Sunday, January 09, 2011

Which Democrats objected to the use of mass murder as a vehicle for disseminating propaganda?

I was wondering: which Democrats and liberals objected to those willing to politicize the mass murder in Tucson before the blood had even dried?

Not several unnamed Democrat operatives, reported to have said, "[we] need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers... Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people" and "[there is a] climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats."

Not the detestable twerp Markos Moulitsas who immediately tweeted, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin."

Not the perverted excuse for a 'news' 'man', Keith Olbermann, who invents threats of violence by conservatives on a nightly basis: "...if Sarah Palin whose Web site put and today scrubbed bull's-eyes targets on 20 Representatives, including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part - however tangential - in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics, she must be dismissed from politics."

Not the world's dumbest blogger, Matthew "Iggy" Yglesias, whose disgusting tweet read, "A reminder that gun imagery and electoral politics don't mix that well."

Not the loathsome and bizarre 'economist' Paul Krugman, who published a blog post on The New York Times website before the victims had even been identified: "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was... 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... And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous 'crosshairs' list."

Not the malevolent hack, Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD), who rushed to MSNBC to condemn the very same 'targeting' imagery used by Democrats since the 1980's, "I really think that that is crossing a line... In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously."

Not the obsequious Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who -- in the midst of his investigation -- couldn't wait to appear on Keith Olbermann's show to decry one particular political party though he had not a shred of evidence to suggest such a thing: "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." And who, on Megyn Kelly's show, said that this kind of violence occurs when "one party is trying to do something to make this country a better country and the other party is trying to block them."

Not the back-bencher Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. of New Jersey, who blamed Fox News for the murders; immediately after the incident, he told a local newspaper: "There's an aura of hate and elected politicians feed it, certain people on Fox News feed it.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But there are a handful of voices of reason, whose sanity in the face of partisanship should be acknowledged.

Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast: "One of the first to be dragged into this sickening ritual of guilt by association: Sarah Palin... it's a long stretch from such excessive language and symbols [like crosshairs on a political map] to holding a public official accountable for a murderer who opens fire on a political gathering and kills a half-dozen people, including a 9-year-old girl."

CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston, who reported Palin adviser Rebecca Mansour's statement during an interview with radio personality Tammy Bruce: "People actually accuse Gov. Palin of this. It's appalling. Appalling. I cannot even express how disgusting that is."

Aaron Astor at The Moderate Voice: "We need to exercise caution about motives and consequences. In particular, be careful about lumping together Tea Party rhetoric – from Sarah Palin or anybody else – with this murder."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Those are about the only rational folks I've been able to locate thus far.

In the words of a not-so-great Chicago mayoral candidate, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Every day the mask slips a little more.

I regret to say that there is a group of American citizens that hates its fellow citizens more than it hates murderous religious extremists and illegal alien invaders.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

7 comments:

  1. Fox News is more dangerous than MSM, suddenly, judging by its coverage of Giffords.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Circular logic of the left:

    The media immediately went the route of Tea Party and Sarah Palin. They were determined to frame this as a direct result of political rhetoric regardless of who the shooter ended up actually being. Then, we see from the above link, courtesy of BoyBlue on DailyKos:

    “However, I have to offer a heartfelt ‘f--- you’ to the right-wing blogs for even mentioning my username here in any connection to that unspeakable and unthinkable horror.”

    Gee whiz! Why would his username be mentioned? Perhaps because two days prior to the shooting, he wrote this:

    “I am from the Tucson area and live in Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ district. Today, just a little while ago, I saw on Andrea Mitchell Reports that Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi as our minority leader. … Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now.”

    Now, let’s see … who has been condemning the dangers of political rhetoric? Also an interesting note from the WND article is that twice in BoyBlue’s “apology” for his poor choice in wording (and timing) he states his suspicion that right-wingers are really behind all of this.

    So, if we are truly to blame political rhetoric for this shooting (an idiotic notion to be sure), who bears the lion’s share of blame?

    (a) Sarah Palin for using a bull’s-eye icon in the past election cycle
    (b) The Tea Party for … um … ok, I still don’t understand why they are in the mix
    (b) DailyKos for also using a bull’s-eye icon and allowing a post from BoyBlue calling the Congresswoman, “dead” in the progressive eye

    OK, anonymous trolls and losers. Spin away.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just spent off 12 minutes with a talk radio host in Philadelphia on a so-called conservative station no less with a host who basically said the Arizona killings occurred as a result of the vitriol of the Tea Party, the right, Sarah Palin and talk radio (who ironically pays his salary).

    I better disconnect all my electronics and pray for the families.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I never have been more disgusted with the media. The use of this tragedy for agenda driven political purposes has never been more blatant. It's a shame that their is penalty for their evil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12:59 AM

    http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:32 PM

    What, other than another "teaching moment" or "Beer summit" can this foolish president hope to accomplish with his trip to Az. The enormously, again, trip will do nothing but provide a photo opportunity for him. If I were the Dr I wouldn't let him near the patient, or the hospital which he's trying to destroy, for that matter. Don't be surprised if his union goons create an"Incident" with ugly signs for the MSM to glom onto. Actually, maybe a round of golf is what he's really looking for. All I can say is "Remember Ft. Hood", and the missing condolences to our army members.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kirsten Powers is another prominent Liberal who came out against politicizing it.

    Not only that, but she shared a lot of the criticisms of Obama's speech the other night, disagreeing with a number of prominent Conservatives who actually liked it.

    ReplyDelete