Of course he will; that was inevitable as soon as it was reported that Giffords’ was one of Palin’s gunsighted Congressional districts. That was the reaction to the straight reporting when Rep. John Lewis was called ‘nigger’ and spat at during the HCR effort. It doesn’t matter what liberals actually say about it.
Blowback is something that you can avoid; Limbaugh being a big fat liar is not avoidable.
Naturally, the mere fact that he murdered six people and directly attempted to assassinate a U.S. Congresswoman will make him fry. Why bother working out his rationale, whether it’s politically motivated or not?
Have you watched this guy’s YouTube videos? He’s clearly insane, but his delusional rants contain almost no politics at all. He rants about government mind control, fiat currency, and Oblivion’s Dark Brotherhood, but that’s as political as he ever gets. It wouldn’t surprise me if his sudden, catastrophic mental breakdown caused him to target Giffords at the very last minute, despite what Fox News has been saying.
So? A political target does not mean political motivation. Booth shooting Lincoln – politically motivated. John Hinckley, Jr. shooting Reagan, Charles J. Guiteau shooting President Garfield – not politically motivated. Lee Harvey Oswald shooting JFK – who knows? See the difference?
His rationale doesn’t interest me, but the possibility that he was influenced in selecting Congresswoman Giffords because of rhetoric attacking her should be considered. And as I said above, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to use that consideration to examine the larger issue of civic responsibility in public speech. Not to find types of speech to ban or criminalize, but to spotlight irresponsible rhetoric and subject it to the public conscience.
It would surprise me very much if his selection of Giffords had nothing to do with her government role.
Sure. Selecting a target because you think he’s poisoning the chocolate rabbits so critical as a food source for the lovely puce and vermillion coyote-lions in your hallucination – not politically motivated. Selecting a target because she has influence on a legislative agenda you believe threatens those chocolate bunnies — politically motivated. In the first case, you’re acting on a delusion about a person, in the second, you’re acting on a delusion about a political process. And it matters if you came to your conclusions because you believe in government mind control and some twit on the tv keeps saying a congressperson from your home town wants a “government takeover” of your healthcare.
OK, let’s “consider” it. The problem I have is that you jump from “consider” to “condemn” without showing any of your work. What are the steps in between?
I personally don’t think that guys like this are motivated one way or another by the likes of Palin. She’s small potatoes to what any 10-year-old can find on the internet, muhc less what this guy had bouncing around in his paranoid brain.
I would like to see politicians distance themselves from the type of rhetoric Palin seems to relish, but only because I’d prefer they not demonize the opposition and pollute the political discourse. People who are ready to kill someone doesn’t need Palin to goad them on.
Come on, John. The rhetoric itself is despicable whether it influenced this assassin or not. I condemned it before now. No link to this incident required to do it, either.
Are you willing to bet those people don’t find outside opinion really helpful in winnowing down the ones who need killin’?
Again: people are assuming that Loughner actually watched the shows where these things were being said, or followed the politicians in question making the violent statements. People are assuming that this right-wing rhetoric just floats in the air like molecules and that everyone naturally takes them in all the time.
Someone on Facebook compared the incident to a mentally-ill person about to jump off a ledge, and a “crowd” screaming at him to do it. (As in, the Tea Party pundits with the violent talk = the crowd.) This is so much fallacy and presumption.
As others have said, a lot of young people are totally unaware of what Glenn Beck, Palin, Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachman etc say. I don’t know shit about these people except for what people post about them here, or the occasional person complaining about them on Facebook.
When it turns out that Loughner never watched any FOX shows, never followed Tea Party politicians and was totally un-influenced by their rhetoric and is just a typical isolated, reclusive nutcase stewing in his own insane ideas, all these people who jumped to blaming him on the Tea Party are going to have egg all over their faces.
“When” it turns out that way, as you’re so sure it will Argent, I’ll wipe the egg off my face and continue to call Palin, Beck and Limbaugh irresponsible demagogues who foment and encourage extremism.
Loughner’s motives are unknown. I am not sure he can actually articulate them when you read what he put online. He is clearly nuts and lost. He has ruined his life and put a hole in his family that will never heal. It was a sad day for all.
Did Palin’s calling her a commie and a socialist while putting her in the middle of crosshairs add to his decision? I would not be surprised. it certainly is politics at its lowest. But that is her appeal. That is who she is talking to. Her followers are already twisting themselves in knots trying to weasel out of her likely adding to his dangerous thinking.
But you are clearly trying to link it to this incident in this thread. That’s right in the part of your post that I quoted.
This guys was a withdrawn loner. So no, I don’t think people like him rely on people like Palin to narrow down who their targets are.
But if you have any actual evidence that they do, then bring it. Otherwise, we’re back to square one where we “consider” the possibility. Sorry, but I’m not jumping from “consider” to “conclude” without a few step in between.
Neither am I, at least as far as this murder spree goes. But I do “condemn”, and I do conclude that the rhetoric used by the most prominent right leaning pundits in this country is dangerously, irresponsibly and deliberately designed to provoke fear and loathing of “the other”, and that it has and will continue to incite violence. I think you and other conservatives need to come to grips with the ubiquity of degraded political discourse from the right, and take charge of the party that purports to serve your interests. You don’t want to wake up someday soon to a political climate that’s moved you to the margins.
I’m not a conservative. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean they are conservative. Please don’t use that as a debate tactic again. It’s pure ad hominem, and in this case it isn’t even true.
There’s evidence emerging that he has been fixated on Giffords since 2007.
“Ad hom”?! Baloney. When did calling another poster ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ become an ad hominem argument? In the first place, I haven’t discounted anything you’ve said because of it, and in the second, it wasn’t a “tactic.” I called you a conservative because in my experience you consistently express a conservative political sensibility. If you don’t self identify as one, that’s fine. IMO, you come across as one. Nothing wrong with that. Never seen you lie about facts or spin anything egregiously awry.
Whatever your politics, I think the political discourse has become more polluted than you admit, and the effects of that more deleterious.
Interesting. I’ve gotta admit there’s nothing in that story that indicates his beef with Giffords had anything to do with Tea Party or Palinesque rhetoric.
“All he did was play video games”
Who could have predicted? 
It’s always an ad hominem argument. It’s meant to paint the poster in a negative light. Just as calling someone a liberal accomplishes the same thing. Leave the labels out of it.
Is there a way to apply those terms without negative intent, or should we go ahead and strike them from the language? Should I stop calling Obama a moderate centrist, Orin Hatch a conservative and Barney Frank a liberal, and just call 'em all “politicians”?
By the way, feel free to call me a liberal any time you want to. I like it.
Actually, Charles Guiteau was politically motivated. He sent this in a letter to Gen. Sherman on the day he shot Garfield: “I have just shot the President. I shot him several times as I wished him to go as easily as possible. His death was a political necessity. I am a lawyer, theologian, and politician. I am a stalwart of the Stalwarts. I was with Gen. Grant, and the rest of our men in New York during the canvass. I am going to the Jail. Please order out your troops and take possession of the Jail at once. Very respectfully, Charles Guiteau.” He was also a lunatic of course (he thought Gen. Sherman would bust him out of jail, for example).
I haven’t watched the Loughner videos, but it sounds like he’s unhinged as well. I’m not sure I buy that he’s even aware that Sarah Palin raised money against Giffords, and his political motivations could have more to do with something to do with “grammar” and mind control than health reform and immigration. I mean, there’s not much overlap between the Glenn Beck/Fox News watching crowd and the Communist Manifesto reading /left wing/pot smoking/flag burning/goth crowds, is there? (I’m not in either crowd, so maybe I’m wrong.)