Most Americans aren’t blaming a “harsh political tone” for the horrific January 8 shooting in Arizona, in which a lone and seemingly deranged gunman allegedly shot a member of Congress and a handful of people nearby, killing six people. Despite efforts by some political talking heads to blame Republicans or conservatives for the actions of the shooter, it’s a relief that a majority of Americans aren’t buying that bull. Sixty percent of those polled by CBS News said the shootings were not related to any “harsh political tone.”
It’s been maddening to hear some on the left try to blame Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin and some other media or political figure for the alleged actions of that young Arizona man, Jared Loughner. The great leap by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, MSNBC’s liberal parody Keith Olbermann and others to blame politicos seems baseless to me – where is the evidence? For one thing, it’s not clear that the alleged shooter ever described himself as a Republican or a conservative or that he was a fan of Limbaugh, Palin, or anyone else. I’ve not seen evidence that he was watching, say, Glenn Beck every day and was so incensed at what Beck complains about – big government, dishonest politics – that he decided to attempt to kill a member of Congress.
But what if Loughner were hooked on Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh? When have either of them suggested a violent uprising? To the extent that Sarah Palin used cross hairs on a map to “target” the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords during the 2010 campaign, I can’t say that was a great choice on her part. But it’s really a fantastical stretch to argue that such imagery motivated the shooting. Aside from the complete lack of evidence that A caused B – or that Loughner had ever even seen Palin’s website – I’m not aware of an instance in which Beck or Limbaugh or Palin or any high-level conservative or GOP lawmaker has called for violence against any political figure on the left. (Not like ex-Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski (Pa.) who apparently called for the shooting of Florida’s new governor.)
Speaking out against statist, economy-tanking, liberty-quashing government policies is entirely appropriate and, in the wake of massive bailouts, gargantuan deficits, and the impending Obamacare takeover of health care, crucial. Which makes it particularly galling is that some on the left use this horrible incident to suggest that speaking out against objectionable, intolerable policies is somehow suspect or wrong. I’m encouraged to see that most Americans seem to reject these bogus criticisms. Hopefully the remaining 30 percent will come to their senses.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
DriveInnovation.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
Playing with matches atop a powder keg:
People of varying interests and disinterests and from left to right across the political spectrum have appealed to public figures to stop using dangerous rhetoric and to realize that the irresponsible targeting of individuals (as in Sarah Palin’s call to reload and her distribution of rifle crosshairs on a targeting map) risks grave consequences for others. One cannot reload a life lost by anyone that got targeted by a political demigod’s careless spew of words from a public platform.
Even light-commentary programs like ”The View” on television had pointed out that Palin’s kind of public posturing can set the stage from which unstable personalities lash out and wreak tragic injury on unsuspecting innocents. And in this all too real tragedy, whence came the spark that ignited in life-exploding devastation?
For whatever reason, this or that will be faulted or forgiven, but the insensitive targeting of a potential victim is akin to playing with matches atop a powder keg. The warning was plain to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlYHiJCqBI&fe…
What Sam Osborne misses is the fact that there is that Palin's rhetoric was totally commonplace in politics and was not sincerely perceived by anyone as dangerous or threatening. Metaphors are just that — metaphors — and is simply disgraceful to claim that martial metaphors like "campaign" and "targeting" and "crosshairs" are actual threats.
As even liberal journalists have now admitted, there is not one shred of evidence that any recent political rhetoric influenced the shooter.
The shooter was once described as a left-wing pothead, anyway.
That won't stop the Left from using things like this to try and gain an advantage.
Here's a former Clinton advisor saying how important it is for Obama to seize this moment the way Clinton did after Oklahoma City:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF5_33WXSRs&fe…
Talk about cynical.
We are not going to know what set off this deranged person and ignited this life-exploding devastation.
And for whatever self-serving reason squirming demigods and their minions now find fault or forgiveness from blame, the lesson to be sanely taken away is that the insensitive targeting of a potential victim is akin to playing with matches atop a powder keg.
Weeks ago, the warning was given and plain to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlYHiJCqBI&fe…
Comments on this entry are closed.