that just a strawman tactic you are attempting to use to slip out of a losing hand you dealt yourself?
If not, why are you upset with Palin and not with for Obama for the incindary things he said like “If they bring a knife, we bring a gun”?
Are you being a hypocrite? Are you simply holding a double-standard? Do you seriously think the rest of us don’t think that about you.
Why are you not a hypocrite for hlding a double-standard Chris? Please explain that.
Chris Gerrib said:
Of course, the Left and its Powerstructure Media wants the Saul Alinsky tactics all to itself. God forbid the Right uses Saul Alinsky tactics against the Left. Only the Left’s gun should be loaded while the Right’s gun remains permanently empty. Oops, I used those eeeevil metaphors again!
Remember all you thought criminals, outspokeness is equal to a murder conspiracy!
@ Chris
Your argument about Palin’s use of cross hairs and rhetoric would get more support if you had an equally negative view of Democrats using bulls-eyes on maps and equally heated rhetoric. But if you support the stuff the left says about 9-11 and the war in Iraq, then you likely think some heated rhetoric is ok.
It is a moot point because the shooter was not influenced by Palin or Angle or the Tea Party. He was a liberal anarchist. Even knowing that, people in the media, top Democrat leaders, and the Elite Liberal Blogosphere all blamed Palin.
If we were to really look for some sort of political influence on the shooter, we would have to look at popular leftist conspiracy movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist. Sadly, those movies seem to be accepted by the mainstream left.
Is the shooter really crazy just because he has the political philosophy of a liberal anarchist? How many liberals will be checking into mental health clinics for sharing those views?
He was a liberal anarchist.
I don’t think that word means what you (and most people who call themselves that) think it means. I can’t see anything liberal about him. Or most people who call themselves that.
There has been a rising surge in violence and threats, which Homeland Security was worried about in 2009 (PDF link). Looks like they were right to be worried.
I’m sorry if you can’t or won’t see this. The problem is yours, not mine, and I am done discussing it.
“If we were to really look for some sort of political influence on the shooter, we would have to look at popular leftist conspiracy movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist. Sadly, those movies seem to be accepted by the mainstream left.”
Like this?
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/2103365
That Homeland Security report was bullshit. Incompetano had to apologize for it.
“I’m sorry if you can’t or won’t see this. The problem is yours, not mine, and I am done discussing it.”
Translation: I’ve lost, the veil of my contradictory and hypocritical positions have been stripped from me. I cannot stand in the light of truth.
Read Volokh about the difficulties of arresting people for “non-true” threats.
Gerrib, you need to go back and reread Eugene Volokh’s post. The “non-true” threats is in regards to calling Palin’s fundraising map a threat. It has absolutely nothing to do with the true death threats that Jared Loughner made to civilians. In fact, if you read his first enumerated paragraph, you’ll see that Jared’s threats are not protected in the same manner as the threats you are attributing to Sarah Palin. So, you managed to disprove you’re argument that Sarah Palin should be held responsible. Further, the information bolsters our argument that Jared Loughner could have been restricted for making true threats. Thanks for the link!
No, I’m tired of dealing with your alternative “reality” in which candidates for US Senate aren’t calling for “Second Amendment remedies” and candidates for public office are holding “come shoot at my opponent’s initials” fundraisers.
I’m tired of dealing in an alternative “logic system” in which Loughner is both a lone nut solely responsible for his actions yet at the same time it’s the sheriff’s fault for not taking away Loughner’s guns.
I’m tired of dealing with an alternate “reality” in which lone nuts shoot up the Holocaust Museum or fly a plane into an IRS office or shoot a Congressman yet a report that says “watch out for the lone nuts” is wrong.
What I think liberal means is irrelevant because that was a label placed on him by a friend, which is why I used it.
Just like whatever I think liberal means has no bearing on the beliefs of people who choose to call themselves liberal or what they think liberal means.
I acknowledge the liberals of today are not the liberals of ages past but I don’t think that needs to be done every time the label is used in a current political context.
i’m tired of reading clowns that be tired
link
I’m tired of dealing in an alternative “logic system” in which Loughner is both a lone nut solely responsible for his actions yet at the same time it’s the sheriff’s fault for not taking away Loughner’s guns.
Oddly enough, Chris, if my 4-year-old whacks another kid at the playground he will be held responsible (by me), and I will be also held responsible (by other parents) for not having prevented my son from behaving badly in public, given I knew his tendencies, had power to prevent them from erupting into antisocial behaviour, et cetera.
Not only that — if at work one of my employees harasses another, and I both know about it and do nothing to stop it, the offender will be held liable and I will be held responsible for not stopping it.
Aiee! This “alternative” logic system is everywhere!
That sense of being tired is your conscience, Gerrib, telling you to stop pushing your lie. Lies are heavy burdens, and I’m sure carry around the one you have over the past 2 days is wearing.
Sarah Palin was never a candidate for US Senate, and you originally attributed the “2nd Amendment remedies” to Palin. No one has had a “come shoot at my opponent” fundraiser with the possible exception of Congressmen Harry Mitchell and his cross hairs on JD Hayworth. These are just new lies you are making, Gerrib, and that burden is getting heavier.
Loughner is responsible for his own actions, as all evidence to date shows he acted alone. Sheriff Dupnik is not responsible for Loughner’s crime. However, Sheriff Dupnik is seriously damaging his credibility, plus that of his office and agency, by making claims that a person unconnected with the crime should be held responsible. You, Gerrib, and the Sheriff want to regain credibility, so provide the evidence of a connection. Otherwise, quit pushing the lie that a connection exists. It is, as you say, tiring to push that lie.
Finally, the DHS report said to be aware of returning war veterans, motivated by right wing extermist rhetoric, that could potentially lash out against the government. James von Brunn attacked a holocaust museum because he was anti-semetic. His hatred and criminal activities have a history that pre-dates even Desert Storm. Andrew Stack was never a veteran, and his suicide note ranted against George W Bush, Enron, and health care insurance companies with an ending praise to the communist creed. Yeah, I’m sure you are tired in making up your alternate reality in which these men were right wing extremist veterans. Again, lies are heavy burdens, so no doubt, you, Gerrib, are beat.
link
Chris Gerrib said:
Of course the Obamao Administration was worried about these “Right-Wing military veterans”. You don’t want organized armed resistance against your “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military.”(check out the link in my name)
Chris Gerrib said:
So what do we suppose the “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” means?
Perhaps the answer is provided in the link in my name.