How would that work? - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 09/08/2012 10:30:08 PM
Palin had nothing to with her shooting regardless of the fact that Giffords played politics with the issue before she was shot. And no being shot for another reason doesn't mean she was right and take a serious break from reality to believe otherwise. Crying wolf doesn’t mean shit if you get eaten by a bear. The left truly has come unhinged.
Saying, "I am afraid of getting shot," is not playing politics if you ACTUALLY GET SHOT! Why is that so hard to grasp?
How do we know that Giffords saying, "I am afraid of getting shot," didn't lead to the shooting? Wouldn't that be just as likely to inspire a crazed gunman as crosshairs on a map?
I pretend no comprehension of insanity, but would not think so, and Palin putting crosshairs on her district still prompted Giffords' comment, so the source would be unchanged. Regardless, what would be the "logic"? A crazed liberal partisan shooting one of their own representatives to substantiate criticism of Palin?
I don't actually blame the victim, and I'm not trying to say she was asking for it. But I don't think Palin was intentionally trying to get Giffords shot, nor do I think that Palin thought it was even a real possibility. Crosshairs on a district would strike me as "this is our next goal," or "this is where we're aiming to win," even if it was the district I was currently representing. I'd have a hard time seeing it as a call for an assassination.
I also do not think Palin intended Giffords be shot, or considered the possibility someone would take her graphic to advocate that, but the latter is precisely the problem: She did NOT consider that possibility, even though it was plausible enough Giffords DID, immediately. It was obvious irresponsible negligence, yet Palin not only never realized that, but remains too busy denying even the POSSIBILITY to realize it despite undeniable subsequent evidence.
At the risk of partisanship, it speaks poorly of the "personal responsibility" party to accept, let alone embrace, such leaders. Of course, if Palin and Co. had more empathy and consideration for how their behavior affects neighbors they might not be Republicans.
If a party leader puts crosshairs on opponents' districts, an opponent says it could endanger her and is subsequently shot, the RESPONSIBLE thing is to disavow the shooting and discontinue the imagery, not indignantly publicly accuse the victim of "blood libel." Pardon my saying so, but that is a bit self absorbed and short sighted for a would-be national leader.At the time, rt noted someone (Kos, IIRC) similarly using bullseyes: Just as dangerously irresponsible (another of many reasons to avoid Kos, IMHO.) That people on both sides do it makes it worse, not better. Hoffa Jr. publicly calling unions as an "army" to "take out" the Tea Party in "war" does not excuse Rick Perry chiding an IA rally for not physically assaulting the visiting Fed Chairman: Both are inexcusable. The latter was so indefensible it prompted the bizarre but amusing spectacle of RON PAUL (of all people) DEFENDING THE FED CHAIRMAN (though I personally think he was just continuing his primary-long role as Romneys attack dog.) Since Brandenburg v. OH, the SCOTUS says publicly inciting murder is (somehow) legal; that does not make it desirable, much less acceptable, in national leaders.