You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘politics’ category.
Found this on DU:
t is very possible (likely, in fact) that the shooting in Arizona was not, in the truest sense, a political act. The shooter might have been responding to the voices in his head more than anything else. Sometimes nutty people turn their rage against folks in the public eye for no reasons that make sense to anybody else. That is probably the case here.
However, that does not let folks like the Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin and others off the hook.
Sometimes, though, I think they really ARE sending out dog whistles to the unknown nuts out there.
Because who would let go of such a sweet opportunity to feel superior?
So what if the shooter started his Gifford fixation long before the Tea Party existed or Palin was known nationally?
(In fact, as local media notes, the good sheriff is responsible for not acting on the many reports of death threats from the shooter it received)
Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system.
It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved …
We have decided that crazy people no longer get their messages from outer space but from Sarah Palin only, via dog whistles! So there.
Some don’t even want to concede it wasn’t political – like the resident freeper
5. If you shoot a member of Congress in public, it is political.
Every time. What his precise motivations were remains to be seen, but it was patently a political act. Permalink
You shoot a politician, it’s political. I wonder if that made John Lennon’s assassin a musician?
Some say it was political, but maybe not partisan, while some won’t even concede that point
12. Okay, I’ll Bite
Can you show us his political platform and how it differed from the teabaggers?
The one thing I know is that he was a “gold standard” kind of guy…just like Beck! Permalink
So, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fund raiser!
And don’t forget to…get in their faces!
Like the Bushies before them, they are knowingly manufacturing reality to suit their agenda (which is limited to “get the other guys”) and let the sane people worry about logic. They have a score to settle!
Do I detest it? Yes, ever since the nineties when I became aware of it. The right wing was ratcheting it against Bill Clinton then.
I would very much want for it to stop.
But is there any connection between hate speech and the recent tragedy?
Apparently not. The shooter was a mentally ill man with a fixation on Gifford dating since 2007. It was more the celebrity element that led to the killing of John Lennon than any political coherent thought.
I tend to agree with this point of view from Slate which considers
The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting.
The article goes to tackle the inflammatory pronouncements of the sheriff in the case
Embedded in Sheriff Dupnik’s ad hoc wisdom were several assumptions. First, that strident, anti-government political views can be easily categorized as vitriolic, bigoted, and prejudicial. Second, that those voicing strident political views are guilty of issuing Manchurian Candidate-style instructions to commit murder and mayhem to the “unbalanced.” Third, that the Tucson shooter was inspired to kill by political debate or by Sarah Palin’s “target” map or other inflammatory outbursts. Fourth, that we should calibrate our political speech in such a manner that we do not awaken the Manchurian candidates among us.
And, fifth, that it’s a cop’s role to set the proper dimensions of our political debate. Hey, Dupnik, if you’ve got spare time on your hands, go write somebody a ticket.
Indeed, it was what sent this in the stratosphere of recriminations and excitement over political opportunity to score points.
Hardly the right response to this tragedy.
Again, a madman shot into a crowd – aiming at a woman he was obsessed with. She happened to be a Congresswoman.
One can take it in as the tragedy that it is, or use it to escalate the atmosphere of vitriol in politics today.
I say, look at the facts. It was not about politics.
Now go home put the pitchforks and torches down and chill out.
Oh, they are out, and they do what they usually do.
in light of the tragic events in Arizona, I shall not enable them by spreading their treatment of the tragedy.
Nor shall I give credence to either side politicizing the events – until the motives and circumstances are established without doubt.
One note on hateful rhetoric: before “Hope and Change” happened, I subscribed to the theory that it only came from the right. But in 2008 I chronicled these from the left
and on Facebook. Obamacrats had these going in 2009 still
with Olberman suggesting that someone should take Hillary into a room and only he comes out.
I am trying to say that no side has clean hands to accuse the other.
It has to stop all around.
The WTF was brought on by this tweet
Following the link, I got to actually enjoy some of the Will snark
Often in the year before the year before the year divisible by four, a few political people theatrically recoil from partisanship. Recently, this ritual has involved speculation about whether New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might squander a few of his billions to improve America by failing to be elected president.
But Bloomberg, addressing the No Labels confabulation, spoke truth to powerlessness:
Well, any time someone will take on Bloomberg is going to make my day – and with the amount of media he owns, it’s not happening to often. But this is the first time I write about the No Labels idiocy – if you discount their attempt to derail Hillary in 2008 (“If Ds nominate her, Bloomberg will run).
I find it ironic that I am so annoyed by this effort in a time when the two traditional parties have erased all difference between them and some alternative is needed. But not this. Back to George Will
The perpetrators of this mush purport to speak for people who want to instruct everyone else about how to speak about politics. Granted, there always are people who speak extravagantly, and modern technologies – television, the Internet – have multiplied their megaphones. But blowhards, although unattractive, are easy to avoid. And speaking of the unattractive:
Although the people promising to make No Labels into a national scold are dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with themselves.
Well, if this generic party ever gets of the ground, they’d be able to legitimately claim Obama as their first President. Remember “postpartisanship”? It’s what he ran on.
In fact, the thick hypocrisy has been rammed in our heads by the media for decades now.
Especially when there is a legitimate public interest (such as defending social security, opposing tax cuts to the rich or the war), pollsters and the media always pulled out the mythical center to paper all over the subversive ideas – most recently with Obama’s heinous tax deal. George Will again
If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread. They might cover the country with sanctimony as they “overthrow the tyranny of hyper-partisanship.”
To think Obama called the progressives “sanctimonious”.
No Labels is nothing but a bunch of plutocrats layering a new talking point over the realities of the country.
The only truth in what they say – there is no longer a D party, so only one talking point should be propagandized.
So maybe I don’t buy Will’s title
If there’s money behind it, it will spread.
In the vacuum of representation for anyone on the left, they’ll eventually gravitate towards the new lesser evil after the clear demise of the Ds. In the illustration by Ted Rall, No Labels will be the “moderate Right Wing Rs”. The black part will just get a little larger.
And many of the Os who are already hailing Obama’s trickle down will fit in perfectly.
I was going to write about Gallup’s new poll on the democratic image
Americans’ favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties’ images that has prevailed for the past four years.
It certainly belies the belief of the Obama operative in B0botland
It seems that despite the thick propaganda, people finally saw that democrats in power behave no better than Republicans did when they had their turn. But there is a remarkable piece of news in the timeline – h/t Hotair for noticing it.
Yes, the Dems are usually on top, but they were roughly even during Clinton’s first term and Bush’s first term. ‘Twas impeachment and Bush’s second term that drove the GOP down. .
I don’t ever remember polls, articles – anything in the media informing us that the GOP lost credibility with their
Arkansas project efforts. All I ever heard was about Clinton being “disgraced”, divisive and Democrats being angry, ashamed that he damaged the party. That it was his fault that Gore was robbed er “lost” and Bush “won”
Look at the 31% approval of the GOP in 1999. GOP hurt itself more than it could hurt Clinton or the Democrats. This was never reported. People were smarter than the whole media then – and they are now too.