Overreaction
Should Republicans and conservatives be shamed for their violent rhetoric? Sure.
Should Sarah Palin be forever condemned until she, without excuse, apologizes for her hate speech and illustrations? Absolutely.
Should it be outlawed? Of course not.
Representative Bob Brady (D-PA) will apparently introduce a bill that will make it a “federal crime to threaten or incite violence against a member of Congress or a federal official.” Now, there is a similar law that makes it a crime to threaten the President. And the Secret Service finds itself overworked and stretched thin responding to the thousands of threats, both credible and not, made each year, against just one man. How the hell are they going to respond to threats against 535 members of Congress?
But given our history of Presidential assasination, and the importance of protecting the President, the law outlawing threats against the President is necessary. Not to be blunt and crass, but the reality is protecting the President, no matter who he or she is or what political party he or she is from, is more important. Given our finite resources, practicality of enforcement is a consideration here. So too is the balance between liberty and security. We can tip the scale towards security when it involves the President because he or she is more likely than not to be the target of assassination. But I think we need to tip the scale towards liberty with respect to Congress, even given the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords.
To sacrifice more liberty or an ambigious amount of security? Nuts are still going to make threats and no law is going to stop them, and it is questionable if this proposed law can even be enforced against them.
Further, this law just feels like it is directed to Sarah Palin and the conservative media on TV and talk radio. As much as I hate and deplore what they say, and as much as I feel they all are directly responsible for what happened in Arizona, we shouldn’t be passing a law that even appears to be directed at silencing them. To quote fictional President Andrew Shepard:
America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
Another overreaction is being displayed by Rep. Heath Shuler (D – N.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R – Utah). They both have announced that they will now be carrying concealed weapons on their person when in their home districts. Hey, if the laws of their particular state allow it, then they both are within their rights to do it. But thinking that carrying a weapon will somehow protect them and deter a shooter is an example of idiocy. Arizona has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, yet 16 people were shot in a matter of a few seconds. If Gabby had been packing, she would never had have the time to reach for the weapon to defend herself. And neither would Health Shuler or Jason Chaffetz if they both were in a similar situation as Gabby, talking to a constituent when a killer approaches you from behind.
I think in both situations, Brady, Shuler and Chaffetz are trying to appear strong and tough in response to what is most definitely a frightening attack on their security. How about we stop trying to appear tough, and we actually summon the internal fortitude without passing stupid laws or engaging in meaningless shows of strength.
The best way to disempower these people is to stop compromising with their agenda. Stop rewarding them for threats and ultimatums.
The difference between “Do as we say or we will block unemployment benefits” and “Do as we say or we will shoot you” is only a matter of degree.
As a side benefit the economy will improve too.
I disagree with your contention that the difference in those two statements is a matter of degree. One is a policy disagreement, a bargaining position. The other isn’t.
The GOP has blurred the lines so much… and so readily that there isnt much rhetorical difference anymore.
I disagree with your contention that the difference in those two statements is a matter of degree. One is a policy disagreement, a bargaining position. The other isn’t.
On second thought, you have a point. Because I would be thrilled if Dems were to win something by taking a Republican issue hostage. If Dems were to do that, I probably would not see a continuum from hardball politics to violent threats.
And why not? Context. Because Dems don’t make a fetish of “Second Amendment solutions.”
Republicans however are soaked in violent context. Therefore for Republicans, I see the continuum between political threats and violent threats. Especially when the GOP political threats, if carried out, actually will have some indeterminate body count.
Fair point. I’m old enough to remember when the threats of violence came from the extreme left rather than the extreme right. The difference is that most on the left in the ’60s and early ’70s condemned such talk. Too many of those on the right today — particularly the noise machine components — are encouraging it for political and economic gain.
i would like to see an example of a national leader on the left who has toyed to irresponsibly with violence. Not d-bag hippies in their parent’s basement with photoshop, not fringe group leaders (peta, elf, weather underground) but an actual mainstream leaders.
NYT on Giffords shooter:
Government mind control! Ooohh! (Jon Stewart hiding under desk)… That’s nutso! Who could be that crazy?
Who indeed… Remember September 2009?
Conservatives Revolt Over Obama Speech to Students
Pawlenty Latest Republican to hit Obama School Speech
cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5289102-503544.html
All presidents speak to school children. I’m tired of this BS, honestly I am.
In case you missed my point: The NYT claims the shooter’s mind control theories make him crazy as a bedbug, but fail to notice Republicans saying the same thing.
even Mother Jones can’t drum/dream up a Tea Party Link:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1
Thanks for the link. Interesting.
“Should Republicans and conservatives be shamed for their violent rhetoric? Sure”
But of course, all liberals are saints who never use violent rhetoric. Instead, they make movies like “The Assassination of George W. Bush.” Instead, just this week, they make blog postings stating that Giffords is dead to them for her votes. Noting violent or to be ashamed of there. What a bunch of hypocrites. Where were the liberals when Sarah Palin was being hung in effigy?
Violence is wrong. Period. But don’t try pinning the blame on one side OR the other.
the “liberals” who made the bush video werent even americans.
also, no “liberal” leader (someone as high profile and powerful as palin) EVER resorted to those tactics. Stop the false “we both do it” because while some liberals DID say things like sarah palin did, no one knows who they are. It is not the same.
Everytime a Republican tries to justify thier violent rhetoric by trucking out the Bush video they expose the lunacy of false equvalency game. Who has even seen the thing? Maybe 200 people? 500 tops. And yet that video makes all of Beck’s and Palin’s assassination rhetoric okay.
Utterly shameless.
He is something that is not “overreacted” or really ever reacted to: the other 105 in the fluffy wo were shot and killed yesterday. Mostly poor , so no big whoop.
Loughner not cooperating with authorities. Doesn’t sound crazy to me. Keep digging.
Jason330–so, conservative rhetoric is bad because, what, people listen to it, while liberal rhetoric is harmless because no one pays attention to it? I’m not sure if conservatives should just laugh at this “logic,” or be flattered by it. In any event, here’s a good link that discusses this topic more eloquently than I:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41087#
And, if you want some more “mainstream” liberal comments with inappropriate rhetoric, how about these:
“You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?” — Chris Matthews
“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.” — Bill Maher
“Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce.” — Liberal radio host, Mike Malloy
Only two days before the attack, a blogger for DailyKos posted that Giffords was now “dead to me.” Interestingly, DailyKos has not taken that post down… I wonder why… see:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=249273
So, my point in all of this is simply to observe that blaming the vast right wing conspiracy for this may soothe liberal minds, but is also about as hypocritical as it comes. Some on the left engage in extreme rhetoric, just as some on the right do as well. Trying to pin “blame” for this is pointless. First, the vast majority of folks know right from wrong (despite what Geezer says), and know this was wrong. Second, in this instance, it appears as though the shooter has had a beef with Giffords going back to 2007 and is simply a nutjob. The fact that a politician was attacked, as compared to students at Virginia Tech, or folks at a school board meeting, doesn’t mean this is the fault of right wing rhetoric, and it seems a real shame that anyone is trying to make that case.
Ya know, i dont WANT Loughner to be a typical t-bag. If he is, it means they have shifted from moronic bumper stickers and tasteless signs to backing up their threats. It also means we can expect more because the another T-bag trademark is to out-bag each other.
If he is a one of a kind psycho, maybe we can hope that some people take a look at what they have been saying and change… or less people will watch/listen to their show.
Whatever it is, I’m afraid the current violent and murderous atmosphere (once again) created by conservatives in America hasn’t fully run it’s course.
Good points socialistic Ben. There is still a faint hope that more grounded Republicans can turn away from the assassination/revolution rhetoric comming from GOP spokespeople like Beck and Palin.
“Jason330–so, conservative rhetoric is bad because, what, people listen to it, while liberal rhetoric is harmless because no one pays attention to it?”
that’s pretty much it. More specifically liberals can identify when our crazies are using lofty rhetoric and we (for the most part) get the actual message. we also keep our rhetorical crazies far away from positions of leadership and influence. Conservatives make their crazies the front runner for a presidential nomination. They take the rhetoric literally (just they do with the bible…when it suites them) and the result is often tragic.
Conservatives dont really seem to grasp the concept of rhetoric. It’s ok. neither can monkeys, computers, or spent moldy teabags.
Newsmax claiming he was a pot smoking lefty. They blame Daily Kos,claiming they targeted her on their blog…
I think anyone who tries to forward any legislation in the wake of this tragedy and before bodies are even buried is not being sensible. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. Wait until cooler and clearer heads have prevailed, then introduce legislation.
I’ve met Brady. He co-taught a graduate course at the University of Pennsylvania with one of my professors (Dr. Stephen Gale). I took the class. The course was titled: “The Politics of Business.” He’s a real “Philly Pol’ who is a master of his constituents. He knows more about the union/politician quid-pro-quo than anyone in Philly.
@P “I think anyone who tries to forward any legislation in the wake of this tragedy and before bodies are even buried is not being sensible. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. Wait until cooler and clearer heads have prevailed, then introduce legislation.”
…and then we’ll get knee-jerk reactions from the NRA gun fetish thugs. ’tis best to more forward while one can.
@ Publius – OK thanks for the quotes from the pundits:
now, next challenge – please show me via link, where a Democratic candidate for office in say , the last 8 years, has put up a web site with crosshairs on districts or legislators.
OR
invited the public for a fundraiser where they shot automatic weapons – or shot at targets with either their opponents faces of initials on the targets.
OR preched about 2nd ammendment remedies if the ballots were not successful
OR stated if not ballots then bullets
OR had a rally where supporters had signs that said ”
We came un-armed, this time”
OR had a rally where folks open carried that they could not have at all in DC due to the gun laws so had it instead in VA across the river
for every left-wing quote someone can match you with a right-wing quote of the type you have given us
What I am asking for specifically, is where a Democratic candidate for office has said or done things that equate with Giffords opponent in AZ, Wasserman;s (in FLA) opponent, Sarah Palin’s rhetoric, West’s (also from FLA) erstwhile (but failed) ballets not bullets Chief of staff and of course Sharron Angle’s 2nd ammendment remedies.
Those are the equivalencies I would like to see – maybe they exist, I don’t know if they do or they don’t. But somehow, if they do, I imagine you are the person that would know where to find them.
SO lets equate apples with apples and see where they fall.
Aoine:
“now, next challenge – please show me via link, where a Democratic candidate for office in say , the last 8 years, has put up a web site with crosshairs on districts or legislators.”
From the Democratic Leadership Committee, circa 2004: Scroll down a little first.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
I linked, I looked, I scrolled – I’m not buying, its not equivilant.
your site even admits they are NOT “CROSSHAIRS” – targets sure – but are you suggesting that TARGET (the store) should change their logo too?
I asked for but did not receive, an apple for an apple
and I am not being difficult, I did concede that;
“for every left-wing quote someone can match you with a right-wing quote of the type you have given us”
but specifically stated;
What I am asking for specifically, is where a Democratic candidate for office has said or done things that equate with Giffords opponent in AZ, Wasserman’s (in FLA) opponent, Sarah Palin’s rhetoric, West’s (also from FLA) erstwhile (but failed) ballets not bullets Chief of staff and of course Sharron Angle’s 2nd ammendment remedies.
Those are the equivalencies I would like to see “