# Sarah Palin takes no responsibility for the Tucson shootings? Really? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 10, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104 "2011-01-10T16:09:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Walmarticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Walmarticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walmarticus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/41 "2011-01-10T17:38:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Her personality disorder makes it impossible for her to ever admit any fault or flaw. She will somehow end up making herself the victim in all of this. oh no doubt about it. While she knows no discretion, us normal people do. It’s much more realistic for her less diehard and borderline supporters to accept that her rhetoric is out of line and tasteless than it is that she’s culpable in mass murder. That’s the kind of charge I’d prefer to see levied at her. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/42 "2011-01-10T17:42:25Z")
> [@Walmarticus](#): > > That’s totally reasonable. If people are insistent that she “take responsibility”, it’ll just back up her claims that liberals are of supreme bad taste in trying to implicate her in tragic murder. No one is claiming she gave marching orders to this loon. The responsibility we are talking about involves an atmosphere that mixes guns and gun metaphors with politics. Maybe she is too stupid to have anticipated that something like this would happen, but at this point anyone with moral decency would pull back, and not go through an exercise of self-justification. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/43 "2011-01-10T17:42:52Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Who is panicing? > This isn’t the post labor day buildup to the conquest of Iraq, it’s a simple acknowledgement that a campaign of violent rhetoric such as the right has engaged in has real world consequences. > Acknowledgement isn’t panic. Worrying about Saddam murdering your babies in their beds, in 20 minutes or less, _is_ panic. > > Some people actually did get murdered this time, after a Republican led hate campaign was aimed at them. (of course you murdered a bunch of Iraqi’s after your last hate campaign too, but who counts non-Americans). It’s not panic to notice that conservatives are a bloodthirsty lot, and to point out the identity of the more egregious bloodlusters. > > Coinkydink does not cut it as an explanation the second time around. And yet you seem to discount the violent rhetoric examples from the left. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/44 "2011-01-10T17:44:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Isn’t it amazing that the right, who claim that the existence of gay people marrying will make children become gay and destroy an institution that has been around for more then 4,000 years, deny the possibility that their inflammatory rhetoric could influence anything? > The right, who rants on about how people who can barely read English should have understood 50 page mortgage documents written in legalese doesn’t like to take responsibility for anything. The financial crisis? Barney Frank, not us! The absence of WMDs? How could we know? Doing nothing when warned of a potential terrorist attack using airplanes? Intelligence didn’t give the flight number, what could we do? > > You know **Bricker** , perhaps besides just taking down a clearly inappropriate site, perhaps Palin could go just a bit further and say something to tone down the rhetoric, perhaps even that maybe bringing guns to rallies of the opposition is not a good idea? Even McCain did that, before he got totally senile. Or is this too much to ask? And yet you seem to discount the violent rhetoric examples from the left. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/45 "2011-01-10T17:44:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet you seem to discount the violent rhetoric examples from the left. Why is that? _Which_ specific violent rhetoric from the left? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/46 "2011-01-10T17:45:34Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > Palin shouldn’t “take responsibility”. But I wish she would publicly admit that the target list was in bad taste and that violent rhetoric has gotten out of hand among the mainstream right, and ask others to join her in toning it down. > > (Honestly, if she did that I’d suspect she had been replaced by Bizarro Sarah Palin, but it’d be nice nonetheless.) Seems reasonable. As I said in the GD thread, the facts appear to back up the theory that this guy’s a nut. However, whether the incident is related or not, Palin deserves contempt for her rhetoric, and a double heap of contempt for the “surveyor’s marks” weasling. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/47 "2011-01-10T17:46:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course Palin takes no responsibility for the shootings. > > And of course there are plenty of reasons she might take down her page without taking responsibility for the shootings. It’s in incredibly poor taste to leave a cross-hair target up ona person that was shot, even if your target was political removal and not actual shooting, in much the same way the DNC might [use targets](http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171) to demote political aims and not bullet aims. Yet, before the fact, it was perfectly fine and hunky dory. Suuuure it was. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![C3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/c3/32/3108_2.png) [@C3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C3)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/48 "2011-01-10T17:47:29Z")
I think [this article](http://www.timwise.org/2011/01/paranoia-as-prelude-conspiracism-and-the-cost-of-political-rage/), by Tim Wise, hits the nail on the head for me. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/49 "2011-01-10T17:59:17Z")
> [@C3](#): > > I think [this article](http://www.timwise.org/2011/01/paranoia-as-prelude-conspiracism-and-the-cost-of-political-rage/), by Tim Wise, hits the nail on the head for me. I disagree with its premise. Even in times and places unsaturated with the current paranoid climate, political assasination has always been an outlet for the severely mentally ill: paranoid delusions being what they are. In fact, the common law test for criminal insanity - the so-called “McNaghton Rules” - developed out of just such an occurance, way back in 1843. > **[M'Naghten rules](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M'Naghten_Rules)** > > The M'Naghten rule(s) (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) is a legal test defining the defence of insanity that was formulated by the House of Lords in 1843. It is the established standard in UK criminal law. Versions have been adopted in some US states, currently or formerly, and other jurisdictions, either as case law or by statute. Its original wording is a proposed jury instruction: > that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defence on the ground ... When you think about it, paranoid delusions of being persecuted by the powerful never goes out of style. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/50 "2011-01-10T18:03:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet you seem to discount the violent rhetoric examples from the left. Why is that? I’ll make you an offer: for every example of violent rhetoric from the left that you can track down, I’ll donate $10 to the RNC. For every example of violent rhetoric from the right that I can track down, you donate $10 to the DNC. You up for that? (Note: I’m not actually seriously making this offer, largely because it’s logistically impossible to determine what actually counts, and also because it would be pretty damn inappropriate.) (And for the record, I condemn violent rhetoric from anyone. I’m 100% sure, however, that there are orders of magnitude more of it coming from the right, at least if we limit ourselves to prominent best-selling powerful opinion-makers, elected officials, and former elected officials.) ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/51 "2011-01-10T18:06:29Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > \ They don’t think for a moment that after they’ve gotten the crowd all frothed up and rabid, that when they leave the stage, some of the those folks remain all frothed and rabid, while the politicos are sipping their white wine backstage and laughing about how clever they were. \ I think it goes further than not thinking that they might do some real damage; speech writing is a science at this point, and I don’t doubt that they know **exactly** what they’re saying. > [@Squink](#): > > \ it’s a simple acknowledgement that a campaign of violent rhetoric such as the right has engaged in has real world consequences.\ > Some people actually did get murdered this time, after a Republican led hate campaign was aimed at them.\ That’s how I see it. > [@DoctorJ](#): > > Palin shouldn’t “take responsibility”. But I wish she would publicly admit that the target list was in bad taste and that violent rhetoric has gotten out of hand among the mainstream right, and ask others to join her in toning it down.\ That would be fair and reasonable. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Her personality disorder makes it impossible for her to ever admit any fault or flaw. She will somehow end up making herself the victim in all of this. “Personality disorder” - that puts into words something I’ve been feeling about her. There’s something _wrong_ with that woman. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/52 "2011-01-10T18:20:48Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’ll make you an offer: for every example of violent rhetoric from the left that you can track down, I’ll donate $10 to the RNC. For every example of violent rhetoric from the right that I can track down, you donate $10 to the DNC. You up for that? > > (Note: I’m not actually seriously making this offer, largely because it’s logistically impossible to determine what actually counts, and also because it would be pretty damn inappropriate.) > (And for the record, I condemn violent rhetoric from anyone. I’m 100% sure, however, that there are orders of magnitude more of it coming from the right, at least if we limit ourselves to prominent best-selling powerful opinion-makers, elected officials, and former elected officials.) Because actors don’t sway public opinion when they speak? I know what the deal is. In your little liberal heart of hearts, you honestly don’t see the liberal rhetoric as being that bad, because it’s RIGHT. You know it’s horrible to put a SNIPERS WANTED graphic over President Bush’s picture, but it’s so understandable, because the man’s a smirking chimp that lied us into a war. The outrage is just… forgiveable. Anyone can understand it. But Palin’s an idiot. What she stands for is wrong. Those who oppose her are correct. So there’s NOTHING understandable when Palin does this kind of tactic, because she’s just plain wrong. You know it. I know it. That’s why this discussion rages on and on now. That’s why examples from the left are hand-waved away. Because Bush was WRONG, and fury against him was RIGHT; Palin is WRONG, and fury from her is WRONG. Tell the truth and shame the devil. That’s it, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/53 "2011-01-10T18:26:25Z")
> [@Walmarticus](#): > > I’m infuriated by the jackasses who, instead of rallying against the lack of any system to prevent an obvious psycho from doing obviously dangerous shit, use mass murder as a card to be played in their petty political battles. We’re not going to get rid of the crazies but we don’t have to work them up into a lather either. I don’t know that this incident was the result of all the hateful rhetoric but it does highlight that the rhetoric was poisonous enough that most people wouldn’t be surprised if there was a link. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/54 "2011-01-10T18:30:54Z")
Don’t presume to tell us what’s in our hearts, **Bricker**. Poor fucking show. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/55 "2011-01-10T18:34:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In your little liberal heart of hearts, you honestly don’t see the liberal rhetoric as being that bad, because it’s RIGHT. You know it’s horrible to put a SNIPERS WANTED graphic over President Bush’s picture, but it’s so understandable, because the man’s a smirking chimp that lied us into a war. The outrage is just… forgiveable. Anyone can understand it. And you don’t see the difference between political speech by the nominees of your party, and unsanctioned fringe speech from unoffical liberal sources? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/56 "2011-01-10T18:35:02Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Don’t presume to tell us what’s in our hearts, **Bricker**. Poor fucking show. That seemed the most charitable explanation. The other is that you are (collectively) too blind to recognize the poison when it comes from your side, or too dishonest to admit that poison comes from your side. But if you wish to glom on to one of those narratives, be my guest. If you wish to offer one I haven’t thought of, be my guest too. But this post seems suspiciously like the usual “Bricker must fight using the Marquis of Queenbury rules; his opponents are free to use the chairs, knives, and 2x4s to score hits at any time.” No one seems to worry too much about creating motivations for Palin, the shooter, or anyone else on the right, but my creating motivations for the left is a terribly poor show. Right? Yeah. The usual shit. Right. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/57 "2011-01-10T18:37:24Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > To put it in terms that even a bible-thumping moron like her can understand: when you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. All of the hysterical talk about “reload” and “exercise your second amendment rights” and “take back the country” and other statements from nutjobs like Palin, Bachman, et al just fan the flames of whackos like this guy. They don’t think for a moment that after they’ve gotten the crowd all frothed up and rabid, that when they leave the stage, some of the those folks remain all frothed and rabid, while the politicos are sipping their white wine backstage and laughing about how clever they were. Problem is, people like this douchebag sometimes take this talk literally, and a few may even act out on it. Is any of this getting through? No, I thought not. Oh, bullshit. Palin’s rhetoric and iconography are asinine and obnoxious. But they’re not especially out of line or unusual for any politician or pundit, on the right or the left. Some of her stuff was clearly in poor taste. She was wrong to put it up and she was right to take it down. That doesn’t mean her rhetorical choices influenced the shooter in any meaningful way. The guy is insane. Blaming Palin’s rhetoric for Loughner’s state of mind is akin to blaming the Beatles for the Manson Family. And unlike the current case, we actually _know_ that Manson was aware of the Beatles. We don’t know what was going through Loughner’s mind at the time leading up to the shooting. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Palin could have sold him the gun and given him written directions to the photo-op and you would still be spinning like a Maytag washer. > > Direct responsibility as in “criminal liability?” perhaps not. > > Responsibility for ratcheting up the rhetoric so that a psychotic nutball is given clear-cut ideas about a potential target, instead of shooting up an empty house full of invisible unicorns? Perhaps. Sorry, psychosis doesn’t work that way. And Palin is hardly the only person in the world who uses populist rhetoric. There are many people in this country who actively and explicitly call for the literal murder and violent overthrow of the current government. To the extent that a violent psychotic’s actions can be influenced by any one person, what makes you think Palin influenced him any more than a random guy on YouTube yammering about the gold standard? > [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Look - populist politicians have _always_ used militant language in their rhetoric. It’s not always particularly pretty, but it’s always understood by sane people to be just that - rhetoric. And in a free society, it isn’t sufficient to say that people are believe whatever they want, and speak for their positions - they also need the freedom to make rhetorical choices when they engage in speech. > > Loughner’s a madman. Madmen sometimes do horrible things. Even if Loughner were to _say_ that yes, he was indeed inspired by Sarah Palin - I wouldn’t blame her for the shooting, because I don’t believe it’s reasonable to expect public speakers to anticipate the effects their words will have on madmen. How could they? I suppose they could, if they were so inclined, carefully strip all public speeches and advertisements of any militant language that could be interepreted by a crazy person as an actual call for violence. But this seems an excessively onerous restriction to place on our political speech. > > I don’t like Sarah Palin. I blame her for lots of things - not least, I think she’s politically mobilized and empowered some fairly nasty people. But no American politician wants to see other politicians getting shot - if for no other reason than that it could start a very unpleasant trend. Sarah Palin isn’t to blame here. Loughner is. +1. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/58 "2011-01-10T18:37:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That seemed the most charitable explanation. The other is that you are (collectively) too blind to recognize the poison when it comes from your side, or too dishonest to admit that poison comes from your side. > > But if you wish to glom on to one of those narratives, be my guest. If you wish to offer one I haven’t thought of, be my guest too. > > But this post seems suspiciously like the usual “Bricker must fight using the Marquis of Queenbury rules; his opponents are free to use the chairs, knives, and 2x4s to score hits at any time.” No one seems to worry too much about creating motivations for Palin, the shooter, or anyone else on the right, but my creating motivations for the left is a terribly poor show. Right? > > Yeah. The usual shit. Right. I was wrong for giving you the benefit of the doubt; you’re a fucking scumbag who argues in bad faith. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/59 "2011-01-10T18:38:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because actors don’t sway public opinion when they speak? > > I know what the deal is. > > In your little liberal heart of hearts, you honestly don’t see the liberal rhetoric as being that bad, because it’s RIGHT. You know it’s horrible to put a SNIPERS WANTED graphic over President Bush’s picture, but it’s so understandable, because the man’s a smirking chimp that lied us into a war. The outrage is just… forgiveable. Anyone can understand it. > > But Palin’s an idiot. What she stands for is wrong. Those who oppose her are correct. So there’s NOTHING understandable when Palin does this kind of tactic, because she’s just plain wrong. > > You know it. I know it. That’s why this discussion rages on and on now. That’s why examples from the left are hand-waved away. Because Bush was WRONG, and fury against him was RIGHT; Palin is WRONG, and fury from her is WRONG. > > Tell the truth and shame the devil. That’s it, isn’t it? And what Republican was shot through the head as a result of all that anti-Bush rhetoric? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104/60 "2011-01-10T18:39:05Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And you don’t see the difference between political speech by the nominees of your party, and unsanctioned fringe speech from unoffical liberal sources? The DLC is unsanctioned fringe speech? The DCCC is? They both had maps with targets on them. Why is Palin’s map dangerous and theirs not? I know why. It’s because their message is GOOD. They want to replace Republicans with Democrats. Palin’s message is BAD. She wants to replace Democrats with Republicans. Right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-takes-no-responsibility-for-the-tucson-shootings-really/567104.md?page=4)