Should Sara Palin be held accountable?

[Hemodoc]

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.

Dear MooseMom, sorry to imply I am dropping out of this thread because of you. I have the greatest respect for your views. I am just angered that there is a such a rush to associate good willed people like me and the majority of the so called Tea Party people with a nut job psycho like this man obviously is, not only on IHD, but the entire media spectrum. I am tired of having to defend our good motives for our positions because of a false assocation, which is really nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

If that is the approach that the left, or the democrats or whatever label people wish to use just know that when people are impugned by false associations, that anger lasts a long time and motivates folks to remain involved in the political system.  I would only point out that the people that don't like to be being maligned by this false association are in the political majority at this time.  Any expected benefit of trying to associate good willed folks with this psycho nut job will only serve to encourage our future political activism.

[KarenInWA]

I know this is a bit unrelated to the exact topic of this forum, but, what I want to know is, why isn't anyone asking anything about the parents of this kid?  Yes, I know he is a legal adult and responsible for his actions and all of that - BUT.  He lived with his parents.  I saw one headline where his father was concerned about him.  I am not a parent, and never will be, but at what point does a parent start to question their adult child who is displaying disturbing tendencies?  Should they have tried to get more involved in their son's life?  Maybe they did?  We don't know.

I only ask these questions because the shooter lived with his parents.  I'd be asking questions of any roommates if he lived with those, although roommates don't generally spend 18+ years raising him like his parents did. What do you all think, especially those of you who are parents? 

KarenInWA

[glitter]

As a parent who has raised two children to adulthood.....as close as I am to my girls, sometimes their actions blow my mind- not always bad, but not always good.
 
I would bet if his parents knew before hand- they would have tried to stop it-BUT troubled people are often secretive, and their is no way to predict what your troubled adult child will do. They may have even been a little afraid of him, and until he does something seriously wrong there is no way to 'preempt him'.

I feel sorry for them too.


All this back and forth is such BS- I think most regular people wish all this bickering would just stop-I am so sick of "the left said-and the right said" just get on with running the country and fixing healthcare and growing jobs!!

[cariad]

I think it's great that you asked this question, Karen, rather than making assumptions about the parents which many, many people, some with kids and some without, will do.

It's funny that you ask this question now, as I've just finished reading an article about how we should reserve judgment on the parents. It linked to this article, written by the mother of one of the Columbine perpetrators. http://www.oprah.com/world/Susan-Klebolds-O-Magazine-Essay-I-Will-Never-Know-Why
My heart just breaks for the author of the article. I think it is so easy to look back and say "this would have changed things" or "I could have done" but this woman is an example of every parent's worst nightmare in that she was doing everything you are told you need to do - seek counseling, talk with the kids, spend time with them, etc. and still the results were devastating. I think people who blame the parents without really knowing the full story are really trying to convince themselves that it could never happen with their children and that they've happened upon some magic formula that others are too lazy to use. We all make mistakes as parents, I've certainly made many regrettable errors and my older child is only 8. All I can do is try to do better moving forward and own up to my mistakes - to my children - when I make them.

I am certain that the parents are torturously reviewing their every past action as we speak. The article that I read said that the father has written a statement but is waiting to release it. They both have apparently been holed up in their home crying since Saturday. I imagine if I were in their situation, I would be doing exactly the same thing.

[Hemodoc]

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.

Bill, not to beat a dead horse, but I agree, we shouldn't be using cross hairs or targets as symbolisms in politics.  Yet, it just occurred to me that one of the latest websites on dialysis uses cross hairs as its logo!!  Fix Dialysis!! 

http://www.fixdialysis.com/Art/fix-dialysis.jpg

Crosshairs Design

A key feature of the four-quadrant model is the crosshairs that separates the quadrants. The severity of its distortion also represents the severity of dysfunction in the dialysis care system. The model is especially powerful for exploring how to return the crosshairs to a more balanced position.

http://www.renalweb.com/writings/New_Model-Oct10f.htm

[MooseMom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughner-court_n_807096.html#210_nearly-50-of-mental-health-service-recipients-in-giffords-county-were-dropped-in-2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughner-court_n_807096.html#201_reporting-odd-behavior-in-arizona

[Beth35]

I did not read all of the responses, (I know, my bad) but I just want to say that I don't think Palin can be held responsible for something she didn't do.  However, I think she needs to change her behavior because of what HAS happened. 

When Palin first stepped onto the scene, I actually liked her.  I could relate to her as my sister has Downs Syndrome just as her son does and I was happy that we had a femaile candidate who could possible be in office. 

Shortly thereafter I lost respect for her.  She is very divisive.  I truly think that she does not care one bit about coming together as a nation to overcome the current problems.  All she wants to do is create contoversy.  It was VERY irresponsible for her to have a map with certain states in it's cross hair.  Shame on her for even going there.  So yes, when some crazy person hears all of this rhetoric and sees all of this nonsense, it leads to people doing stupid and horrible things. 

Is it her fault that these people are dead?  No.  But I think her and many others out there in division mode need to knock of all of the negativity and focus on the issues.

[BigSky]

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/

Those links drive home the point of hypocrisy by the left in attacking Palin over the crosshairs.  Especially the youtube video of the democrat who actually uses the crosshairs of a rifle scope on his opponent.    Not to mention the crosshairs over the map of the nation the dems used in 2008 in the third link.

Or their silence on this back in October from  Democrat Representative  Paul Kanjorski who actually said that the Republican running for Gov of Florida should be killed.

 "That (Rick) Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

[MooseMom]

I'm in two minds about President Obama going to Arizona tomorrow.  On the one hand, it is a nice gesture and I am assuming that the families of the victims will appreciate it.  But on the other hand, well, I'm just going to sit back and wait to see who will be first in their criticism of him. 

I lived in the UK during most of President Bush's administration.  I know that particularly toward the end, there was a lot of vilification of him; the Brits absolutely hated him from day one.  So I do understand that there were many, many people in this country who didn't like him and often voiced their opposition in ways made me really uncomfortable.  But I didn't see a lot of that first hand, so I can't make any accurate judgments.  Since the 2008 election, I've heard so many long-time Washington insiders say that in all of their years in DC, they've never seen such personal hatred directed toward a person as they've seen directed at Obama.  If their assessment is accurate, I have to wonder if having the President go to Arizona is a good idea.  What do you all think?  I think most people feel that this killer did not act out of any political belief or position, but will having the President speak at the memorial service turn this tragedy into another opportunity for political fighting?

(I ask this because I've just been flipping around the tv channels, and there are people wondering how "political" the President's speech is going to be.  It had not occurred to me that it would be political at all, but it just sort of feels like some are already lining up waiting to pounce.  I could be wrong, though.)

It might have been a nice idea if John Boehner could go, too, to represent the US House.  Show some unity, that sort of thing.  It could be a potent symbol.  Sorry...just musing.

[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.

Bill, not to beat a dead horse, but I agree, we shouldn't be using cross hairs or targets as symbolisms in politics.  Yet, it just occurred to me that one of the latest websites on dialysis uses cross hairs as its logo!!  Fix Dialysis!! 

http://www.fixdialysis.com/Art/fix-dialysis.jpg

Crosshairs Design

A key feature of the four-quadrant model is the crosshairs that separates the quadrants. The severity of its distortion also represents the severity of dysfunction in the dialysis care system. The model is especially powerful for exploring how to return the crosshairs to a more balanced position.

http://www.renalweb.com/writings/New_Model-Oct10f.htm

LOL
Jeez if anyone shoots dialysis Gary is going to have some 'splaining to do.

[okarol]

 

[Bill Peckham]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

[okarol]

"The lead photo is from an effort by the Democrat National Committee. If you notice, rather than use surveyor’s crosshairs, as the graphics in Sarah’s ad did, they use traditional bull’s-eyes. the symbols for targets and target shooting."

from: The Difference Between The DNC’s Bull’s-Eyes And Sarah Palin’s Surveyor’s Crosshairs | A Time For Choosing: http://bit.ly/ezzuXi

Blame the shooter.

[MooseMom]

I have to admit that I didn't "get" the "blood lust" reference.  I guess I'm culturally ignorant.

The only real quibble I have with her statement is that I fundamentally disagree with her/President Reagan's sentiments about how it's the individual to blame, that every time the law is broken, it doesn't mean that society is collectively guilty.  We may not be "guilty", but perhaps as a society we are "responsible."  I understand the idea behind "personal responsibility", and it is a laudable one, but not all of us are all the time able to be "personally responsible".  Sometimes we have a responsibility to each other and to our society as a whole.

Sometimes you have to get past the noise in order to hear the message.  I'd wager at this time that this was not a political assassination as we would normally define it, rather, it was the action of someone who was mentally ill.  Many, MANY people thought that this person was unwell, and perhaps the message is that our mental health system is broken, tainted with shame and lack of education and lack of proper funding.

[Bill Peckham]

I have to admit that I didn't "get" the "blood lust" reference.  I guess I'm culturally ignorant.

The only real quibble I have with her statement is that I fundamentally disagree with her/President Reagan's sentiments about how it's the individual to blame, that every time the law is broken, it doesn't mean that society is collectively guilty.  We may not be "guilty", but perhaps as a society we are "responsible."  I understand the idea behind "personal responsibility", and it is a laudable one, but not all of us are all the time able to be "personally responsible".  Sometimes we have a responsibility to each other and to our society as a whole.

Sometimes you have to get past the noise in order to hear the message.  I'd wager at this time that this was not a political assassination as we would normally define it, rather, it was the action of someone who was mentally ill.  Many, MANY people thought that this person was unwell, and perhaps the message is that our mental health system is broken, tainted with shame and lack of education and lack of proper funding.

blood libel ... very different usage history than blood lust



How could both of these statements be true? Either words and actions are connected or they are not:
1. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

2. "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

However, if she goes with #1 then I suppose it means she'll come out in support of the lower Manhattan mosque, which would be good.

[MooseMom]

My apologies...I meant to write "blood libel".  Still, I didn't understand that reference, either.

I don't have an answer to your other question...

[Bill Peckham]

Some should send Palin this link
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blood+libel

[cariad]

blood libel ... very different usage history than blood lust



How could both of these statements be true? Either words and actions are connected or they are not:
1. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

2. "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

However, if she goes with #1 then I suppose it means she'll come out in support of the lower Manhattan mosque, which would be good.

Bill, I was thinking of the mosque kerfuffle as well, but hesitated to bring that up as it caused such acrimony on here. Surely the people who are making statements to the effect of 'you cannot blame any one group for the actions of a terrorist' could see that this applies to Muslims just as surely as it applies to political parties.

Also, Sarah Palin referred to her crosshairs as 'bullseyes' on Twitter. All of a sudden, now that there's been a shooting of an individual whose name appeared on that map, her spokespeople are essentially saying 'crosshairs? As in gun sights? WHEREVER did you get that idea?!' It undermines ones credibility to wait until now to start back peddling.

Karol, that site you linked to was pretty hateful toward liberals. He called liberals stupid and said they have been 'indoctrinated since birth' which is a bizarre criticism as anyone with kids knows that you are naturally going to raise them with your own values, religion, and so on. Yes, from birth. That's a good time to start raising kids!

I don't think Sarah Palin is to blame for the shooting. I think the violent rhetoric does us no favors and contributes to these incidents and she should be admonished, like any other politician/pundit, to not so brazenly talk in violent terms as if it's just the cutest thing in the world. She reveled in the attention and controversy until it turned on her. The media has an unwritten rule that they will not report suicides unless it is someone famous. It is because suicide is considered 'contagious'. When Kurt Cobain killed himself, there was real worry about the emotionally fragile people who admired him. The head of LA Public School's Suicide Prevention - responsible for suicide prevention for approximately 800,000 students - once told us "When Kurt Cobain died, I learned where all of my grunge kids were." Why is this seen so differently?

I think Sarah Palin will survive this just fine. I do think that Harry Reid probably had a point when he said that the Tea Party will fade when the economy rebounds. I am not sure how they differ from libertarians. But Sarah Palin was here before the Tea Party, and I dare say she'll be here after.

[paul.karen]

Still blaming Sarah.

The more you blame a person for something that isnt PROVEN the more you divide the nation.

Did Sarah ask him to shoot someone?

Looks like the liberals lost Bush to Bash and Sarah has just filled the BASH A PERSON role.

It was fine and dandy for Obama to tell his people to bring a gun to a knife fight?  Its Ok cause the media and liberals Kiss his ass needless of what he says.
if your not with Obama your a racist right?  Isnt that the slant the liberals have so proudly decided to paint as the picture.

Im no Sarah supporter but give me a break with all this it is Sarah's fault.   The news tore her up and down but they wont say a bad word about Obama or his dear wife.

Remember Rev. Wright  Obama went to his racist church for 20 years.  Oh sorry we dont talk about oboma like that.  Cause if we were to talk bad about Oboma we would be racists.

This lunatic killer could say he had never heard of Sarah Palin.  And i bet many would still say it is her fault. 

[cariad]

Paul, to whom are you directing these comments? I really do not see any of what you are talking about being played out here, nor have I seen it on the news and I watch MSNBC, the most liberal of the news channels.

[Hemodoc]

THere is nothing that gets me more motivated to become active in politics than the last several days of people implying that people such as me associated with the Tea Party movement, not in actions, but in the spirit of retaining what little remains of our liberties and freedoms, are in some way shape or form somehow responsible for the actions of a madman.

Obama has the opportunity today to either be a statesman and bring some healing to this land, or be a partisan politician that strokes the heat of the flames already brewing.  We will have to wait and see who shows up.

As far as blaming Sarah, go for it folks, she is not as popular with the right as the left fears, but continued false allegations will cause people to rally behind her.  I would think some one some where with some sense would get that message out to folks.

[cariad]

Peter, I do not speak for all liberals, but I do not fear her popularity in the slightest. I am certain she is unelectable as President, and if she were to run, most democrats would take this as excellent news.

[MooseMom]

paul.karen, I do know a couple of people who would call themselves "liberals" who do see the Tea Party as populated by racists.  Labelling people in such a way usually means that you now don't have to bother listening to the message.  As I've said before, how does anyone defend themselves against such a charge?  That said, however, I do have a relative who I am embarrassed to say is very conservative and does not hide the fact that he does not like having a black man as President.  But I will not extrapolate that to mean that all "Tea Partiers" are racist as that is vastly unfair.

On the other hand, I do think that there are elements within the Tea Party movement that imply that if you do not agree with them, then you are un-American and unpatriotic.  Once again, how does one prove their patriotism?  How do you disprove a negative?  So, if you don't agree with the President, then you're racist.  If you don't agree with Sarah Palin, you're unAmerican.  None of this helps in promoting constructive and even passionate debate over what is good for Americans, however you may define them.

In my extremely humble opinion, Sen McConnell's vow that the GOP's top priority is to defeat the President and get him out of office is unAmerican and borders on treason.  It is two years until the election, and now is not the time for campaigning, although the US now seems to be in permanent campaign mode.  I wouldn't have been so bothered if the Senator had said that the top priority would be to defeat the President's policies, but to declare, in this time of real economic struggle, that his top priority is to defeat and remove the duly and democratically elected President of the United States is so beyond unpatriotic that it is staggering.

Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing.  I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are.  I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days.  If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park.  I cannot hang my laundry out to dry.  My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID.  You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun.  I can't sunbathe nude.  My stepson can't watch certain movies.  I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling.  I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take.  I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me.  When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way.  I have to have a license to drive.  I have to take a test to get a license.  I have to get my car inspected. 

I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government.  How do you define "big government"?  By the size of the budget?  The debt?  If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it.  We can vote people in and we can vote people out.  I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want.  What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need.  The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for.  I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place.  If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.

[BigSky]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations  and insinuations using the  blood of those involved with this tragedy.  Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.

[ahamner]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

Quote from Alan Dershowitz:
"The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."