Posts Tagged ‘gabrielle giffords’

I feel bad for the people who were killed and wounded in Arizona, I really do, but the idea that a person who was shot, who never knew the shooter, who didn’t hear the shooter make any declaration knows what drove him is pretty loose.

I gave a pass to some of the friends of the victims on the day of the shooting. Their friends and/or family had been shot and/or killed and emotions were high, but as the evidence continues to show the shooter had absolutely no connection to anything remote resembling the tea party, Sarah Palin or the like, the media’s attempt to continue to assert this is frankly libelous. Then again this is from the actual day of the shooting when facts were not in evidence.

Of course as Aaron Worthing of Patterico’s Pontifications points out:

notice what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say he presently blames Palin, Beck, and so on for the attack. He is saying he did Saturday night. And of course that was the same night that Sheriff Nifong Dupnick was making his own intemperate remarks. So is it reasonable for the Mr. Fuller to have believed law enforcement on that issue on that night? Of course it is.

But you never hear them ask the obvious follow up question: do you still feel this way? And if you look at the rest of the report, created today, it is obvious that these people are completely dishonest. They have deliberately skewed every other piece of evidence to indict the right wing, leaving out every piece of evidence that might exonerate their targets. Why should we think they presented this man’s entire statement?

The use of “Democracy Now” (or as I like to call them ANSWER tv) as a primary source is always dubious to begin with but I guarantee you that will not stop the MSM for playing this for all its worth. This nearly guarantees that Morning Joe will be unwatchable for next week as politico is running with it and David Frum is already trying to weld it as a club. Way to go Dave, stand bravely cowering behind a man with a hole shot in him. Pretty low stuff.

The game is of course to play the Cindy Sheehan “Absolute moral authority” game. The left made Sheehan a national figure until she became a liability at which she was abandoned as a crazy. The goal of course is to bait us on the right to bait the right to hit the poor old fellow.

Bill Jacobson (who will be my guest on DaTechGuy on DaRadio on Feb 19th) gets it:

I wish you a speedy recovery, but you are wrong for all the reasons most of the rest of the world has come to understand in the last few days.

P.S., yes, you will be used by those who will hide behind your victim-status since they have no facts to support their theories

I feel really sorry for the man, the shooter used his blood to make himself famous and now the left and the media will use to try to salvage a meme they can’t support with facts. Disgraceful.

Meanwhile Stacy McCain, not taking the “attack the victim” bait, takes the trouble to use the shooters own words to make the case against:

  1. Jared Lee Loughner didn’t like ”illegal wars,” which are “unconstitutional,” an opinion you might have heard a lot circa 2002-2006 if you were hanging out with smelly peaceniks at International A.N.S.W.E.R. marches or Ned Lamont rallies.
  2. Jared Lee Loughner habitually used the term “genocide” to describe anything he was against – “Mom, this broccoli-and-cheese casserole tastes like genocide!” — just like every Chomsky-spouting punk who ever protested an Ann Coulter speech on a college campus.
  3. Jared Lee Loughner’s interpretation of the Constitution is nearly as crazy as the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
  4. Jared Lee Loughner hates cops, considers grammar a form of “mind control,” and felt that getting a “B” in class was a violation of his First Amendment rights. If he hadn’t become a mass murderer, he might have had a promising future as an ACLU lawyer.

You can find the video here.

The irony of course is the wars and genocide stuff would fit perfectly within the program schedule of Democracy Now.

Funny old world isn’t it?

Update: Apparently he isn’t being used, he is apparently out there bigtime:

Toward the end of the town hall meeting Saturday morning, one of the shooting victims, J. Eric Fuller, took exception to comments by two of the speakers: Ariz. state Rep. Terri Proud, a Dist. 26 Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

According to sheriff’s deputies at the scene, Fuller took a photo of Humphries and said, “You’re Dead.”

Deputies immediately escorted Fuller from the room.

Pima County Sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said later Saturday that Fuller has been charged with threats and intimidation and he also will be charged with disorderly conduct.

I think the left’s script for Monday has just changed.

Update 2: Stacy Reports that the left is playing the “Post Traumatic” card. In terms of my personal feelings, I’m willing to give him more of a break in culpability, but in terms of the law, that pity is irrelevant you can’t just let stuff like that go. Or as Spock once said: “I do not approve, I understand.”

I read the text of the speech and it seems a pretty good direct speech that address the event. Certainly appropriate for the event.

However it looks like the speech in practice had an issue. Not so much for the delivery but for the rally like atmosphere and the focus on democratic pols. The apparent booing of the republican Governor at the event didn’t help either:

Future politicos, please heed this advice. Never hold a memorial service in a university arena, and never give out T-shirts prior to the event. Those two choices set the tone for this entire spectacle. Some will excuse the bizarre atmosphere or blame it entirely on those in the audience to deflect attention from the president. But the president’s team had the final call on everything. They could have demanded a more suitable setting, and set a more appropriate tone. They didn’t. This gauche spectacle is the Obama administration’s fault. The tone of the event overshadowed whatever good words of comfort and honor were in his lengthy speech.

The Anchoress thought is wasn’t as bad as that:

I am not a person who likes applause at Mass, and I don’t like it much at memorials, either; the raucous crowd had even some mediafolk (Anderson Cooper comes to mind) expressing doubt about the cheering. I think it was simply the venue. A different venue, something smaller, quieter, more intimate, might have inspired a different sort of reaction from the crowds, but perhaps adrenaline was running some of it.

Tammy Bruce wasn’t impressed either.

This is all in great contrast to the MSM. MSNBC has been going on and on about the speech all morning as if it was the greatest thing they’ve ever heard. They are overselling the speech horribly. Chris Matthews likely has the tingle back in his leg.

There is a real danger to the administration that the media is overselling it. The public has become much more attuned to this kind of thing and any benefit the administration might get from these events could be lost. Particularly since the Oakland event turned out to be a disaster

and note this from the write up:

That’s odd: How can separate eyewitnesses to the same event come away with different impressions, Rashomon-style? Here’s how: note carefully what happens at exactly 1:20 in the video. You’ll notice that the lights which had been illuminating Roy Wilson are suddenly turned off, right when it becomes obvious that he’s going to continue his inappropriate political rant. What you’re seeing at that moment is a TV camera crew, which had been filming Roy Wilson’s speech for possible use as a soundbite in that evening’s news broadcast, realizing that the guy was going off-message — so they simply switched off the camera’s photo lights and stopped filming him because his speech no longer fit the media’s predetermined narrative.

My final take. The president made a good speech but the left is likely to blow for him because they have moved to his left big time.

And then there is time. The reason I believe that Obama entirely avoided politics, indeed rebuked the Krugman-Daily Kos narrative, is because he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left. Conversely, because the left couldn’t restrain themselves, they pounced immediately and left a trail of inanity on twitter and websites.

The final lesson for the left is this: for the sake of a second term, the president is willing to throw liberals under the bus.

.
I don’t’ know if we can go that far, but it’s certainly a thought.

I’m in the process of writing a critique column for the Examiner on the media’s reaction events in Arizona but if spend the entire day working on it I suspect it will not compare to this post by Elizabeth Scalia the Anchoress.

“Today was supposed to be set-aside for the victims,” someone posted on twitter, “Palin decided she is one of them.”

No. Sarah Palin made a statement that was contextual, relevant and appropriate to the day. The press, if they really wanted to put the day aside for the victims, could have simply reported that Palin made a statement, and moved on. In truth, they could have utterly ignored Palin’s statement altogether, because she really is not part of this story.

But they did not, because they cannot. Where Sarah Palin is concerned, the mainstream press and the political pundit class are like 14 year olds obsessing over the social order of the cafeteria, and especially that stupid new cootie girl, ewwww.

They are the spiteful, malevolent and immature teenagers in “Carrie,” armed with pig-blood and just looking for any opportunity to pour it.

They are repulsive in their clique; one wants to take them by their shoulders and shake them and say “grow up! GROW UP!”

Read the whole thing, is it the best piece I’ve seen on the subject. Also not to be missed is NeoNeocon’s piece.

I believe that, like her or hate her (and I’ve gone on record saying I don’t think she’s a good candidate for the 2012 presidency), Palin chooses her phrases carefully and knows what she’s doing. And I would guess that, as a religious Christian and strong supporter of Israels and Jews, Palin knows exactly what the blood libel is and has an awareness of the history behind the use of the phrase.

I am wondering how it would feel to be reeling from hearing the dreadful news of the Tucson assassination/massacre, and then almost immediately to find oneself accused of inciting it by press and an opposition solemnly and sanctimoniously intoning the charge in transparently hypocritical hope of elevating the tone of political discourse while simultaneously pointing the finger of bloody guilt at their hated opponent. You know, the phrase “blood libel” might just come to mind.

I know I will add only a few hits after Glenn and Elizabeth but I can say that she as intelligent and delightful in person as she is online.

Update: More attempted scrubbing on the left, and makes the following point in a follow up post:

What is most remarkable about these death wishes is that they were done in the open and often with the identity of the person not hidden. The identities of the tweeters and the people who “liked” the Facebook pages were readily identifiable in many cases.

Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?

Because they know that the media will never call them out for death threats against Sarah Palin. I will be delighted in a show like Morning Joe proves me wrong.

After a tough drive and an afternoon of shoveling I was dead tired so I hit the sack early so I didn’t hear the president’s speech or read it yet.

The clips on the TV are OK. On Morning Joe they are giving it the Gettysburg Address treatment but I suspect if his entire speech was “I like cheeseburgers” they would find a reason to be complementing him but they have seen the speech and I have not so I’m at a disadvantage.

I still resent Joe’s statement that both sides were trying to make hay of this. One side attacked and the other defended.

I’ll withhold my own judgment on the speech until I read it and check some reviews. Anything I do before I take the kid to school will likely be here, after that I’ll put it on a new post.

Update: From what I’m seeing the speech was pretty good. Michelle Malkin notes it was a good speech.