Tag Archives: Giffords

Posted on by

They’ll Never Learn

It’s been just over a year since the tragic shooting in Tucson that took nine lives and nearly killed Gabrielle Giffords. You’d think, by now, that the tone of rhetoric would have changed, that people would be careful of what they say so as not to put ideas into the heads of more whackjobs like Jared Loughner.

You’d think.

Rep. John Sullivan, (R-OK) made the following statement on Wednesday (via TPM  - see the video there)

Like I said, after this last election, the first order of business is pass a budget. Now, I believe that. I supported the Paul Ryan budget and sent it over to the Senate. Now I live with some Senators, I yell at them all the time, I grabbed one of them the other day and shook him and I’d love to get them to vote for it — boy I’d love that. You know but other than me going over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them, I don’t think they’re going to listen unless they get beat.

Yup. He even used his fingers to simulate a gun and pulling the trigger.

Of course, the apology was issued with the usual “poor choice of words” and “does not condone violence” disclaimers. Really? What exactly does he think would have been the “best” choice of words? People don’t make these kind of “mistakes” and poor choices of words. I caught my daughter dropping the s-bomb a couple of weeks ago. She said it was an accident. As I explained to her, the only way that it was an “accident” is if she is using that word so much in other situations, that she “accidentally” used it in front if me. You don’t accidentally say something you don’t normally say.

And that’s the case here. It wasn’t poor choice of words. He uses these phrases every day. That’s why he “chose poorly”. He got caught saying in public, on camera, what he likely says all the time. And he wouldn’t have apologized if he hadn’t gotten caught.

That’s where the rhetoric is nowadays. And these guys think that if they just issue an apology, that somehow it makes it ok. They take no responsibility for the fact that these kinds of statements fuel the hatred, fuel the violent rhetoric. It’s not what he got caught saying – it’s that he would even think about saying it. He didn’t just say, metaphorically, that he’d have to hold a gun to their heads. He went the extra step to say he might even have to kill them.

This is Oklahoma. Site of the biggest domestic terrorist attack on US soil. You’d think, after the Oklahoma City bombings, after the attacks in Tucson, that this idiot would get the clue that talking about killing someone because they won’t do things your way is just a bad, bad idea. But these guys don’t get it. They don’t. And they don’t want to. They don’t believe they have any responsibility.

Until the next “isolated incident” happens. Until someone else dies because some crackpot decides that the people who disagree with him just need to die. But of course, he doesn’t advocate violence.

He just wants to talk like he does.

Posted on by

“Isolated Incident” Waiting To Happen

 

Image is a capture from Facebook by Phoenix New Times

This story out of Phoenix today crossed my sight. It seems a police officer in Peoria, AZ Police Department posted a picture on his Facebook page showing a group of teens with weapons, proudly holding up a bullet-hole ridden Obama t-shirt.

In an interview with Sergeant Shearer, the officer in question, he says “I don’t think that the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal.” …”It was more of a political statement.” He added, “It’s not like they were going to go out and shoot the president.”

Really? I wonder how many targets Jared Loughner used before he took aim and killed 9 last year? How does this police officer know that all of these kids were “just making a political statement”?

And when, just when, did this become something we’re expected to accept? Let’s look at just the last week, shall we? Crosshairs left on the offices of Democratic senators in Missouri. A Democratic campaign manager comes home with his family to find the family cat mutilated with the word “Liberal” painted on it. The governor of the state of Arizona shows the lack of respect we’d expect to see on Jerry Springer wagging her finger at the President, then lies about what happened (per the two mayors who were standing there). And this.

In one week.

The rhetoric is getting worse, and instead of figuring out how to cool it off, these kids are being featured on a cop’s Facebook page.

When the next nutjob goes after a Democrat, or kills innocent citizens because he’s afraid his guns are being taken away, it won’t be an “isolated incident”. We’ve seen it coming from a long way away.

Posted on by

Are We Going To See More “Isolated” Incidents?

Palin Crosshair map

It has barely been a year since the tragic shooting in Arizona that killed nine and nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. This week, she announced her resignation from the House in order to focus on her recovery.

One year.

Also this week, five Democratic state senators in Missouri found images of sniper crosshairs on their office doors. You’ll recall that Gabby Giffords was “targeted” by Sarah Palin with crosshairs on a map before she was shot.

Are we getting ready to start seeing more “isolated incidents“?

To be sure, the blame for the attack in Arizona last year cannot be laid squarely at Palin’s feet. And until they catch – if ever – the individuals that placed the crosshairs on the office doors, there’s no way to know their political leaning. But it’s about the atmosphere that has been created.

Somewhere, it became acceptable, and even encouraged to make physical threats. Last week, the campaign manager for a Democrat in Arkansas came home with his kids to find their cat dead and the word “Liberal” carved into it. At what point did this become acceptable, in any way?

Have we not learned the lessons that violent rhetoric only makes the problem worse? How long will it be until we get another “isolated incident” that will be disavowed and put off to coincidence? As the campaign rhetoric heats up, and as the candidates make their cases, how long until someone decides to eliminate a candidate for good?

Posted on by

Rhetoric – Clearing Up Where I Stand

I had an interesting debate with someone over the weekend regarding rhetoric. It started from a completely different topic, that of some Republicans in Congress creating “watch lists” of citizens who ask them tough questions at town hall meetings. One person said that it was about time they used the same tactic as Democrats – his belief, not mine – and used as examples Maxine Waters telling the Tea Party to “go to Hell”, VP Biden’s calling the Tea Party “terrorists”, and the media’s outing of Joe the Plumber. And he accused me of not calling out these people for their actions.

I have posted many times about the rhetoric and how it is not helping the climate, and is why many Americans just don’t want to think about politics. I even pointed to my most recent post where I called out Biden for his use of “terrorists”. He read the post, and didn’t think I did, and to be fair, when I re-read the post, I could see it from his side. I wasn’t clear.

So this is me, making it clear: Cut the crap – the rhetoric is stupid and serves no purpose.

Let’s go with some examples:

First off, VP Biden should not have used “terrorists”. Period. Tea Party followers and politicians are not “terrorists”. I may believe they are misguided and have a goal of opposition rather than working toward a common goal of improving the state of the nation. But this does not make them “terrorists”. Calling them “terrorists” does not elevate the conversation nor improve the situation.

Also note, I do not and will not call Tea Party believers “teabaggers”. Yes, I know they were the first to use the term, before someone pointed out that it has a much different and less complimentary definition. But again, continuing to use the term doesn’t elevate the conversation. It’s childish and unnecessary. If you truly want to demonstrate the folly of their beliefs, point to their beliefs, not an ill-advised sound bite.

I did not, will not, and don’t condone calling former President Bush a chimp, the “Chimperor”, or any other reference to a simian. I didn’t like him as President – I disagreed with the vast majority of his policies and believe firmly that his policies are what got this country into the sorry state of economy in which we find ourselves. But that does not excuse the sophomoric attempt to paint him into the image of an ape. Again, it’s unnecessary.

The President is not a socialist (look it up in any unbiased reference book). He’s not from Kenya, he was born in the US, he’s not trying to gut Social Security, and he did not “pal around with terrorists”. See, when Biden used it, he wasn’t even original. The ‘terrorist” theme was used on the campaign trail by good ol’ Sarah Palin to smear then-candidate Obama. But all of these smears are used to do one thing – paint the President as an outsider, a “danger” to the American Way. And none of them are based in fact. Calling the President by his full name, emphasizing that his middle name is “Hussein” is simply an effort to demonize him and perpetuate the myths.

The “Tea Party” is not a racist organization. There are individuals within the Tea Party organization that have shown themselves to be racist, some in positions of leadership. Rallies regularly feature speech and signs that are decidedly racist, and are tolerated. If the Tea Party wants to eliminate the racist label, they need to loudly denounce those views. They haven’t to date, and that earns them the label. However, calling the “Tea Party” racist doesn’t make them so.

None of the rhetoric above is designed to move the conversation forward. Instead, it is designed to paint the people it focuses on in an unflattering light, to question their motives, without ever addressing the realities of their actions.

But there is a corresponding behavior that is more infuriating than the rhetoric: Faux outrage.

This is the the way it works: Someone says something less than “artfully”, and people get “offended” by it. I’m not talking about political correctness, nor about taking offense to truly offensive statements. No, I’m talking about outrage directed at simple speech.

For example, Maxine Waters told the “Tea Party” to go to Hell. She didn’t point out individuals, she wasn’t directing it at anyone person in particular. She used a phrase that many of us would not think twice about, directing it toward a political movement. She doesn’t actually have the power to send people to Hell. But sure enough, it was “news”.

Go back a few years, and then-VP Dick Cheney famously dropped the F-bomb on the floor of the House or President Bush calling a reporter an a-hole over an open mic (with Cheney’s “big time” agreement”), and there was plenty of outrage then too.

My response to all of these? Get over it kiddies. Adults often speak in “adult” language. If the best you can do is complain about salty language, then you have a much bigger problem. But no, plenty of folks got all up in arms about “offensive” language. Was the language appropriate or necessary? Nope. But it also has nothing to do with political discourse.

The real problem with this faux outrage, on both sides, is that it blurs the line between what’s important, what’s truly offensive and unacceptable, and what is simply posturing. It creates equivalencies where there are none. There is absolutely no equivalence between telling a group to go to hell and distributing personal information on private citizens to the media because they asked you a tough question. No correlation whatsoever. But in this atmosphere of  ”insult then cover”, they’re given the same weight.

Then comes the second stage of faux outrage – when the “offended” individual or group then adopts the very analogy they complain about. Republicans got up in arms about Biden’s “terrorist” statement. Yet, within 24 hours, Mitch McConnell referred to the debt ceiling negotiations as a “hostage taking” situation, where they weren’t sure if it would be better to shoot the hostage. This is just dishonest, disingenuous blathering. If you’re going to complain about someone calling you a “terrorist”, don’t come right back and speak about doing things like a terrorist. It doesn’t make what Biden said right in any way. It’s just highly hypocritical.

Another example of the “insult and cover” is Sarah Palin’s “defense” of the crosshairs maps that were heavily covered after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. The crosshairs were a stupid thing to defend, brutally stupid. Putting a “target” on an individual and then acting surprised that a nutjob actually opened fire in one of those locations. The appropriate move would have been to say that although the crosshairs were not intended to conjure images of shooting, perhaps another symbol would have been a better choice. Instead, she doubled down and called the complaints a “blood libel”. Blood libel has its own offensive meaning to those in the Jewish community, and so Palin’s defense in the face of scrutiny was to insult another group – and to make herself the victim. And yet, Republicans did not call her out on either of these issues. Instead, they came to her support.

One last thing to address is the “they do it” mentality. That is a key element to this false equivalency routine. Somehow, these folks who want to make this argument have forgotten the lesson that my 8-year-old has learned: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Doing something that you know is wrong just because you think the other side did it first isn’t just wrong – it’s worse than the first offense. You knew it was wrong, complained about the other guy, then did the very same thing. It’s something we all know is wrong, and yet, it seems more and more people are finding it acceptable.

So, in here’s where I stand on these things:

- Rhetoric that is based on falsehoods, lies and myths – designed to paint a picture of a person or group by assoicating them with something heinous or scary – is unacceptable.

- Name-calling is pointless and serves no real purpose. There’s plenty of things to be snarky about without having to act like a third-grader.

- Be offended by things that are truly offensive. Adults speak with rougher language than we’d like sometimes, but if the language on network TV is worse, you probably are overdoing it.

- Can the faux outrage. When everything causes an uproar, then nothing does. Be angry about what’s important, and quit crying wolf.

- Quit adopting the very things you were outraged about. Don’t complain about being branded with an image then proceed to reinforce that image.

- Stop giving things the same level of importance. See above for faux outrage.

- “They did it first” isn’t an acceptable excuse for my 8-year-old. It really isn’t for adults, either.

Note: this isn’t about limiting free speech. I’m not advocating action against individuals to stop them from doing all of the above. They are free to do so. But I won’t partake in it. And those that do weaken their positions, not strengthen them. If we all held these people to those standards, we might actually see things getting done in Washington instead of the endless posturing and the chase for the next sound bite.

Posted on by

Tea Party Vitriol – The Hits Keep Coming

The folks over at Politico have been following the latest incarnation of the Tea Party Express in Wisconsin as they try to drum up support for the Republicans facing recall. Not surprisingly, these folks are up to the same tactics. From Politico:

The founder of Tea Party Nation claimed liberal ideology is responsible for “a billion” deaths over the past century during a raucous rally here Saturday in support of one of the six Republican state senators facing a recall election Tuesday.

“I will tell you ladies and gentlemen, I detest and despise everything the left stands for. How anybody can endorse and embrace an ideology that has killed a billion people in the last century is beyond me,” said Tea Party Nation CEO Judson Phillips.

Phillips, who a day prior likened protesters of Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi storm troopers, urged a few hundred tea party supporters to turn out for state Sen. Alberta Darling, who is in a ferocious battle with state Rep. Sandy Pasch to hold onto her suburban Milwaukee seat.

But he wasn’t the only speaker to use loaded language to gin up the crowd.

Vince Schmuki, a leader of the Ozaukee Patriot tea party group compared the recall effort to a terrorist attack.

“This is ground zero,” said Schmuki.  “You remember what the term ground zero means? We have been attacked.”

He continued, “Tuesday is going to be the beginning of our takeover. And we’re going to follow it up the following week, and then we’re going to polish off the enemy in November 2012.  Who’s with me?”

Let’s see… comparing opponents to the Nazis, claiming “a billion deaths”, usurping the image of ground zero to use it to attack their opponents, “polish off the enemy”.

This is what the Tea Party “elite” do. I don’t think the rank and file are like this on a whole, but they don’t denounce it either. It was only 7 months ago that the conversation was about how we can change the level of discourse on Washington, how the vitriol was making things worse, not better. We were all discussing how violent rhetoric was likely empowering nutjobs like Loughner who went after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. So much for elevating the conversation.

The scary thing is that these folks have elected people into office, and those people are having an outsized effect on Washington. Case in point – last week a survey was released showing that only 20% of those surveyed have a positive opinion of the Tea Party. And yet, last week’s debt ceiling deal was crafted to make sure it would get past the Tea Party members, who had already scuttled plans by John Boehner. The Speaker of the House can’t get his own legislation passed because of Tea Party folks, and yet, they represent a small minority of the country.

There should be no place for this kind of rhetoric. And ignoring it is not the answer. By ignoring it, we accept it. By allowing it to continue, we encourage it. This vitriol adds nothing to the discussion and plays to lowest common denominator. And it encourages those individuals who are looking for an excuse to “polish off the enemy”. And when it happens, they’ll blame it on another “isolated incident“.

Shame on them. And shame on us if we ignore it and don’t speak up.

Posted on by

Gabrielle Giffords Returns – And Civility Is DOA

In January, Gabrielle Giffords suffered a gunshot wound to the head while holding an outdoor town hall meeting for her constituents. Very quickly, the discussion turned to the rhetoric and the environment that may be partially to blame for these kinds of attacks.

Last week a killer on a rampage in Norway made the claim that he was influenced by right wing ideologies, and carried out an attack that left dozens dead.

This week, Gabrielle Giffords made a remarkable return to the House floor to cast her vote on the debt ceiling deal. And there were smiles and tears from her colleagues upon her return. And that’s about how long it lasted.

For example, quotes like the following:

The DEMS stooped to a new LOW bringing in Giffords simply to Vote WHATEVER HER PARTY WANTED; NOT THE PEOPLE! That was a SHAMEFUL display! – @pompanopete

The consensus from these folks is that it was a publicity stunt. That her appearance was designed to nullify the fact that many Dems chose to vote no. Yes, it’s that cynical.

Others say she did a disservice by showing up. Like this:

Yup. That would be a complaint from the left.

Instead of things improving, they’re getting worse. Because at least, until recently, the rhetoric was being kept to the right side of the aisle. But now the left is doing the same thing.

Last week, when Governor Christie of NJ had an asthma attack, I saw posting after posting on Facebook and Twitter, as well as blogs, essentially saying he had it coming to him, that he deserved to die. I was appalled. I don’t care for Christie’s policies, his coziness with corporations and his self-interest in getting as much as he can. But he is a father. He has kids and a wife. Wishing him dead of a heart attack? How is that any different that saying Gabby Giffords injuries were her own fault?

And don’t give me the excuse that they were “just jokes”. That’s a load of crap. Jokes like that aren’t funny. But as soon as one of those jokes gets made against the guy you like, the outrage goes to 11. There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

This week, in reference to the President, Rep. Douglas Lamborn said the following:

“I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it — you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away,” Lamborn said. “I don’t want that to happen to us (Republicans), but if it does, or not, he’ll still get — properly so — the blame, because his policies, for four years, will have failed the American people.”

Now, to be fair, the idea of a “tar baby” can refer to a sticky situation. But it’s also a derogatory term for African-Americans. And anyone born in the last 50 years with some semblance of knowledge would know that. And I’m quite certain Lamborn did. He apologized, sort of:

Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) today sent a personal letter to President Barack Obama apologizing for using a term  some find insensitive.

Note the phrasing here. It’s a typical non-apology apology. He says “using a term some find insensitive”. He doesn’t say he finds it insensitive. He says others find it insensitive. It’s not his fault, it’s your for knowing that “tar baby” is derogatory toward African-Americans, among others. Your fault, not his. Which somehow makes it ok. Every time one of these statements is allowed to pass, it makes the next one easier to swallow.

And back on the left side if the aisle is good ol’ Joe Biden. He decided to call Tea Party members who wanted to kill the debt ceiling deals “terrorists”. Joe’s always good for a quote, they say. But the Tea Party folk aren’t “terrorists”. They may be misguided, wrong-headed, and not have a clue how to govern. That does not make them terrorists. Because they aren’t interested in terror. They aren’t out to scare anyone, there were no “hostages” taken. This was not a “war”.

We have allowed the conversation to sink to the lowest common denominator. It’s about “battles”, “fights”, “wars”, “hostages”, putting individuals and districts “in the crosshairs” – the list goes on and on. And then we wonder why nothing gets done. We have made every nuance, every move, every discussion as vile and vicious as we can make it and get away with it. But the really scary part is that it used to be confined to one side of the aisle. Now, it comes from everywhere.

Gabby Giffords’ return to the House floor was triumphant and wonderful. But it’s also a reminder of the rhetoric that is getting worse by the day, rhetoric that quite likely had a hand in making that return more than just another day at the office.

Posted on by

Another “Isolated Incident” Waiting To Happen – Update 2

UPDATE 1 : Guess it didn’t take long to find out the answer to the last question.

UPDATE 2: Crooks & Liars now has an interactive map of the “isolated incidents” since July 2008. 20 events so far.

The media and politicians have been vehemently denying that there is any connection between the rhetoric being slung on a daily basis, and want to make the claims that examples of right-wing extremism are just “isolated incidents”. Then, you get guys like Travis Corcoran of Arlington, MA, who was moved to post after the Tucson shootings that it was “1 down and 534 to go”, with Giffords the “1″ and the rest of Congress the “534″.

In a Twitter exchange, Corcoran said the following (from Think Progress):

“I assert that the US federal gov has grown unconstitutionally large, and the legislature exceeds the powers delegated to it by the people,” Corcoran wrote. “As per the Declaration of Indep, when a gov becomes destructive those ends, it may be abolished,” he continued, “and the most moral approach is that which spares the maximum number of lives. Thus, assasination is a legitimate tool.”

He goes on to further justify assassination as “morally legitimate,” citing “Catholic Just War doctrine” among other theories, and explains, “It’s illegal, yes, but it’s not un-American. America was founded on the idea of shooting gov officials. Lexington Concord!” In another tweet, he writes, “I disagree with murder. …but shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws is not murder.” And in case there’s any doubt about his sincery, he writes, “Nope, it’s not a joke. I’m 100% serious.”

Yup. He believes that assassination is a proper tool to change government, and that killing politicians is not murder. His words.

How many more of these guys are going to come out of the woodwork?

Posted on by

Compassionate Conservative? Not In This Lifetime

Conservative blogger John S. Wilson penned a particularly direct post yesterday, regarding AZ Representative Gabby Giffords:

An additional question yet to be properly discussed much less answered is: Who will represent Arizona in Giffords’ stead? Thankfully Rep. Giffords is on the road to recovery. However, it will be long, arduous and unpredictable. There is no doubt her constituents mourn for her and her family. But does that mean they should also go without representation in Congress? Certainly not.

…

Stepping down from one’s office is nothing to be ashamed of. In actuality, the shame lies in not being honest with one’s own self about the responsibilities that voters have entrusted in one and the expectations they have. Constituents should expect that an official will either be appointed or a special election held within six months, not years. This current Congress should take this issue up immediately and in consultation with Giffords’ family and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer come to an appropriate remedy. …

So, to recap – Giffords is shot in the head. In less than two weeks, she is already standing on her feet, albeit with assistance. Her recovery thus far has been nothing short of miraculous. So the obvious response from this conservative genius is… replace her ASAP.

If she had been out for say, six months, and no reasonable prognosis for return was forthcoming, then perhaps that makes sense. But it hasn’t been two weeks yet. For cripes sake – Congresscritters take vacations longer than that. She’s missed one substantive vote.

Of course, this guy is hoping that if she was replaced, it would be with a Republican. My guess? Gabby Giffords will recover, and this guy will still be an ass.