different standards

[mellowtigger]

In case you haven't yet heard the news, a U.S. Representative was shot in the head at a public event today. Miraculously, she has so far survived the assault, although at least 6 other people have died, with many more wounded. The culprit is already in custody and asserting 5th Amendment rights ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case

Comments

[furr_a_bruin]

I saw the press conference as it ran live on MSNBC, and Sheriff Dupnik did indeed make the second remark, or something very close to that (I don't recall the absolutely exact phrasing). I was surprised - but gratified - to see someone in his position pointing this out. Keith Olbermann later made one of his Special Comments on the subject and committed to avoiding certain kinds of violent rhetoric; I'm cynical enough to think that the people who could actually have been part of stoking this atrocity won't own their words and will be backpedaling and handwaving madly.

[pi3832]

"This is just a typical example of the left-wing media trying to blame us for the actions of some random loony. It's not my fault that there are crazy people in the world!"

[mellowtigger]

*agree* Or, in the wording I chose a few months ago:

"I didn't tell them to kill. I just gave them a framework to justify killing. They came to their own conclusions."

[kauko]

I wish I could say that today's events were shocking but given just how much thinly veiled violent rhetoric conservatives were spewing prior to this recent election I'm just not surprised at all. They can talk about taking their country back, or raise the specter of revolution, suggest 'second amendment remedies' to them not winning elections etc and then have the nerve to act shocked when someone commits an actual act of violence against people they were specifically targeting? It's just like all of the abortion providers who have been murdered. When conservatives scream that abortion is murder, compare it to the Nazi Holocaust and throw religion into the mix they should not be surprised when someone takes that seriously can becomes violent. The same logic applies to today.

[mellowtigger]

I like comment #14:

"An Imam issues an proclamation and nutjobs blow themselves up.
Palin and the far right declare war on moderate politics and a nutjob shoots a Congresswoman and kills 5 others.
What is the essential difference?"

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/febrile_politics_of_giffords_s.html#P104937206

Comment #22 is also important. I've never heard of the DLC before, so I don't know what relation it has to the DNC (Democratic National Committee). Granted, they targeted regions rather than people, and the text talks about winning with candidates rather than defeating opposing candidates, but this imagery is also wrong and appears to come from a liberal faction.

[kauko]

I've seen that map from the Democratic side and, while I certainly don't think that either side should use such imagery, I don't agree with those who have used this map as proof that the rhetoric is equal on both sides. This isn't just about Sarah Palin's map. The entire Tea Party movement has be guilty of using violent rhetoric when speaking against the government since the movement took off in 2009. How many times have we seen images of Tea Party event with people holding signs/ wearing shirt that have the famous Thomas Jefferson quote:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Or Sharon Angle's notorious statement:

"What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock ... That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?"

[nebula31]

Exactly.