A very large amount of ado has been made over the map Sarah Palin used to point out which congressional districts she felt should be targeted. It was a map of the United States with what looks
like gun sights centered on the districts she had in mind. That map has become the center of the political narrative of the left, since the tragic shooting of U. S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday. Within hours of the shooting, the liberal media was already spinning the story, in an effort to place the blame for the shooting on Sarah Palin and other conservatives who are known for some of the more colorful political rhetoric coming from the right. You can see what the map looks like to the right.
Personally, I don’t see a thing wrong with the image Palin used and I do not see it as something that would inflame the political rhetoric or incite violence from those who would agree with her political views. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to blame her or anyone else on the right for 
the tragedy that has taken place in Arizona. However, since the left seems intently focused on casting that blame, and given the fact that the map used by Palin seems to be in the center of that focus, let’s roll back the clock to the year 2004. The map on the left was on a page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website during the years of the Bush presidency. The question I have is this. If a map such as this is political taboo, why does the same taboo not apply to the rhetoric coming from the left?
I have one major objective in posting these two maps and my short comments. That is to point out the unequivocal hypocrisy on the part of the left. It’s all good, as long as it is their rhetoric, yet at the drop of a hat, with no evidence to support their claims, they are ready to blame a completely unrelated shooting in Arizona on a map published by Sarah Palin during the mid-term campaign.
My readers know I do by best to call these things like I see them and there have been plenty of times when I have written about some of the rhetoric coming from the right. There are things that we focus on that I believe are ill-advised and I have a tendency to post more about that than I do about the rhetoric coming from the left. I suppose that is my feeble attempt to stay fair and balanced. This is one time that the focus should be solely on the left. What they have tried to do in placing the blame on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and other conservatives is beyond the pale and completely uncalled for. To that end, I am calling them out. If they are so upset about a map put out by Sarah Palin with targets on it, then why did they choose to use a similar map during the Bush presidency? I am still waiting to hear a good answer to that question.
It’s OK when they do it. Also, it forwards their narrative. They operate under “then ends justify the means.” Can’t expect liars not to lie. Sorry for the shotgun approach, but you have to approach it from a couple of angles.
Here’s some Obama quotes:
-“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
-“Get in Their Faces!”
-“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
-“Hit Back Twice As Hard”
-“We talk to these folks… so I know whose a*ss to kick.“
-”Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
-“It’s time to Fight for it.”
-“Punish your enemies.”
-“I’m itching for a fight.”
Is the President going to apologize for his overheated rhetoric? Or by saying “bring a gun,” is he responsible?
That has been my main gripe with this entire situation we see playing out. I have a sense of fair play about me and this is anything but. Simply put, I am tired of the double standard.
Good examples Matt!
As I have said elsewhere, the attention needs to focus on the ACLU and the destruction of our Mental Health System. It is time for Boehner and Cantor to buck up and stop being defensive. This was a murder by someone nuts. We need to stop it there.
I was just watching ABC’s Good Morning America and they are playing it the same way. They even had an interview with Gabrielle Giffords where she said that people that use images like Palin did need to realize there are consequences for actions like that. Not sure of the wording there but it was something along those lines. There is also a sheriff that is getting a little nutty about it all.
I don’t see the comparison. The Dem map targets entire states for a political strategy focused on regaining the presidency. It isn’t focused on senators or congressmen from those states but rather the state as “in play” for the presidential race. Isn’t that markedly different from a map that targets a congressional district and therefore a specific congressman?
For what it’s worth, if the blogosphere was near as active and influential during the Bush admin as it is today I think the right, including most who comment on this blog, woud have blasted the left for those attacks on Bush, and rightly so. It just wasn’t a factor at that time and few if any of you were blogging during most of the Bush years…and certainly not the early years which were his most ambiguous, difficult, and controversial ones.
How can you possibly not see the comparison. They are both political strategy maps drawn up for the purpose of identifying areas of possible political victory. They both use shooting symbols to point out the areas they are targeting. How is one different from the other?
You are correct in saying that a lot of us, myself included, were not blogging during the Bush presidency. That doesn’t mean the blogsphere wasn’t active and if you will do a search on the Daily Kos and/or The Huffington Post, you will find numerous posts about Bush and none of them called for the lowering of the political rhetoric that was calling for the assassination of an American President.
Mike, if you can’t see the comparison then you are blind as a bat. Whether it’s targeting the presidency or a specific congressional district, it’s still a political strategy map.
I think it’s just my right eye that’s a little weak.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds describes those implicating Sarah Palin and the tea party movement in the Arizona shooting guilty of “blood libel.”
The opening line from his editorial: “Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing.”
I guess Mr. Penn got his wish. He could have chosen something other than an act of domestic terror as an example of an event to bring the president and the people together, such as an earthquake or a big hurricane.
OMgosh! You’re right. Any act of nature would have brought our nation together without violence.
I think the reaction of the left and the things they have said gives us a bit of insight as to how they think and what their goals are. Why anyone would wish for such a tragedy is beyond me.
This double standard is despicable and has got to stop! Country Thinker, I heard that and agree with you. I guess Penn got what he wanted or asked for, which is extremely sad since he wanted to use a national tragedy and deaths for political gain. That’s downright disgusting. That is exactly what the Left is doing now. It’s truly vile and sickening.
Lies, distortions, exaggerations red herrings, smoke screens; these are the corner stone of the liberal philosophy. It is embedded in their nature.
I hold to my comment the other day (yesterday?) that this is manipulation. If those who want to change America in a drastic way don’t get their way, they have no problem trying to manipulate the ethos of the American people. Some will buy into that manipulation, unfortunately. But for the rest of us, we need to stand tall, think clearly and not buy into this anymore. Enough is enough.
As for Sarah Palin’s map, I didn’t actually realize at first that it was a cross-hairs symbol (and her people say that was NOT their intent EVER). I took the map, like the one the Dems did, as targets to focus on in a election cycle. That’s it.
I think what I find troubling here is two things. 1. Utter lack of responsibility. The young man who did this horrific crime is responsible and should be held acountable. Period.
No matter what anyone else said or did, in the end his actions were his choice.
2. This pre-determined approach to cast the blame anywhere but where it deserves to go. And this shooting isn’t the only example. Can we say Rangel? And there are examples on the right. It bothers me that we have no way to hold those officials we elect accountable for their lying, bad behavior, manipulation, unethicial choices, and power-hungry grabbing.
The political scene has become this chess game to see who can manipulate and out-lie the masses the best.
This is not what America is all about. We somehow need to restore integrity, honesty, character, and honor in our government officials (not saying all of them, just a lot of them). As how to do that, other than voting, I’m at a loss these days.
There really isn’t much to add to your comment, Dominique. I would like to reiterate your last paragraph. We need more people with integrity in our government.
Oh, on point two, you can add the media to that as well.
Larry:
I find it very interesting that, in a story where you insist there is nothing wrong with the SarahPAC map, you don’t show it on your front page. Editorial decisions are up to the blogger, of course, but I do find it odd that you didn’t put the picture of the “star” of the story up for the casual viewer to see.
Have we become a society that accepts violent words and imagery from our public officials? I think both sides have show that to be true, and that it’s escalating. I, for one, was appalled at Obama’s words-not something I want to hear from any leader, let alone the President of the United States. Lots of bad actors, and people on both sides using the bad behavior
But I don’t think we can skip the conversation of cause and effect. Was reading on a different blog (surprise-a Conservative blog) a list of the crimes and threats against members of Congress in response to the health care debate/vote. I won’t reprint it all, but a small sampling:
*Louise Slaughter-bricks thrown through her office window, threats to her and her family that they were to be “snipered” as well as specific death threats to her and her 3 daughters
*Congresswoman’s Gabrielle Giffords’ office window shattered
*Chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party read Rep. Pomeroy’s cell phone number aloud on the stage
* Rep Betsy Markey receiving threats
* Rep Anthony Weiner receiving anti-Semitic notes, including swastikas
And all of this came after the volatile, nasty and highly charged campaing of 2010. No list of threats against Republicans, but I bet it’s out there. I’m not sure that we can ignore the causal relationship between highly charged, violent words and imagery and the increase of violence and threats against our public officials. Are you?
You pop up Palin’s map without the context of the rhetoric that went with it. There was hers, of course, well known by now. Specifically relevant to Giffords’, you might also do well to remember that there was a concerted, organized effort to scare her and intimidate her during her entire campaign which included people showing up at her rallies (not supporters) guns in tow. Is that really necessary? And it all happened within a climate where her opponent courted this sort of behavior. Consider a campaign event he held:
“Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords From Office. Shoot an M-16 With Jesse Kelly”
Not sure why, as responsible American citizens, we don’t want to hide our heads in the sand on the connections between what’s accepted behavior and talk and how it plays out when the anger spills over. But that appears to be where you and many bloggers lead people to.
Well, I suppose I could say I find it odd that you would make something of nothing. There was no ulterior motive for choosing the DLC map for the featured image, rather than the SarahPAC map, but you can believe what you want.
Personally, I don’t like it when a politician, no matter who they are, uses violent rhetoric. I think it is counterproductive to call for harming one’s political opponents and takes away from anything positive being accomplished. Yes, there are those who use that kind of rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle, but it seems to me that the only ones who are getting charged with the “crime” is the politicians on the right. Anytime someone says something harsh about the left, it’s usually classified as hateful and violent and unnecessary rhetoric. Let the left say something harsh about the right and it’s freedom of speech. When I or any other conservative blogger speaks out about it, as I did yesterday in the aftermath of the shooting, the left is quick to jump in our faces and say we are politicizing the event and ignoring the truth.
Let me say as succinctly as I know how, what happened after the shooting in Arizona was completely and totally uncalled for. The left wasted no time in declaring how evil and violent the right was and how they were to be blamed for this tragedy. No matter that it had no basis in fact. Again, you can believe what you want, but that doesn’t change the facts.
Laurie,
Larry can’t win for losing with you. If he did have the map up you would’ve blasted him for having it up. It is his choice what he puts up and I for one do not appreciate you trying to chastise him for his choice.
Okay, let’s take the conveniently appalled lefties at face value and assume “politically charge rhetoric” actually does cause people to shoot other people – what do you suggest we do about it? You are the first people to complain about the right “not having solutions”, well I ask you now, what solution do you have to the problem. One caveat, and I know you guys won’t like it, but you do have to take the Constitution into account before you lay down the law. I know, I know, the Constitution is old and crusty and out-dated, but Obama hasn’t completely abolished it yet, so you do have to still follow it, sorry guys.
Not “politically charged rhetoric” but political rhetoric embracing violence. My comments are not an attack on free speech as you imply but a plea for any responsible opposition from whatever political view to denounce appeals to violent means. The Tea Party wasn’t even a year old before we started to see and hear messages from some fringe elements advocating Jefferson’s “tree of liberty” quote…and more specifically threatening messages. Let them say whatever they want, that’s their right — what I ask is that the grown-ups tell the children when they’re wrong. Palin, Beck, Hannity, and you guys are supposed to be the grown ups in the Tea Party.
The tea party has a family structure? I wasn’t aware of a structure at all.
Fringe elements are exactly that, fringe. The left has them, hell the freaking center does too. So what? Why is it mine or any other person’s responsibility to rein in the “fringe”. I don’t agree with the fringe, they don’t agree with me, ergo, we are unassociated. The only tenuous association we have is through your blinders. Neo-nazi’s are fringe elements, am I responsible for their actions and statements? Should I have to denounce them? I say no, because I don’t remotely think like them nor associate with them. Just as you should not feel compelled to denounce eco-terrorists.
The SEIU has been cracking skulls for years. No rhetoric required.
It’s Ok when the left does it.
Keep it up, you’re helping.
Apparently Mike thinks that it is okay to target a whole state and not the individual districts. He really is reaching here in my opinion because by targeting a state you are still targeting the individuals who represent that state.
Great find on this Larry. It seems to be tolerated when it is the left, but it is “violent” when it is the right who does it. As far as I know the right has never made a movie depicting the assassination of a sitting president, but people on the left love to forget about the violent rhetoric they have employed over the years. They really are losing all credibility that they once had.
That’s what continues to bother me about all of this, more than anything else. The double standard is so glaring, it’s blinding.
Larry the left politicizing this tragic event to pin the blame on the right is absolutely despicable and shameless. My feelings would be no different if the right was doing the same. This is a time for reflection; a time for mourning. It’s easy to get pulled into this trap, because there are so many emotions involved and emotions tend to cloud our judgment. We must resist the urge to play their game. We must not be drawn into a battle at a time when we should be praying for the healing of this great nation. There is a season for all things. My thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Giffords. I pray that she may have a speedy recovery. My condolences go out to the families who have lost loved ones in this senseless and tragic event. May God grant the people of this great nation the peace and patience to see this through. Thanks for the post Larry.
I understand what you are saying, and I tried hard to avoid this, but when we are being attacked the way we are for something that we had nothing to do with, it is too hard for me to resist defending myself and the movement!
I am like Steve, in that I tried to avoid writing about this. I very nearly didn’t write the first post yesterday morning and I wish at times that I hadn’t hit the publish button, but the false accusations and portrayals by the liberal media got the best of me.
Don’t feel bad about publishing your post yesterday Larry, it had to be done. The time for us sitting back and accepting these attacks (can I still say that?) is over, we must stand up for ourselves.
I understand your anger for the attacks against the right, I’m with both of you on this. I’m just saying there is a season for all things and a part of me feels like we are being set up by the left. This is what they want…they want confrontation. This is why they are ratcheting up the rhetoric. They know they are losing the war of ideas so this is what they resort to. They bait, the invite this kind of discourse, that need us angry, acting out of emotions. This is their game not ours. We have all seen this over and over again. Most of us have written posts on this tactic. I just want us to stay on target with our message. I appreciate what both you and Steve are saying. You two are rock solid conservatives that have done a great deal to advance the message. I just don’t want to slip into a trap and my spidey senses are telling me this is a trap.
This really isn’t as much a confrontation as that we’re presenting the truth, and allowing the left to beat their heads off of it. Any reasonalble person can look at what the shooter said and did, and know that there were no political motivations. If they want to waste what little is left of their credibility on pushing this narrative, let them. We’ll show the folks what the MSM won’t.
I agree Matt. You already knocked this sense into me…
Thanks John, I intend to get back to the issues today, I just had to get this whole thing off my chest!
I will have more tomorrow on my site but how about these?
Paul Krugman – Journolist: A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.
Richard Cohen – Journolist: For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.
Bill Maher – Comedian: I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.
More liberal tolerance on display with those comments!
Yes, they did get what they wanted. The left has longed for a tragedy that they could pin on the right and now they think they have it. It doesn’t matter that this man had no ties to the Tea Party, the media has a narrative and they are going to rin with it.
Random thoughts:
1) The sick young man who did this is said to hold the Communist Manifesto as one of his major influences. That suggests he is a leftist, if anything, not a right-wing wacko.
2) More tea partiers have been the victims of violence than have acted on violence, such as the old black man in St. Louis who was severely beaten by union activists. Yes, i said black tea partier.
3) The media has yet to cite an example of “violent rhetoric” from the right, other than Sarah Palin’s map, for which there is no evidence that the shooter even saw.
4) Read John Gordon Steele’s editorial in today’s WSJ. The rhetoric is not any more heated than other periods in our history.
5) Under the Supreme Court’s Enmons decision from the early 1970′s, violence by union members is exempt from prosecution if done during a strike. I have seen an estimate that more than 8000 murders have not been prosecuted as a result. Change the facts of the Tuscon slaughter, and it isn’t a prosecutable crime. And what side of the political spectrum do union leaders come from?
Your random thoughts raise some very good points. Al Gore may have made the film “An Inconvenient Truth” but that term has never been more fitting. The left simply does not want the rest of America to know the truth.
Good points.
Thanks Steve.