Should Sara Palin be held accountable?

[Hemodoc]

"Obama comes in and starts government ownership of private corporations, firing CEO's from the White House." 

I do realize that this doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion, but I don't know where else to ask you about this.  I understand that many people hated the bailout of the auto industry.  I wasn't really pleased about it.  I felt some sympathy with the argument that if a company can't make it in this market, then it should be allowed to fail.  If terrible mismanagement puts a company on the road to bankruptcy, then so be it.

But I also had some sympathy with the opposite argument, that in this time of terrible unemployment, to allow the auto industry to collapse wasn't necessarily good for the US as a whole.  Our manufacturing base is shrinking as it is, and I didn't like the idea of allowing it to shrink any further.

I'm still not sure whether the course of action Obama took was the right one or not.  It may have been the right one because the auto industry still survives here...I guess we will never know.  But as I went back and forth about whether or not I supported this move or not, one thing that never occurred to me was that the Obama administration desired to overtake the ownership of any private corporation.  Obama himself said that he didn't want to own a car company!  That struck me as a truth founded in logic...President Obama had enough on his plate without going around and taking over big American corporations.  Why would he want to take on MORE?  So I have to ask you, do you really believe that the current administration WANTS to overtake American businesses?

Dear MooseMom, it wasn't just the auto industry that they took over and his biggest allies in this are the unions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2224853/government_takeover_of_the_private.html?cat=3

http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/housing-general/federal-governments-takeover-of-the-mortgage-business/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/MicheleBachmann/2009/09/17/government_to_take_over_all_student_loans

http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/09/27/afl-cio-prez-trumka-we-need-tore-establish-popular-control-over-private-corporations/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101229_It_is_a_government_takeover.html

[MooseMom]

Re the back of the bus comment...I've just read that link, and I am struck by how people can read the same words but come up with wildly different interpretations.  Mr. Obama never even used the word "bus".  When you start accusing someone of racism, you get into very difficult territory because how can you defend yourself against that?  How do you prove a negative?  Why is it that if a black Republican says that Obama or anyone else is "racially insensitive", then it surely must be true?

Years ago when I lived in England, Tiger Woods won his first Masters tournament.  One of his friends on the tour (you may remember this), a fellow competitor, said something about how this meant that they would all be having greens and fried chicken for the celebratory meal.  I remember thinking, "Ooooh...I'd LOVE me some greens and fried chicken!  Put some black-eyed peas with it, and I'm there!"  I was really shocked to find out later that this had caused a big racial ruckus in the US, and the only reason I found out about the brouhaha was because a British newspaper had to explain that black people ate greens and fried chicken.  And remember the photo that went out showing the White House garden filled with watermelons?  I saw that and thought, "Oh, that's cool!  What a great idea that neatly dovetails with Mrs Obama's idea of starting a garden."  But no, that was supposed to be a racial slur that I just didn't get.  My husband had to explain it to me.

My point is that people will twist someone's words in any way that suits them.  It's what we've been talking about...the manipulation of us for the gains of the ambitious.

[paul.karen]

it isnt saving a company that struck americans like me as crazy.  it was that the ones making out in the whole mess isnt me and you and the average Joe it is/was BIG UNIONS>

if Unions would concede some of there crazy ways of doing business alot of things would smooth out over time.  But unions want more and more even at the expense of there own workers.  We cant keep up at the rate we are going.  Unions and oversturffed pensions are going to be our own dome.  Rasing taxs to pay for other peoples pensions is crazy and has proven not to work.  I pay plenty in taxs but that just isnt enough.  They want more to pay for teachers.  Well actualy here in Jersey the teachers said they would gladly accept some concessions to ease the burden of everyone.  The unions SAID NO we will not give concessions.  WANT WANT WANT AND MORE MORE MORE is the union way.  Obama is the unions biggest fan he is in bed with them.

As for Obama wanting to own a company sure he doesnt.  He just wants to dicatate to them what they can or cant do what to make and how much to pay people.  He wants to set regulations so he can stay in control of every aspect of what the company does.

We got strong by being inventiveness in america.  But who wants to open a new business when to even start the process you could go broke.  Less government means more oppertunity for all.  When government gets SO BIG there is no one paying taxs for all the giveaway programs so many people are use to getting.

[MooseMom]

I do not trust anything Michele Bachman has to say, ever.  I happily listen to anyone who has a different point of view, but that woman lies.  I'm sorry, but I will not believe anything that comes out of her mouth.

Don't get me wrong..I do not like the idea of big government swallowing up everything in its path.  But reading the Washington post story, I have to wonder if there are some industries that might benefit from government intervention in the short term.  I would like to think that no, there aren't, but in times as these, we should be openminded to all possible solutions.  I just don't buy the idea that this administration WANTS government to get bigger and bigger and control more and more of our lives.  I really don't believe that.  I know some do, but I just don't.  Now, there may be those in CONGRESS who want more and more power and want to see that power in the hands of big corporations...I just might believe THAT!

[Hemodoc]

I do not trust anything Michele Bachman has to say, ever.  I happily listen to anyone who has a different point of view, but that woman lies.  I'm sorry, but I will not believe anything that comes out of her mouth.

Don't get me wrong..I do not like the idea of big government swallowing up everything in its path.  But reading the Washington post story, I have to wonder if there are some industries that might benefit from government intervention in the short term.  I would like to think that no, there aren't, but in times as these, we should be openminded to all possible solutions.  I just don't buy the idea that this administration WANTS government to get bigger and bigger and control more and more of our lives.  I really don't believe that.  I know some do, but I just don't.  Now, there may be those in CONGRESS who want more and more power and want to see that power in the hands of big corporations...I just might believe THAT!

Dear MooseMom, is it working for Europe right now?

[MooseMom]

paul.karen, I don't disagree with you about the unions.  Some, if not many, have veered away from their goal of ensuring good working conditions and wages for their workers to grabbing power for their leadership.  I've seen this in action.

In thinking about this particular part of this discussion, it strikes me that there is a fundamental lack of trust that people will do the right thing.  How many of us gripe about our big corporate dialysis providers?  These companies are making millions, but are the clinics well staffed and well run?  No, because that costs money and cuts into profits.  So what happens?  Government has to step in and create all sorts of regulations because we can't trust a private corporation to give us excellent, safe care.  As a result, government gets bigger, and we gripe about that, too. 

I believe that we all have this deep feeling that someone is out to cheat us, that big business (ie big pharma, etc) isn't interested in anything but profit, and that we are all being snookered.  Where do we put our trust...in our government or in big corporations because those are the two entities with all the power.  Big money is what rules.  We can't get good candidates to run for office unless they have lots and lots of money.  Our Supreme Court has given first amendment rights to corporations and tell us that these corporations have the same rights as PEOPLE.  It's not "We the People" anymore, it's "We the Corporations."

I don't know how this answers the question "Is Sarah Palin accountable?"   Talk about veering off topic...!!!

[MooseMom]

Dear MooseMom, is it working for Europe right now?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  I moved to Britain in 1985 during the Thatcher years, and at that time, she was privatizing most previously state-held industries, ie coal and the trains.  So I'm unclear as to your point.

Urp, I'm still sick, so I'm going back to bed.  I for one think this has been a really cool discussion!  I enjoy hearing other people's views; I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I've looked at issues from all possible sides.

[Hemodoc]

Well, for all those that are taking Sarah Palin to task, how about the 2004 Democratic ad as well and other democratic ads using crosshairs and targets?

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/

[KarenInWA]

Well, for all those that are taking Sarah Palin to task, how about the 2004 Democratic ad as well and other democratic ads using crosshairs and targets?

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/

The main difference that has been pointed out is that these maps don't name specific candidates, nor is it from a specific candidate with specific contact information on it.  Doesn't mean I neccesarily condone it, and let's all hope that going forward, such rhetoric (from BOTH sides, and any third or fourth ones that may crop up!) will no longer be tolerated.  Saturday in AZ was a wake-up call, and I hope and pray that ALL of us in this country will turn over a new leaf and start discussing our politics and government in civil, adult ways.  On a totally unrelated note, is it any wonder that drivel such as Jersey Shore on MTV is one of the hottest shows on cable TV? (and no, I don't watch it - I refuse!)  No wonder our political discussions have turned into such crap!  Again, I don't know where it started, but it (finally) needs to STOP!!!  Keep crosshairs in gun ranges and targets on dart boards!

KarenInWA

[Hemodoc]

Well, for all those that are taking Sarah Palin to task, how about the 2004 Democratic ad as well and other democratic ads using crosshairs and targets?

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/

The main difference that has been pointed out is that these maps don't name specific candidates, nor is it from a specific candidate with specific contact information on it.  Doesn't mean I neccesarily condone it, and let's all hope that going forward, such rhetoric (from BOTH sides, and any third or fourth ones that may crop up!) will no longer be tolerated.  Saturday in AZ was a wake-up call, and I hope and pray that ALL of us in this country will turn over a new leaf and start discussing our politics and government in civil, adult ways.  On a totally unrelated note, is it any wonder that drivel such as Jersey Shore on MTV is one of the hottest shows on cable TV? (and no, I don't watch it - I refuse!)  No wonder our political discussions have turned into such crap!  Again, I don't know where it started, but it (finally) needs to STOP!!!  Keep crosshairs in gun ranges and targets on dart boards!

KarenInWA

I agree.

[KarenInWA]

Oh, and I should add, I hope they don't use the insanity defense for this guy.  I strongly feel he deserves the death penalty.  Why should we taxpayers pay $$ to keep his sorry butt alive in prison for the rest of his long, dreary life?  He's only 22!  I am left-leaning in my politics, but I have a hard time with the idea of not sentencing a cold, hard criminal to death when he/she has commited such vile evil.  What's the point of keeping someone like that alive? (I'm talking about those who have witness(es) or forensic evidence that cleary points them to the crime.)

KarenInWA

[MooseMom]

I've thought long and hard about the death penalty.  There are such good argument on both sides of this issue that I can't ignore.  However...

I wish I could remember more of the details of the story I'm about to tell; maybe one of you could fill some in.  Right before the execution of Timothy McVeigh, a woman wrote an article that has stayed with me.  I don't remember if she had any direct relationship to any of the victims; I am assuming she did, otherwise she wouldn't have been where she was.  Anyway, she had the opportunity to speak briefly with McVeigh's father.  She was struck by this man's grief, bewilderment and quiet dignity.  She had a bit of an epiphany.  She knew how much the victims' families were suffering in their loss, and it suddenly occurred to her that when McVeigh was finally put to death, one more family would know such dreadful loss, and she felt that that wasn't right.

I've thought about that article for many years, and I think I have to agree.  The death of one person affects many.  Killing a man who has himself killed brings more loss to more people, and I am not sure that should be the intent of any sort of punishment.

Depriving a person of his liberty is no insignificant punishment.  He has spent 22 years out in the sunlight, but once he is sentenced, he will rarely see the sun again.  What he has to look forward to from a life imprisonment (which is what he should get) is devastatingly harsh.  Death would release him from pain.  Life in prison would not.  Life in prison is by far the harsher punishment, in my mind.

Keeping a person alive in those circumstances is very expensive to the taxpayer...that is true.  But we have to be very clear about why we are killing someone.  Is it just to save the taxpayer money?  I'm not sure that is good enough reason in God's eyes.

Maybe the debate shouldn't focus so much on politics.  If he is indeed mentally ill, perhaps we should be looking at our mental health care system.  Did he and his family have insurance that covered mental health checkups and/or treatment?  Did the system somehow fail him?  If so, how do we fix that?  Were there any signs of mental illness that were ignored?

Arizona should also be looking at their gun laws.  It has been reported that he bought the gun legally, but perhaps that should be under closer inspection.  Did someone turn a blind eye to the current laws and sell him this gun?

[BigSky]

I never said the gunman wasn't responsible for his actions.  He completely and totally is. But, in light of all of this. we need to change how we discuss politics in this country.  Palin needs to acknowledge her crosshairs map and eat crow over it, simply because one of her "targets" was shot at. It does not mean she caused it, but she put the gun target on Gifford's district.  It was noticed, and it spread like wildfire.



KarenInWA

Acknowledge what?  That the map merely laid out districts to target to unseat democrats?   Crosshairs are routinely used to mark the spot of something.  In no way shape or form was it referring to a "gun target" as you suggest.   In fact crosshairs are used in far more than in just guns scopes.

If anything that particular crosshair used on that map is not commonly used, if at all,  in the reticle of gun scopes.

In fact its the symbol used to mark floor drains.

[MooseMom]

BigSky, as has been pointed out by various people in this thread, lots of candidates/political figures have used weaponry imagery.  It's certainly not confined to one person, one time or one side.  But Sarah Palin is sort of the woman of the moment.  She has a passionate following.  She has made herself incredibly visible.  She quit her governor's job so that she could use her time to becoming even MORE visible, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (although I'm not sure that quitting the job that you were elected to do is a morally or politically good idea).  She portrays herself as a huntress who certainly knows her way around guns.  She portrays herself as being aggressive, and you pair that with her gun imagery, and she is set up for just this sort of mayhem.  I do think that some smart PR people who do not like her have taken this opportunity to put all of those elements together and try to make her the villain of the piece, but she gave them a lot of ammunition (see how easy it is to speak in weaponry terms)?

I'll give Sarah Palin one thing...she usually has her finger on the pulse of a particular part of the nation.  I'm a little surprised that she has not made more of a statement either in her defense, an apology or an exhortation to get back to civil political discourse.  Like I said before, she is very well placed to show some leadership in this regard, but she has said next to nothing, and that surprises me.  No doubt she is aware of the debate surrounding the Arizona killings.  Granted, I don't think she OWES anyone anything, but she could make a lot of difference if what we really want is reason.  What do you think?  Like it or not, she has been identified as a player in this whole thing...do you think that making a more detailed statement would be a good thing, or do you think it's best for her to just lie low?

[Hemodoc]

I've thought long and hard about the death penalty.  There are such good argument on both sides of this issue that I can't ignore.  However...

I wish I could remember more of the details of the story I'm about to tell; maybe one of you could fill some in.  Right before the execution of Timothy McVeigh, a woman wrote an article that has stayed with me.  I don't remember if she had any direct relationship to any of the victims; I am assuming she did, otherwise she wouldn't have been where she was.  Anyway, she had the opportunity to speak briefly with McVeigh's father.  She was struck by this man's grief, bewilderment and quiet dignity.  She had a bit of an epiphany.  She knew how much the victims' families were suffering in their loss, and it suddenly occurred to her that when McVeigh was finally put to death, one more family would know such dreadful loss, and she felt that that wasn't right.

I've thought about that article for many years, and I think I have to agree.  The death of one person affects many.  Killing a man who has himself killed brings more loss to more people, and I am not sure that should be the intent of any sort of punishment.

Depriving a person of his liberty is no insignificant punishment.  He has spent 22 years out in the sunlight, but once he is sentenced, he will rarely see the sun again.  What he has to look forward to from a life imprisonment (which is what he should get) is devastatingly harsh.  Death would release him from pain.  Life in prison would not.  Life in prison is by far the harsher punishment, in my mind.

Keeping a person alive in those circumstances is very expensive to the taxpayer...that is true.  But we have to be very clear about why we are killing someone.  Is it just to save the taxpayer money?  I'm not sure that is good enough reason in God's eyes.

Maybe the debate shouldn't focus so much on politics.  If he is indeed mentally ill, perhaps we should be looking at our mental health care system.  Did he and his family have insurance that covered mental health checkups and/or treatment?  Did the system somehow fail him?  If so, how do we fix that?  Were there any signs of mental illness that were ignored?

Arizona should also be looking at their gun laws.  It has been reported that he bought the gun legally, but perhaps that should be under closer inspection.  Did someone turn a blind eye to the current laws and sell him this gun?

Actually, he passed the Federal gun clearance, NICS, but I am wondering if there were not missed opportunities such as the story I heard today that he was investigated for making death threats against another person.  Those people are not allowed to own a gun.  He sounds like a paranoid schizpophrenic to me by the little we know so far, those people are not legally able to own a gun.  He has had drug encounters with the law and apparently that was the reason why he was rejected by the military.  A CONVICTION for drug use within one year means those people are not allowed to own a gun.  He was likewise positive for some as yet unnamed drug at the time of his arrest, those people are not legally allowed to own a gun.

I don't see this as a need for new laws, but better enforcement of what we already have.  Just as with the Virginia tech weirdo, there are going to be many missed opportunities with in the laws we have today.  Obviously in retrospect, someone somewhere didn't help this weirdo with his own mental illnes as well as report it to the authorities.  Quite similar to VA tech where the schools in both cases had concerns over the mental health of the individual.  Both acted in bizarre and scary manners in college before these events.

Unfortunately, there is no law against being crazy in this country, only laws about whether a person is a danger to himself or others. If it is really confirmed he made death threats in another jurisdiction, then is that a problem with the laws in place already, or is it a matter of the system failing all involved including this mixed up kid?

[Hemodoc]

BigSky, as has been pointed out by various people in this thread, lots of candidates/political figures have used weaponry imagery.  It's certainly not confined to one person, one time or one side.  But Sarah Palin is sort of the woman of the moment.  She has a passionate following.  She has made herself incredibly visible.  She quit her governor's job so that she could use her time to becoming even MORE visible, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (although I'm not sure that quitting the job that you were elected to do is a morally or politically good idea).  She portrays herself as a huntress who certainly knows her way around guns.  She portrays herself as being aggressive, and you pair that with her gun imagery, and she is set up for just this sort of mayhem.  I do think that some smart PR people who do not like her have taken this opportunity to put all of those elements together and try to make her the villain of the piece, but she gave them a lot of ammunition (see how easy it is to speak in weaponry terms)?

I'll give Sarah Palin one thing...she usually has her finger on the pulse of a particular part of the nation.  I'm a little surprised that she has not made more of a statement either in her defense, an apology or an exhortation to get back to civil political discourse.  Like I said before, she is very well placed to show some leadership in this regard, but she has said next to nothing, and that surprises me.  No doubt she is aware of the debate surrounding the Arizona killings.  Granted, I don't think she OWES anyone anything, but she could make a lot of difference if what we really want is reason.  What do you think?  Like it or not, she has been identified as a player in this whole thing...do you think that making a more detailed statement would be a good thing, or do you think it's best for her to just lie low?

Would ANYTHING she says keep people from vilifying her as a target of political annialation even before this event?  Perhaps you haven't really paid attention to the types of targeted accusations against her whole family.

One of the reasons that she quite as governor was because she had to fight dozens of frivolous lawsuits that she couldn't afford on her governors salary and they submitted more lawsuits when she tried to raise money while in office.  She has been singled out by both Republican opponents and democrates for political destruction way before this event.

When you walk in those sort of shoes, you must be very circumspect about every action, every word you state or it will be pounced upon immediately. If people simply took a few minutes to look at her message, most would really say what is all of the fuss about this lady.  The fuss comes not in her message which is echoed by many, even some conservative democrats, what is different is that she is a powerful speaker able to motivate folks and draw a crowd.  For that ability, she is a target and will remain a target to be silenced on both sides, remember, she came to power battling her own party.

[cariad]

I've thought long and hard about the death penalty.  There are such good argument on both sides of this issue that I can't ignore.  However...

I wish I could remember more of the details of the story I'm about to tell; maybe one of you could fill some in.  Right before the execution of Timothy McVeigh, a woman wrote an article that has stayed with me.  I don't remember if she had any direct relationship to any of the victims; I am assuming she did, otherwise she wouldn't have been where she was.  Anyway, she had the opportunity to speak briefly with McVeigh's father.  She was struck by this man's grief, bewilderment and quiet dignity.  She had a bit of an epiphany.  She knew how much the victims' families were suffering in their loss, and it suddenly occurred to her that when McVeigh was finally put to death, one more family would know such dreadful loss, and she felt that that wasn't right.

I've thought about that article for many years, and I think I have to agree.  The death of one person affects many.  Killing a man who has himself killed brings more loss to more people, and I am not sure that should be the intent of any sort of punishment.

Depriving a person of his liberty is no insignificant punishment.  He has spent 22 years out in the sunlight, but once he is sentenced, he will rarely see the sun again.  What he has to look forward to from a life imprisonment (which is what he should get) is devastatingly harsh.  Death would release him from pain.  Life in prison would not.  Life in prison is by far the harsher punishment, in my mind.

Keeping a person alive in those circumstances is very expensive to the taxpayer...that is true.  But we have to be very clear about why we are killing someone.  Is it just to save the taxpayer money?  I'm not sure that is good enough reason in God's eyes.

Actually, it has historically been much more expensive to kill a person, because of the cost of appeals, and when it gets to the level of taking someone's life, the appeals have been automatic. My information is outdated, though, so perhaps it is cheaper now to execute. I know that legislation has been enacted to limit appeals.

I heard an NPR interview on The Story several years ago from a warden. He said that the death penalty punishes everyone but the criminal. He is haunted by the executions he had to oversee and became anti-death penalty as a result. I believe he is one of many who have stated that most death penalty prisoners want to be executed, that in fact their greatest fear is living out their time in prison. I wouldn't know, but trust the source.

The guy is probably profoundly mentally ill. I would have a hard time seeing him sentenced to death. A neighbour of his on Fox News (yes, in the 10 minutes of it that I watched) said that his father had expressed concern about him. Then there were the students and faculty that knew there was something amiss with him. We have a despicable mental health system in this country. The people who work in it are by and large great people, but in California at least, and especially LA, I would not wish mental illness and the lack of help out there on anyone. So, yes, I do think that mental health care should be called into question in this country.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I agree with you about the gun laws.  There are plenty of laws already in place, I'm sure.  But if someone is bound and determined to do something like this, there's not always anything you can do about it.

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin's for reasons I have mentioned, but I do recognize the fierce attacks on her and her family, and I don't like it.  I listened very closely to her resignation speech, and to be honest, I didn't understand it.  I have an uncle who is a big fan of hers, and he told me to read her book to understand why she quit (he referenced the lawsuits).  I don't think anyone should have to pay to buy her book to understand why she resigned.  I think she resigned because she recognized the extent of her political power, she wanted to make some money and she figured that being governor of Alaska would provide her with the opportunity to become more visible.  Frankly, those are pretty good reasons...quit one job and get another that advances your career.  People do it all the time.  But I don't think she was being entirely honest with her constituents.  But that's just my opinion and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it.

I have to admit that I am not very clear on what her message actually is.  In all sincerity I ask you...could you please explain it to me?   I am someone who looks at details, and she speaks in a very different way that is hard for me to interpret...she speaks in grand, sweeping terms about what she doesn't like.  I am not sure where she stands on any specific issue or what kinds of policies she would implement that she feels would be better for all Americans.  I just don't understand what she is trying to say.  I do listen, I really do, but I can't make sense of it.

PS..It is probably that anything Sarah Palin might have to say would be vilified by somebody; she is a very polarizing figure, but she made herself that way.  But the possibility of being vilified isn't good enough reason to stay mute.  That's a coward's way out.  But I do recognize that a lot of her popularity comes from the fact that she is NOT big on civil discussion because civil discussion isn't good theatre.  She engages in the rhetoric because she knows that's what her base has come to expect, so I could see how she might stay quiet for that reason.  It's all just speculation, anyway.

[MooseMom]

OMG, I just saw the killer's photo taken in court, and it is truly chilling.  I have a feeling that we will never really find out what happened and why.

[cariad]

I think this review of political violence is very helpful.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/

Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point: "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.

That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.

This is very nicely stated and I agree with it totally. I was in hospital following my transplant when all of this was unfolding and watched CNN for roughly 10 hours a day, so remember this better than most news stories. Eric Cantor seemed a little too eager to prove that the right were also targets of extremism.

[Bill Peckham]

I think this review of political violence is very helpful.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/

Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point: "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.

That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.

This is very nicely stated and I agree with it totally. I was in hospital following my transplant when all of this was unfolding and watched CNN for roughly 10 hours a day, so remember this better than most news stories. Eric Cantor seemed a little too eager to prove that the right were also targets of extremism.

This false equivalancy has been the talking point of the day on this thread. But really the most astonishing spin is that Palin is a victim in all this and if only we of the left understood guns we'd be in on the joke and know that having campaign events featuring assault rifles and silhouetted targets isn't meant to be taken literally and we should just lighten up.

David Frum makes some good points in this post:

Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”

He then goes on to run through the elements of a response that would have met todays low bar of political leadership.

It isn't a question of civility. It's what Kruegman called today the eliminationist rhetoric of the right that is dangerous. It was dangerous on Friday and it continues to be dangerous today. I think it is centered on the delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama but it extends to local members of Congress and any other federal official who gets their name in the paper.

[MooseMom]

I saw an interesting interview on CNN with Ms Giffords campaign manager.  Apparently there is some list that ranks the 435 members of the House in order of their liberalness/conservatism (I don't quite understand who does this list or if No 1 has the most conservative or the most liberal voting record, but anyway), and she was ranked 217th...right straight in the middle.  If this kid did have a political agenda, it was one fuelled by extremism, and THAT's the worrying thing.

[Hemodoc]

I saw an interesting interview on CNN with Ms Giffords campaign manager.  Apparently there is some list that ranks the 435 members of the House in order of their liberalness/conservatism (I don't quite understand who does this list or if No 1 has the most conservative or the most liberal voting record, but anyway), and she was ranked 217th...right straight in the middle.  If this kid did have a political agenda, it was one fuelled by extremism, and THAT's the worrying thing.

I would say that what led this mixed up, probably psychotic kid is irrationality, not extremism. That should be obvious to all.

I will bow out of further discussion at this point as did Karol.

I would just note that if the Democrats wanted to gain points, all they had to do was keep their mouth shut and allow the natural sympathies of such an event to generate it's own political good will. 

That is not going to happen apparently. I do know one thing, impugning conservatives who have nothing to do with a psychotic nut jobs action shall, like I have taken, have indignation of such a false association.  It will only give us more resolve to follow through on our own political activism.  There will be a backlash for such absurd accusations not just against Palin, but against all so called Tea Party people.  If anyone thinks that any of us condone the actions of this nut job, think again.  Instead of taking an opportunity to unite behind a tragic event, some are taking this as an opportunity for political advantage that shall not work. 

God have mercy on this nation.

[Rerun]

OK, I'll admit I have NOT read 7 pages of postings on this thread and Epoman Hated when people just jumped in without reading all the posts.

But, just from reading the title.....  It is not illeagle to be a nut job and until you actually DO something to someone you are not held accountable.  That is free speech.  My GOD if everyone was dead that I've wanted to kill there would be bodies all over the place, but I have presence of mind to not want to go to prison so I can control myself.  This creep could not.  So the congress woman didn't answer his question the way he wanted 4 years ago.....  BFD! 

The whole thing is sad but you can't blame anyone but him.  And gun control will not keep people like him from getting them.  It will only keep people like that guy that held him down from having one.

 

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, hold up...I was just making an innocuous observation.  I was just quoting what her campaign manager said, that she was the very definition of "moderate".  I have reread my post 3 times, and not once could I fathom where anyone could get the idea that I was pointing the blame at any one political group.  Since she is a "moderate", the killer could have been a LEFT wing extremist for all I know!

Look, it is all speculation, but the value of the conversation for this whole nation right now is that we are recognizing that our political tone is harsh.  OUR CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO...PROBABLY HAS NOTHING TO DO...WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN ARIZONA.  But at least politicians from Obama to Boehner are ALL saying that we need to be more civil with each other.  The congresswoman had just emailed a Republican friend of hers (the loser to Rand Paul in Kentucky) congratulating him on the new job he DID get and telling him she wanted to discuss with him ways to calm the current political atmosphere.

Maybe I don't understand the definition of "extremism", but to me, extremists are usually nutjobs.  IF IT IS TRUE that this kid killed Ms Giffords because he didn't like the answer to one of his questions asked at a political gathering, then I don't think it is completely bonkers to consider the possibility that this guy didn't like her policy on a specific issue, and if he killed her because of that, then that's "extremism", don't you think?  It's irrational, sure, but it is also awfully extreme.

I'm really sorry that you've taken anything I've said and took it to mean that I was pointing fingers at any group of people.  I've spent a lot of time and thought in doing exactly the opposite.  And I'm not just making this stuff up.  This is what the whole nation is talking about.  You yourself have stated so many times that you hate the nasty rhetoric, and from what I can see, that seems to be the general consensus of the vast majority of people!

I thought we were having a really interesting discussion, so I am baffled by this sudden turn.  I don't think I've fundamentally disagreed with you on any point you've made.  I really honestly thought we were having the kind of discussion that we are hoping that this nation will have going forth...open, respectful and thoughtful.

God Bless.