If Palin wants to accuse Giffords of libel she should have the guts to do it to her face. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 18/01/2011 10:42:17 PM
I'm not trying to silence anyone (I think Jared Loughner made that attempt) so if you want to fling around the cowardice tag, talk to Mrs. Palin.
She was full of it - this was pure political rhetoric trying to score points against Republicans. If she was genuinely afraid of such an improbable outcome, she is too chickenshit to be in national politics, and her shooting would be more of a Darwin Award sort of thing (How about some security precautions? Maybe don't go out in public rallies if you are genuinely afraid of your life, until or unless you get some better security. A few years ago, back before 9-11, I read in an article somewhere that all Congressmen are entitled to at least a bodyguard from some federal agency or other (FBI or Marshall service maybe) but almost none of them take advantage of it. The anticipated threat was kidnapping and holding a Congressman for ransom, but I find it hard to believe that a Democrat with genuine security concerns could not obtain protection from a Democratic administration.
The fact that her baselss rhetorical chicken-little act intended to score political points coincided with a result in no way implicates Palin et al, or spreads any of the blame from a man who gives absolutely no evidence of being influenced by her.
Baseless? Are you kidding? The woman was shot, and voiced her concerns after someone ransacked her office, but you're telling me it's all HER fault because she didn't ask for more security? Did you go to the Lee Harvey Oswald School of Law? Accounts from the time indicate that she referenced the "consequences" of Palins site as an aside while actively (and foolishly, IMHO) DOWNPLAYING her own over all risks (despite her offices already having been attacked at the behest of a "militia" leader). If the best defense you can find for Palin is to find yet another way to blame the victim that counts as an EPIC fail, man.
No, I don't think Loughner went on a shooting spree specifically because of Palins website. I DO think two years of uninterrupted incitement to militance and hatred by Palin and the rest of the far right contributed to it, encouraged an already unstable and violent mind to do something horrible. That Giffords happened to have explicitly referenced Palin the LAST time someone explicitly and publicly called for violence against liberals and people all over the country committed it is the reason why we're focused on Palins website, but the sad and scary thing is it was BOUND to happen. Why? Because so many on the far right have used the same kind of imagery to promote militant hatred for the past two years, while so many on the left voiced concern about what would result, that it was INEVITABLE someone on the left would be attacked like this, and equally INEVITABLE they would have made a specific reference to one of the many many inflammatory statements by far right leaders. Whatever incitement they referenced by whatever far right demagogue would be certain to make the front page after their easily predictable attack.
What it boils down to is that most of the left has been saying for two years that the far right rhetoric was putting their lives in danger and even after that's been demonstrated you still insist they're all just blowing smoke. You have the right to whatever fantasies you like, and so does Jared Loughner, but not when they get people murdered.
The reason so much attention is being paid to Giffords has nothing to do with political bias and everything to do with her explicitly referencing Palins site when predicting an attack (or another attack, since her office had already been the target of far right violence explicitly urged by a "militia" leader). Presumably these attacks will continue while the far rights leaders deny any responsibility; it's working so far, and it DID accomplish the objective you find so commendable: Removing Giffords from Congress. Again, if not for Giffords' explicit reference to Palins site the latter would be no more than one small part of a large group of demagogues stirring up hatred and militance.
However, the plethora of far right leaders doing just that is undeniable, and when many people proclaim all liberals to be godless, treasonous, communist EVIL to be defeated and destroyed at any price, as a public service as well as an act of survival, this is what results. The blame for THIS incident is largely Loughners, just as the blame for the attack on Giffords' office belongs to the perpetrator, and, to a lesser extent, the "militia" leader who publicly urged the whole country to attack politicians offices. That leaves Palin and her ilk free of MOST of the blame--but not all of it, because each of them helped create the climate from which unbalanced minds conclude that any action against liberals is justified patriotism. After all, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, right? Yet what LBJ said to Goldwater applies to Palin and Co. also: "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue. "
I'll give you this much though: You're the only person yet, INCLUDING Palin, who's had the balls to say that if she's a victim of "blood libel" then Gabrielle Giffords is her primary assailant. That shows courage, but courage in the absence of decency and objectivity is a disturbing thing. The kamikaze had courage, too, and Philip Sheridan, but that doesn't ennoble the sentiment that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". When you courageously defend the reprehensible and dangerous I respect your courage and deplore your cause.
Calling that fear "blood libel" while she's lying in a hospital bed is blaming the victim in my book. Giffords saw that Palins words COULD motivate this even if there happens to be no other connection with the attempt to murder her;
She was full of it - this was pure political rhetoric trying to score points against Republicans. If she was genuinely afraid of such an improbable outcome, she is too chickenshit to be in national politics, and her shooting would be more of a Darwin Award sort of thing (How about some security precautions? Maybe don't go out in public rallies if you are genuinely afraid of your life, until or unless you get some better security. A few years ago, back before 9-11, I read in an article somewhere that all Congressmen are entitled to at least a bodyguard from some federal agency or other (FBI or Marshall service maybe) but almost none of them take advantage of it. The anticipated threat was kidnapping and holding a Congressman for ransom, but I find it hard to believe that a Democrat with genuine security concerns could not obtain protection from a Democratic administration.
The fact that her baselss rhetorical chicken-little act intended to score political points coincided with a result in no way implicates Palin et al, or spreads any of the blame from a man who gives absolutely no evidence of being influenced by her.
Baseless? Are you kidding? The woman was shot, and voiced her concerns after someone ransacked her office, but you're telling me it's all HER fault because she didn't ask for more security? Did you go to the Lee Harvey Oswald School of Law? Accounts from the time indicate that she referenced the "consequences" of Palins site as an aside while actively (and foolishly, IMHO) DOWNPLAYING her own over all risks (despite her offices already having been attacked at the behest of a "militia" leader). If the best defense you can find for Palin is to find yet another way to blame the victim that counts as an EPIC fail, man.
No, I don't think Loughner went on a shooting spree specifically because of Palins website. I DO think two years of uninterrupted incitement to militance and hatred by Palin and the rest of the far right contributed to it, encouraged an already unstable and violent mind to do something horrible. That Giffords happened to have explicitly referenced Palin the LAST time someone explicitly and publicly called for violence against liberals and people all over the country committed it is the reason why we're focused on Palins website, but the sad and scary thing is it was BOUND to happen. Why? Because so many on the far right have used the same kind of imagery to promote militant hatred for the past two years, while so many on the left voiced concern about what would result, that it was INEVITABLE someone on the left would be attacked like this, and equally INEVITABLE they would have made a specific reference to one of the many many inflammatory statements by far right leaders. Whatever incitement they referenced by whatever far right demagogue would be certain to make the front page after their easily predictable attack.
What it boils down to is that most of the left has been saying for two years that the far right rhetoric was putting their lives in danger and even after that's been demonstrated you still insist they're all just blowing smoke. You have the right to whatever fantasies you like, and so does Jared Loughner, but not when they get people murdered.
Palin STILL can't see it. That doesn't make her responsible for this attack, though if she keeps up with the same rhetoric it seems like only a matter of time, but if she can't see a danger in hindsight that Giffords saw ten months ago it DOES mean she lacks the judgement to lead. Accusing a woman who was almost killed of maligning her is just shameful.
Unlike Gabby's accusaitons, Palin's complaint is justified. Giffords WAS maligning her, and her unrelated shooting neither makes her right, nor Palin wrong. Palin had nothing to do with this, but you don't like her and you find the fact that she refuses to be silenced by the injury to someone this country is, lets's face it, better off without her in Congress annoying, so you have strung together this absurd and fuzzy line of reasoning why Palin should shut up. It doesn't matter how many people are dead or injured (and why is all the attention being paid to Giffords whom we are constantly being reassured of how well she is recuperating, when an actual federal judge is DEAD? Because he was a Bush appointee, and there is no stick with which to beat Palin, Beck and company in his murder), it is still wrong to falsely accuse anyone in their deaths, and it is cowardly to attemtpt to silence political speech, especially political dissent, in the name of an unrelated victim. The reason so much attention is being paid to Giffords has nothing to do with political bias and everything to do with her explicitly referencing Palins site when predicting an attack (or another attack, since her office had already been the target of far right violence explicitly urged by a "militia" leader). Presumably these attacks will continue while the far rights leaders deny any responsibility; it's working so far, and it DID accomplish the objective you find so commendable: Removing Giffords from Congress. Again, if not for Giffords' explicit reference to Palins site the latter would be no more than one small part of a large group of demagogues stirring up hatred and militance.
However, the plethora of far right leaders doing just that is undeniable, and when many people proclaim all liberals to be godless, treasonous, communist EVIL to be defeated and destroyed at any price, as a public service as well as an act of survival, this is what results. The blame for THIS incident is largely Loughners, just as the blame for the attack on Giffords' office belongs to the perpetrator, and, to a lesser extent, the "militia" leader who publicly urged the whole country to attack politicians offices. That leaves Palin and her ilk free of MOST of the blame--but not all of it, because each of them helped create the climate from which unbalanced minds conclude that any action against liberals is justified patriotism. After all, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, right? Yet what LBJ said to Goldwater applies to Palin and Co. also: "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue. "
I'll give you this much though: You're the only person yet, INCLUDING Palin, who's had the balls to say that if she's a victim of "blood libel" then Gabrielle Giffords is her primary assailant. That shows courage, but courage in the absence of decency and objectivity is a disturbing thing. The kamikaze had courage, too, and Philip Sheridan, but that doesn't ennoble the sentiment that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". When you courageously defend the reprehensible and dangerous I respect your courage and deplore your cause.