I think what she wanted was to generate excitement and support among some of her right-wing listeners by stroking their fantasy image of themselves as heroic maverick freedom fighters courageously defending themselves under attack by some vaguely defined Forces of Evil.
She was deliberately trying to appeal to the feelings of people who enjoy (instead of being repulsed by) the imagined scenario of literally murdering a law-abiding politician whose positions they happen to disagree with. Such people may not be at all aggressive or violent in their own day-to-day lives, but rhetorical hysteria and fearmongering can get them worked up enough over imaginary catastrophic dangers from the “enemy camp” that they find relief and reassurance in thoughts of wreaking pre-emptive violence on the enemies.
Now, I’m quite sure that even among those people, the overwhelmingly vast majority would never seriously consider actually murdering a political opponent, however thrilling or satisfying they might find it to contemplate the idea hypothetically. But there are always some unbalanced types who don’t draw a clear line between fantasy and action. So I think it’s pretty callously irresponsible for politicians like Angle to attempt to stir up their audience by pandering to such fantasies with rhetoric invoking criminal violence.
We have no laws that outlaw what she said. If we did, Angle would have been arrested. I’m pretty sure that law enforcement might have caught it. Don’t ya think?
This is all in your head. You’re making it up. It’s an opinion you have, and that’s fine, but that’s all it is. Seriously. In reality, what we KNOW is that her speech resulted in ZERO damage to her supposed target. Or anyone else.
AFAICT, the point Fear Itself was making is that since we as a society recognize situations where it’s appropriate to curtail free speech somewhat—even to the point of enacting laws for that purpose in extreme cases—then there’s nothing outrageous or repressive in criticizing a politician for failing to curtail her own speech appropriately.
Just because pandering to extremists’ violent fantasies with violent rhetoric isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. And just because it isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it’s above criticism, as you seem to wish.
Here is what Mrs. Angle said today about her critics: “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the TEA Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”
I see this as more whipping up of the whacko militia types that the “Barry O’Bama” gummit is going to round them up in secret FEMA concentration camps before the UN armies march into our national parks. Just pure bullshit.
ETA: Here’s more: “I have consistently called for reasonable political dialogue on policy issues to encourage civil political education and debate.”
“All who gather to redress grievances in danger” of being no longer able to gather to redress grievances.
That is, the danger is that the ability to gather to redress grievances will be curtailed. That’s precisely what she’s saying: if you criticize our method of gathering to redress grievances, and are successful, we won’t be able to do it anymore.
If she actually did mean it the way you imagine, Bricker (which I still doubt), then she is even more stupid and tone deaf than I imagine.
When being accused of using violent rhetoric and imagery, the obvious thing for her to do is to spell out exactly what she means, and not continue to use words like “in danger”… without spelling out exactly “in danger” of what… Otherwise, people who have read her whacko rantings will rightfully assume that she is continuing in the same vein.
I repeat: What the FUCK are you trying to say here?! There is no conceivable non-metaphorical meaning of “Second Amendment Remedy” in the context at issue that is not synonymous, as distinct from metonymous, with “gun violence.”
If she meant that, then she sure as hell worded things wrong. I can see that as possibly one way of clarifying it, but certainly not the most likely. Is there some more context in what she said that leads you to think that? Just that sentence alone, to me, is no doubt about danger to people, not danger to process.
Jesus Christ, the precise object of the danger is, in my view, irrelevant.
The message here is that Mrs. Angle thinks that Tea Party members are threatened. That, as we should all believe, is absurd. Who is doing the threatening? That’s a little ambiguous, too, but it is implied that the aggressor is either liberals or the government. This is more Grade A evidence of an attempt to fan the flames of fantasy militia-like conspiracy theories that law abiding conservatives are under some kind of attack.
For all you conservatives who were outraged by Ted Kennedy’s speech about Robert Bork’s America for its vivid fear mongering, if you had any scruples you’d recognize Angle and most of the Tea Party crowd for whipping up an even more dangerous frenzy against political opponents.
