The first quote is from Dana Milbank in his Op-Ed piece in The Washington Post entitled For Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, a McKinley moment? In the story he writes:
One hundred and ten years ago, during another low point in the nation's political discourse, newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst - who was angling for a presidential run in 1904 - published a pair of columns fantasizing about violence against President William McKinley.
Columnist Ambrose Bierce wrote that a bullet "is speeding here to stretch McKinley on his bier." Next, an unsigned column widely attributed to Hearst editor Arthur Brisbane declared: "If bad institutions and bad men can be got rid of only by killing, then the killing must be done." Six months later, a deranged man named Leon Czolgosz assassinated McKinley.
And he compares these writings to the map that Sarah Palin made of districts that she wanted a victory in, indicated by crosshairs. Marc Thiessen, also writing in The Washington Post, in his Op-Ed piece Stop blaming the Tea Party for the Arizona tragedy, wrote that:
Left-wing bloggers and commentators blamed the attack on Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin because she had "targeted" Giffords for defeat during the 2010 elections. The New York Daily News published a column headlined "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district." And an hour after Giffords was shot, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas actually tweeted: "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." He conveniently failed to mention that his Daily Kos had put a "bull's eye" (their words) on Giffords in 2008 - including her on a list of centrist Democrats who should be "targeted" in Democratic primaries. Mission accomplished, Markos?
Any claim or insinuation that Sarah Palin or the Tea Party are responsible for this tragedy is irresponsible and reckless. If political rhetoric is enough to incite violence, then what do we make of claims that one group is actually causing violence and murder. Wouldn't that, even moreso, seem to cause violence?
And this event is not only being used to attack the Tea Party. Michael Daly, who wrote in the New York Daily News an Op-Ed piece entitled Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district, tried to tie in gun control to the event. He says:
Even if Giffords had been carrying her Glock at her latest Congress On Your Corner event yesterday, she would have had no time to reach for it and defend herself. Unlike in all those westerns, gunmen bent on homicide almost never give you a chance to draw.
Which is nonsense, of course. Giffords would not have even needed to take down the shooter herself. Any one of a member of that crowd could have stopped him.
But the real point is that using a tragedy like this for political gains is morally reprehensible. What happened was a tragedy and it was executed by a maniac. We should be mourning the event, not salivating at the chance to use it to attack our enemies. Can we just mourn as a nation? Do we constantly have to be on the offensive? Is there nothing that we can agree on?
"Mission accomplished, Markos?"
ReplyDeleteThat grub even said she was dead to him in a post, which he quietly pulled after the shooting.
"But the real point is that using a tragedy like this for political gains is morally reprehensible."
Exactly, and it goes beyond mere political gains i think, the left want to destroy us, they want to expel us from the public sphere completely. Christians, Conservatives and Gun Owners not supportive of them are not welcome and they want us gone, by any means.
"Can we just mourn as a nation? Do we constantly have to be on the offensive? Is there nothing that we can agree on?"
No, yes and no. That's what's coming from the left of politics.