Posted on 01/11/2011 12:41:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The drumbeat of blaming conservatives for causing the Tucson shooting seems that it will never cease. No evidence has yet been presented that Jared Lee Loughner had ever heard of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, let alone was provoked by their words. Yet the rush to conclusions proceeds completely uninhibited by any evidentiary requirement. It seems sufficient for some to presume that conservatives = guns/violence, therefore, conservatives are to blame for any violent attack using a firearm. Even the Pima County sheriff, a supposed law enforcement professional, has been relentlessly pushing the partisan angle without the slightest apparent effort at, you know, actually investigating anything first. (In fact, some think that the Pima County sheriff should shut up and do his job, especially since there might still be a suspect out there. If he can’t be a professional investigator who sticks to the facts instead of going off on partisan rants without evidence, then he shouldn’t be in that job in the first place.)
Such an inflammatory and even incendiary charge is hypocritical in light of the fact that those pushing it are themselves claiming to be taking a stand against inflammatory partisan rhetoric. To blame conservatives for the actions of an individual who has been described by his school acquiantences as either an apolitical pothead or a left-wing pothead is the worst kind of dishonesty. In fact, it bears a remarkable similarity to the “blood libel” that has for centuries been a staple of anti-semitism. The truth or even plausibility of the charge seems irrelevant — the charge seems presumed true from the “fact” that conservatives are just bad people. Their reasoning is ultimately circular — conservatives are bad people, therefore they are responsible for the Tucson attack, therefore that proves what horrible people they are. This is bigotry, not analysis.
The fact of the matter is that one can look forever without finding a single conservative who endorses this attack. And one does not need a long memory to recall the very same progressives who are leading the anti-conservative lynch mob now sagely cautioning everyone not to jump to conclusions about motive in the Fort Hood attack. Why the shift? If it was unfair to blame the anti-war movement for Ft. Hood (which it was), then it is also unfair to blame the “tea party” movement for Tucson.
The double standards are also extremely disturbing. In their zeal to tar and feather conservatives with the blood of the Tucson victims based on the extreme rhetoric of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, anti-conservative commentators are blind and deaf to the equally extreme rhetoric of Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and Alan Grayson. Even President Obama has used metaphors about guns and knives. Indeed, some of the harshest commentators crowing about the hateful rhetoric of conservatives are themselves famous for their use of extreme and hateful rhetoric about conservatives. Their relentless and exclusive focus on only one side at a minimum shows a complete lack of fairness. If it is unintentional, it shows a remarkable blind spot and lack of introspection. If intentional (i.e. if it continues even after being directly pointed out to them), it shows a dishonesty, disrespect, and cynicism that is almost transcendent.
I would certainly hope that the American people won’t buy it. So far, at least, it seems to be the usual suspects — people who never have a civil word to say about conservatives just using whatever the story of the day is to demonize conservatives — business as usual. The fact that they would use the death of a 9-year-old girl and other innocents in their partisan script is a new low, true, but it is a new low in degree rather than a change in type.
This isn’t the way to change the tone in American politics. If anything, this is the best possible way to make it worse. If every tragic event is to be instantly transformed into fodder for the exact same partisan bashing themes that were in play before the attack, then the people doing that have no basis to complain about vitriolic partisan bashing. I would personally very much like to see more civility in our political debates in this country. But it can’t continue to be a one-sided rigged sucker game where the conservatives are required to be polite and restrained but where the progressives are given a pass to go off the deep end whenever they feel like it. Civility and responsibility has be to mutual. If you can’t do it yourself, don’t expect it in return.
Message to all the people blaming conservatives for the Tucson attack: You’re part of the problem. You are right this moment doing what you wrongly accuse them of doing. If you really want to improve political rhetoric, then maybe you should be the change you want to see in the world.
But if you just want to use Tucson as a way to bash conservatives, then you should just be ashamed of yourselves.
...based on the extreme rhetoric of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck...
A promising piece of prose - until this point...
Since the perp had been obsessed with the congresswoman since at least 2007, any link at all to Sarah is absolultely idiotic. No one outside of Alaska ever heard of her until McLame named her as runningmate.
All the media and political hacks that slandered Sarah concerning this horrific event, should be sued. Their attacks on her are deranged.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. It really is.
What do you expect from a website called “The Moderate Voice?”
Never heard anything I would consider remotely extreme from any of them. This author has made a grossly unfair comparison.
1) Negative Event Occurs.
2) Immediately blame Sarah Palin.
3) Events unfold showing Sarah Palin not at fault, or even involved.
4) Blame Sarah Palin harder.
5) IF SARAH PALIN DOES NOT RESPOND: Declare her out-of-touch and non-Presidential.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.