Rhetoric Needs to be Toned Down

HOSTILE POLITICAL RHETORIC: Giffords is a controversial figure in her district and has become a target of Tea Party activists for her support of health care reform, immigration reform, and other issues. When health care reform passed in March, Giffords was one of 10 Democrats who "report[ed] death threats , incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices." The front door to her district office was shattered and at a town hall event in 2009, also at a Safeway grocery store, her staffers had to call police after an angry constituent left a gun behind. Last year, Sarah Palin's PAC posted a map with gun cross-hairs over the districts of several Democrats who voted for health care reform, including Giffords', leading the Congresswoman herself to condemn the ad. "For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district," Giffords said. "When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action." Palin has since taken down the image and is trying to distance herself from it. "We never, ever, ever intended it to be gunsights ," a Palin spokesperson told Tammy Bruce, a conservative talk show host. "[I]t was simply crosshairs like you see on maps." But as Slate's David Weigel points out, "This is deeply stupid." "Among the people who gave the impression that these were targets: Sarah Palin. When she announced the list in a tweet, she wrote 'don't retreat, instead - RELOAD!'" She continued using gun metaphors throughout the 2010 election, sometimes adding, "that is not a call to violence!" The Tea Party Nation also issued a statement immediately following the murders, distancing itself from the events. "While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died, we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing." In a subsequent email, it described Loughner as "a leftist lunatic."


...Asked by CNN's Candy Crowley about Palin's ad, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) responded that it was actually those referencing the ad that are being "irresponsible." "You're making and implying a direct connection between Sarah Palin and what happened. You're picking out a particular incident. Well, I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it," he said. Also on CNN, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) tried to dismiss the notion that overheated political rhetoric may have played a role in the shooting, blaming the incident on a "breakdown in the family structure." Last April, former President Bill Clinton recommended that both the media and politicians be responsible with their rhetoric since it falls on the "serious and the delirious alike." "We can't let the debate veer so far into hatred that we lose focus of our common humanity," he said. "It's really important. We can't ever fudge the fact that there's a basic line dividing criticism from violence or its advocacy, and that the closer you get to the line and the more responsibility you have, you have to think about the echo chamber in which your words resonate."


The Progress Report

And what about this event which occurred in the 2010 elections:



GOP Candidate Shoots At Target With Wasserman Schultz's Initials
Eric Kleefeld | October 9, 2009, 2:09PM

FL-20 Candidate Robert Lowry (R)

Here's a sign that some conservative activism really has gotten out of hand: A Republican candidate for Congress went campaigning by shooting a gun at a target with the incumbent Dem Congresswoman's initials written next to it.

Robert Lowry, a businessman running against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event that was held at a shooting range. Lowry stepped up to show his marksmanship, and fired at a human silhouette target -- with the letters "DWS" written next to the head.

Lowry later told the Sun-Sentinel that he did not know who wrote the letters next to the target, but that he did know they were there when he started shooting. After further questioning, he admitted it "was a mistake" to shoot at the target.

Florida's 20th District is a safe Democratic seat, which voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 63%-36%, and re-elected Wasserman Schultz by 76%-23% in 2008.

Late Update: It should also be noted that human-style targets were common at this event: "Though most of the targets of gunfire were standard gun-range fare -- large silhouettes of a human figure -- a few shooters used large color posters instead. They depicted a menacing figure, adorned in a kaffiyeh, the kind of headdress worn by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The person in the picture was holding a rocket-propelled grenade."

(Via Political Wire.)

By: Examiner Editorial 01/10/11 8:05 PM

Was President Obama encouraging murder during his 2008 campaign when he said, "If they bring a knife ... we bring a gun"? Was he encouraging political violence when he said more recently of the new Republican House majority that "we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill"? Of course not. Similarly, former Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski was speaking allegorically in October when he said Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott should "be lined up against a wall and shot." Such remarks are often hackneyed or tasteless, but reasonable people understand they are not incitements to violence.
Jared Loughner, the gunman charged with wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and murdering six others in Tucson on Saturday, held bizarre beliefs about "conscious dreaming" and government mind control imposed through English grammar. No serious person would connect his belief system to a mainstream political ideology. But then there's New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. He places the blood libel of blame for the Tucson murders squarely on the shoulders of "the crowds at the McCain-Palin rallies" and "right-wing extremism." It's the Republicans' fault because "the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the GOP establishment." Krugman's solution is for "decent people" to "shun" those he holds accountable. But the logic of his argument leads straight to calling for official restrictions on political speech after shunning inevitably fails to do the job. The totalitarian temptation is an ever-present possibility with people like Krugman.

Another self-righteous voice in this debate is left-wing blogger Markos Moulitsas, who said in June 2008 that he was placing a "bull's-eye" on Giffords' and other Democratic moderates' districts because of their vote on an intelligence bill, by which they had "sold out the Constitution." Last week, a Kos diarist even wrote an angry rant about Giffords, declaring, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

Let's be clear: The Tucson crimes were not encouraged by any such heated rhetoric. Neither Kos with its rhetorical bull's-eyes, nor the cross hair graphics on Sarah Palin's Web site, nor the cross hairs used in the ads of nearby Arizona Democratic Rep. Harry Mitchell's campaign in 2006, nor the bull's-eyes used by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to "target" Republicans in 2009 have any relevance to this discussion. Their elimination for the sake of political correctness would not have saved -- and will not save -- a single life. Even if we find some political rhetoric repellent, this has nothing to do with murder. Unless our endgame involves burning books, banning certain kinds of speech and censoring the Internet, lest something someone says or writes might inspire some crazy person to kill someone, the discussion about "toxic political rhetoric" is a waste of time. Unless your aim is to use it as a pretext to repeal somebody's First Amendment rights.

Tea Party Express fundraises off Arizona tragedy, lies about Daily Kos
by kos
Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:00:03 AM PST
Uh, what? From a Tea Party express fundraising email:

The media didn't tell you that the left-wing website, DailyKos, had targeted Congresswoman Giffords, putting a BULLSEYE on her, did they? But that's just what happened.

The media didn't tell you that because it never happened. It's fantasy. It's a lie. And of course, since they can't verify the existence of such a bullseye image on this site, they'll claim it was scrubbed.

Except that no one got a screenshot of this supposed bullseye image.

This is the post that so many wingnuts think is some kind of smoking gun. As opposed to you know, actual smoking guns. Or wingnuts pretending to play with guns:

_______________________________

This is what they do. Post lies like robots - brain-dead humans who merely react without thinking or caring about what's right. They don't care about anything but ideology. They don't check the source - if it's conservative it has to be right. After all, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong.

Remember folks...

The right NEVER makes mistakes; they are not responsible for anything that happens that's wrong; only others are responsible.

The right has never said anything that hurts people; they never cause a serious problem; one that actually should be regretted; one that can cause the country to grieve for a crime that should never have happened.

Remember, the NRA says, never, ever try to prevent anyone from abridging your right to kill, to maim, to carry military weapons when they are not necesary for anyone to have. Preventing the troubled from getting guns - NO! It's a right, damn it.

NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANYONE FOR ANYTHING. EVER!

Remember, this is what it is to be a right-winger - blind obedience to ideology - not truth. For a Republican's view of these authoritarians and their vicious mind-set, I urge you to read John Dean's, Conservatives Without Conscience. If you read it, you will never read the rot in the post above without seeing through it, as the ugly venom it is.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...e-silenced.php

Thanks Atypical.
Another example of lies passed on by people who dont take the time
to do research about whats true or false.

How about this for a whopper of a lie told by Rush Limbaugh?

Rush Limbaugh: Jared Loughner Has 'Full Support' Of Democratic Party

First Posted: 01-11-11 03:10 PM | Updated: 01-11-11 03:10 PM


Rush Limbaugh reacted to the instantly infamous mugshot of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in the Arizona shooting, by saying that the reason Loughner is smiling in the picture is because he knows he is backed by the Democratic Party.

Speaking on his radio show Tuesday, Limbaugh said that Loughner was getting the exact attention that he wanted:

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing

by kos
Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:45:23 AM PST

As we've seen these past couple of weeks, we've got a problem in our caucus -- while we have been busy stocking up on more Democrats, fact is the good ones are being swamped by the bad ones.

Now we're at a disadvantage vis a vis AT&T. We don't have the millions to pump into campaign coffers, nor the lobbyists to twist arms in Capitol Hill. And those Democrats feel safe. Many are in solid (D) districts and have no fear of the opposition. Or they are in tough districts, and think that they are solid given the Republican alternatives. And that was certainly the case when we were in the minority or even with our tighter current majorities.

But things have changed. Democrats currently have a 37-seat majority in the House -- larger than any enjoyed by the GOP during its reign of corruption starting in 1994. That means that if we win 32 seats, well within the realm of possibility, we'll have a 101-seat majority in the House. Even if we gain a more realistic 20 or so seats, we're still talking a 77-seat majority.

And that'll give us breathing room to begin holding our party accountable.

Remember, we don't have the millions to compete with AT&T's lobbyists, and our best-crafted arguments can be easily ignored. All the while, Steny Hoyer buys loyalty by tirelessly campaigning and raising money for his fellow Democrats. So how can we overcome those obstacles?

Primaries.

So 2010 is going to be the year we pivot from taking control of our government, to holding out accountable. Like Al Wynn this year, the corrupt, the tone-deaf, and the reactionary within Democratic ranks will face the possibility of primary battles. The infrastructure we're building will be available for those courageous enough to take on the entrenched elite. But when we have candidates that inspire, and can develop the alternate funding sources to finance them, the combined might of the Pelosis and Hoyers won't be enough to effect change. Just ask Donna Edwards.

So you're angry about the Democratic capitulation? Don't take it out on the party. More House Democrats voted against this abomination than voted for it. The party isn't the problem, it's too many of its elected members that have forgotten who they serve and why. Hint: It's not AT&T lobbyists, it's not Steny Hoyer, and it's not access to their checks.

You want to do something? If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don't expect help from the local party establishment, they'll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They'd love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women's groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment ... you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.

Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.

And while people like me will focus on the task at hand this year, it won't be long after Election Day that we'll start looking at the 2010 map, looking for those great primary challengers.

Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis. (editorial note - formatting did cut and paste - "targeted" democrats are in bold per the link below)

Ackerman, Gary (NY-05)
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Baird, Brian (WA-03)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Bean, Melissa (IL-08)
Berkley, Shelley (NV-01)
Berman, Howard (CA-28)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Bishop, Timothy (NY-01)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boucher, Rick (VA-09)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Boyda, Nancy (KS-02)
Brown, Corrine (FL-03)
Butterfield, G.K. (NC-01)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Chris (PA-10)
Castor, Kathy (FL-11)
Cazayoux, Don (LA-06)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cleaver, Emanuel (MO-05)
Clyburn, James (SC-06)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cramer, Bud (AL-05)
Crowley, Joe (NY-07)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Davis, Artur (AL-07)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Dicks, Norman (WA-06)


Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05)
Engel, Elliot (NY-17)
Etheridge, Bob (NC-02)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY-20)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Green, AL (TX-09)
Green, Gene (TX-29)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL-04)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Hastings, Alcee (FL-23)
Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD-AL)
Higgins, Brian (NY-27)
Hinojosa, Ruben (TX-15)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Hoyer, Steny (MD-05)
Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11)
Kildee, Dale (MI-05)
Kind, Ron (WI-03)
Klein, Ron (FL-22)
Lampson, Nick (TX-22)
Langevin, JIm (RI-02)
Lipinski, Dan (IL-03)
Lowey, Nita (NY-18)
Mahoney, Tim (FL-16)
Marshall, Jim (GA-08)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McCarthy, Carolyn (NY-04)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Meeks, Gregory (NY-06)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)


Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Murtha, John (PA-12)
Ortiz, Solomon (TX-27)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Perlmutter, Ed (CO-07)
Peterson, Colin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL)
Rahall, Nick (WV-03)
Reyes, Silvestre (TX-16)
Richardson, Laura (CA-37)
Rodriguez, Ciro (TX-23)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Ruppesberger, Dutch (MD-02)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Sestak, Joe (PA-07)
Sherman, Brad (CA-27)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Sires, Albio (NJ-13)
Skelton, Ike (MO-04)
Smith, Adam (WA-09)
Snyder, Vic (AR-02)
Space, Zach (OH-18)
Spratt, John (SC-05)
Stupak, Bart (MI-01)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Bennie (MS-02)
Udall, Mark (CO-02)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)
Yarmuth, John (KY-03


Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can't save their jobs, they'll pay more attention to those who can.

p.s. Four Blue Dogs voted to protect the Constitution -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-01). They apparently realized that being supposed "moderates" didn't necessitate selling out to Constitution for George Bush's imperial presidency.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6...882/511/541568

"THE MEDIA DIDNT TELL YOU THAT THE LEFT WING WEB SITE HAD TARGETED
CONGRESSWOMAN GIFFORDS, PUTTING A BULLSEYE ON HER, DID THEY? BUT THAT IS JUST WHAT HAPPENED.

This is an argument about exact words and imagery, so anyone pretending that the words "bullseye" (or even an image) and "target list" are to be conflated with the above comment (the claim from the right that there was an actual image of a bullseye on congresswoman Giffords on Daily kos) is proving my point.

Tim Pawlenty's hypocritical criticism of Sarah Palin
by Jed Lewison
Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 06:30:04 PM PST

Tim Pawlenty thinks Sarah Palin shouldn't have used gunsight crosshairs imagery and says he would never have done anything like it:

“It would not have been my style to put the cross hairs on there,” he said Tuesday on “Good Morning America,” referring to a map like the one posted last year on SarahPAC’s website showing gunsights on the congressional districts represented by Giffords and a select group of lawmakers who supported health care reform.

“But then again, there’s no evidence to suggest that had anything to do with this mentally unstable person’s rage and senseless acts.”

“I wouldn’t have done it,” the two-term governor told The New York Times on Monday when asked about the map.

Pawlenty also told CBS News that politicians need to rise above delivering red meat just because they can. But as Benjamin Sarlin reminds us, Tim Pawlenty is no stranger to violent rhetoric. Remember CPAC 2010?

One of Pawlenty's biggest applause lines came when he advised the conservative activists listening to take a piece of advice from Tiger Woods wife, Elin Nordegren, who he said had "had enough" with her husband's philandering.

"I think we should take a page out of her playbook, and take a 9 iron and smash a window out of big government in this country," Pawlenty said.

So I guess you could say Pawlenty deplores violent imagery in politics...when it's used by his political opponents. But when it comes to himself, he thinks it's no big deal...especially when the audience thinks it's a great applause line.

Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in what she called their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, has become a symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In an interview with The Caucus on Monday, Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 rival and the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.

But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.

She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state.”

“Not with those who listen to talk radio,” said Ms. Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor. “Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their first amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”

In her seven-and-a-half minute video, Ms. Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term, which is centuries old, referred to anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews, and her use of the phrase itself has caused the video to go viral, attracting criticism of her description of the controversy. Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

Posing in front of a fireplace and an American flag, Ms. Palin looked directly at the camera as she condemned the shooting and talked about the “irresponsible statements” made since it happened.

On a day that President Obama is scheduled to travel to Arizona to give a speech honoring the victims, Ms. Palin posted the video early, getting a jump on the discussion.

“President Obama and I may not agree on everything,” she said, “but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process.”

Ms. Palin quoted former President Ronald Reagan as saying that society should not be blamed for the acts of an individual. She said, “it is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

In the past several days, pundits have wondered aloud why Ms. Palin had not been more vocal amid the criticism coming her way.

In the video, Ms. Palin, who is mentioned as a possible presidential contender for 2012, made clear that she had been watching and reading that criticism. Again and again, she returned to the idea that such commentary was unfairly tarring the people who engaged in political debates last year.

“When we say take up our arms, we are talking about our vote,” she said. “Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully.”

And she made clear that neither she, nor the advocates for policies that she supports, would be deterred from the rhetoric they have used by the tragedy in Arizona.

“We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults,” she said.

Ms. Palin was not the only one to respond to criticism Wednesday. Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-backed Republican who lost her Senate race against Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, also issued a statement defending herself against criticism.

“Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people’s Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant,” she said in the statement, according to media reports. “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

Ms. Angle said during the campaign that voters could pursue “Second Amendment remedies” if the political process doesn’t work for them. In the wake of the shooting, those remarks have been criticized anew.

But Ms. Angle said in her statement Wednesday that: “Finger-pointing towards political figures is an audience-rating game and contradicts the facts as they are known – that the shooter was obsessed with his twisted plans long before the Tea Party movement began.”

Ms. Palin’s professionally produced video is sure to intensify speculation that Ms. Palin is planning to run for president in 2012.

By taking on her critics directly, using language designed to grab headlines, Ms. Palin is likely to steal attention away from her potential presidential rivals, most of whom have issued more cautious statements.

Cautious is not part of Ms. Palin’s political repertoire. She starts the video with the standard expressions of condolences to the victims of the shootings. But her demeanor quickly shifts into a more aggressive posture.

The video is laden with references that will appeal to her potential supporters. She talks about the country’s “foundational freedoms” and the intentions of the nation’s founders. She makes references to former President Ronald Reagan.

And twice, she calls the United States “exceptional,” a dig at Mr. Obama, who conservatives accuse of not believing in the concept of “American exceptionalism” because of his answer to a reporter’s question early in his presidency.

“Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength,” she says. “It is part of why America is exceptional.”
–