Filed under: Freedom, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Defend Your Ideas, Disagreeing, Mainstream Media
Hopes are high for Representative Gabrielle Giffords, though it is too soon to know. The big question after the horrific shooting in Tucson was, according to Maggie’s Farm, “whether the mainstream media was going to blame Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Bible-thumpin’ gun clingers everywhere, or simply Republicans in general.”
“Question asked, question answered:” The mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves. They don’t even think, but simply speak with one voice.
We published, on this page, a couple of pieces making gentle fun of Nancy Pelosi. We do not hate Nancy Pelosi, nor do we wish her ill in any way. We wish for her not to be Speaker. We disagree with her ideas. We think her tactics in the 111th Congress were tacky. And we wish she would take a course in economics.
Cannot Democrats defend their ideas without wanting Republicans dead? I have heard the most vile and venomous insults from Liberals wanting to find the words to say something so nasty that — what? they will win the prize for nastiness?— it is as if they were in a contest for who can top whom with the most unacceptable comment.
What I have NOT heard, are Liberals defending their ideas, explaining why their ideas will work, why their ideas are better for the country, why their ideas will help ordinary Americans. I can only conclude that they cannot defend, and that’s why they turn to the venom. It’s truly sad.
7 Comments so far
Leave a comment
American Elephants 
There is always a moment after a tragedy when things that are tacky, in poor taste, badly timed, or simply not appropriate spew out of the mouth of pundits, commentators, even clerics. These comments are generally toxic, and contribute nothing needful, helpful, or kind. Unfortunately, this time has come in the wake of this senseless, terrible violence.
LikeLike
Comment by zeusiswatching January 9, 2011 @ 7:21 pmI just wonder whether you folks would have been equally ready to defend the peaceful majority on the left had the gunman been a leftist radical who had shot a Republican politician.
LikeLike
Comment by Subsidy Eye January 10, 2011 @ 12:13 amSubsidy, I have no idea what you are trying to say. The gunman was clearly a paranoid schizophrenic way off his meds. (from a layman’s perspective). Sarah Palin had nothing to do with anything, yet the mainstream media decided that it was all her fault, and so claimed — because months back, during the campaign, she had pointed out on a map districts that she thought the Republicans could capture. She indicated those specific districts (all over the country, not only in Arizona) with surveyors marks which are the way you indicate a specific point on a map. The media thought they were cross hairs (they weren’t). If you had clicked on the links, you would have seen the media quotes, Sarah Palin’s map with surveyors marks, and a Democrat map from the campaign with targets. When Major Nidal was shooting 32 people at Fort Hood in a clearly Islamic-inspired attack, the mainstream media in one voice was urging calm, we don’t know what’s happening here, mustn’t blame Muslims, may be nothing important, etc.
Who is your peaceful majority on the left and what are you talking about? Any shooting of innocent people for no reason is a horrible tragedy, and others were killed besides the politician. In a country as large as this, there are apt to be some nuts, and there are some tragedies that we simply can’t prevent, though brave citizens did a good job of cutting the damage shorter than it might have been. I simply cannot fathom what you are talking about or what you think I meant.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 10, 2011 @ 12:35 amThe shooter was basically a leftist
and the Congresswoman was a middle of the
road Democrat.
Proof right there that liberals cannot defend
their positions.
And the knee jerk jumping to conclusions
blaming Sarah Palin , and Rush is telling.
Using the tragedy for new laws is revealing.
LikeLike
Comment by Ron spins January 11, 2011 @ 1:06 amRight, “survey marks”:
http://www.wisepolitics.com/pics/Sarah-Palins-Target-List.jpg
Looks like crosshairs to me. One does not “Take a Stand” over a survey mark.
I suppose that if somebody who is not from the Indian subcontinent or Bali were to dab a swastika on a wall you would say that they are expressing solidarity with Hindus.
No, Sarah Palin is not “to blame”, of course. But the populist right (not the intellectual right) loves to invoke images involving weapons. Makes the politicians look tough. But it also encourages nut cases to resolve their issues with guns, or to seek glory through a dramatic, violent act.
“Others were killed besides the politician.” Yes, and that is terrible. But the guy clearly wasn’t concerned about “collateral damage”.
Lefty? Because he had listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books? He also listed Mein Kampf. And Congresswoman Giffords is Jewish.
Finally, to clarify, when I spoke of the peaceful majority on the left, I did not mean to imply that the left has a monopoly on peaceful behavior. The majority of people aligning themselves with the political right and the political center also behave peacefully.
LikeLike
Comment by Subsidy Eye January 11, 2011 @ 2:13 amYes, Subsidy. Survey marks. They are a way of showing locations on a map when the ordinary designations of towns, counties and so on are omitted. “Crosshairs” are quite different. One “takes a stand” over all sorts of things — a principle, an argument, a bet, a neighborhood conflict. Why are you dragging “swastikas” into the conversation? Trying to up the violence?
America is a nation founded on the notion that if one were not a good marksman, the family might not eat. We have hunted for food for centuries, and millions still do. We have police, armies, and people who simply shoot for fun. The “populist right” “loves to invoke images involving weapons?” This is so laughable that you should be embarrassed. Um, Hollywood? Images involving weapons? Television? Images involving weapons? The publishing industry? The video game industry? And deeply disturbed people never see any of these, but are incited to violence because a politician uses a violent term like “taking a stand?” Surely you are not suggesting that Hollywood is the “populist right.”
Yes, Loughner is reported to have been very interested in Democrat (leftist), politics, and was deeply interested in Congressman Giffords even before he asked a deranged, unanswerable question that she was unable to answer, which turned him against her. It’s doubtful that he ever read the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf even if he listed them as favorite books. The problem is that we currently are poorly equipped to deal with the deranged. It is very difficult to commit anyone against their will even when they are a clear danger to society.
The prissy, citified, obsession on the part of the left with guns has become absurd. When tiny children are expelled from school for drawing a tiny gun in the margin of their notebook, or for having a GI Joe rifle in a pocket, it is the principal who should seek counseling, not the kid. The deranged do violence because of the demons of whatever kind in their heads. It has nothing to do with political rhetoric, and Republicans are allowed to disagree with Democrats about policy, and vice versa of course. We are supposed to argue and disagree. That is why political speech is protected by the Constitution. And if someone believes that ObamaCare, for example, will bankrupt the country — it’s really not a racist comment.
Democrats, when they lose an election, rush to delegitimize the Republicans.And they seem to believe that whatever is repeated often enough and loudly enough will redeem the election they lost. When Nancy Pelosi took over the House in 2006, Republicans, (the violent folks) slapped themselves upside the heads and realized that they had overreached, spent too much money, and did some real soul searching. That does not mean that continuing to disagree with Democrats about their policy preferences and trying to prevent passage of bad bills is somehow violent rhetoric. Can we understand what is political speech and what is simply hate and name-calling? They are different.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 11, 2011 @ 2:58 pmIt is funny that if you go to the read the sites on the left you hear the exact thing except substitute left with right and liberal with conservative.
LikeLike
Comment by Mark Baird January 13, 2011 @ 7:01 pm