Gifford was among those in Arizona whose offices were targeted with vandalism and threats during the health care debate in 2009.
(via @nytjim)Giffords was also one of the lawmakers Sarah Palin “set her sights on” in the Palin PAC infographic below (takebackthe20.com). The congresswoman and others are targeted with simulated gun sights on a map of the United States.
Despite putting a “target” on Giffords and asking her fellow nutjobs to find a “solution” to the congresswoman, Palin had this to say about the tragedy:
My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona.
On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.
Michael Moore asked this via Twitter:
If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking.
Update Jan 9, 2010:
According to ABC News Palin denies “she meant the graphic over the districts to look like a gun sight.”
Rebecca Mansour, a spokesperson for SarahPac said, “We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights.”
Atlas Shrugged is one my favourite books. Therefore I am a libertarian. Right?
Seriously, stop and think this one out. Sarah Palin is a national political leader – think it through.
Alfred, it’s all just fun and games until an unstable personality takes it seriously. Then what? “Not my fault”???
The forensic analysis of his Internet habits will be revealing, and could point everywhere and nowhere. In the meantime, why is the right being so damned defensive? Feeling guilty?
Some insightful quotes from classmates, friends, teachers and law enforcement
The shooter was a
9/11 Truther;
Creep;
Left-wing psycho nihilist;
Never really political;
Apparent grievance-monger against the US military;
Dream freak;
Delinquent;
Pothead.
He has more in common with Jane Fonda than with Sarah Palin.
jbenson2, obviously he’s a whack job. That’s not the point.
Now I’m feeling like Sarah must feel, for inadvertently triggering the wrath of an unstable personality. LOL
#175 Foobar – that is exactly the point.
The media and the lefties are creating blatant lies and trying unsuccessfully to tie him to Sarah Palin.
But the facts show there is no connection and that his actions are exactly what the libs do every day.
jbenson @179…creating blatant lies is not the sole domain of the left, it’s SOP for Republicans and their Fox media arm.
As evidenced by your third paragraph.
jbenson2, settle down there fella. Let me ask the question in yet another way since you guys don’t seem to want to answer it.
Will Sarah Palin, a national political leader, continue to use violent imagery and rhetoric during the 2012 campaign?
I’m betting “no”. If it isn’t appropriate now, then why was it appropriate before?
And there ya go…Rush has thus spoketh and Foxnews.com has permission to go into high gear with their victimization narrative.
Rush Limbaugh — fact based. Not on planet Earth, that is for sure.
I want people in xxx armed and dangerous on this issue,” adding, “Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.
What current House rep said this last year? Would he/she say it again?
The same crowd that is saying that the political rhetoric they say has no effect on people are usually the same crowd that argues that hollywood is leading people to decadence based on what they say.
#171
Why is the left wing jumping to the conclusion that A. Anything Palin said had anything to do with the incident and B: that he was right-wing? Why the need to attack the right on this one when there is no evidence to support that position?
#182
She hasn’t used “violent” imagery. She’s from Alaska where people are exposed to regular gun use. Saying “I have you in my sites” is a competitive remark just as a tennis player might say to another “I’m going to take you down”. Granted, the use of gun rhetoric makes her sound like a hick but that’s a far cry from saying it’s “violent imagery”.
If Palin were to run in 2012 (which I think unlikely), I have no doubt that she’ll use some sort of gun rheotric at some stage just because of her background.
187 smartalix
“The same crowd that is saying that the political rhetoric they say has no effect on people are usually the same crowd that argues that hollywood is leading people to decadence based on what they say.”
It’s the Christians Right version of do unto others… “Do as I say, not as I do”
Thomas…I don’t claim Palin’s metaphors were the cause, seems a stretch to me. But it sure fits neatly. As smartalix says: which way are we playing this one? Bad influence or innocuous?
But to your question, here’s why the left is pointing fingers. Regardless Jared’s sanity and influences, the right needs to dial it down a few notches.
I was banging Jodie the day Reagan was shot.
The only thing in danger from a pot smoker is a bag of Chips Ahoy.
This is just great. Classic.
Palin did it.
Ha!
Guess you guys are finally starting to run out of things to blame Bush for.
#190
The evidence does not match your conclusion at least in the case of Loughner. Was he a fanatic? Clearly. A right-wing fanatic? The evidence does not establish that. Some of the examples from your article also do not follow. Republicans’ calling the IRS tactics “Gestapo-like” is a far cry from inciting Stack to fly his plan into the IRS building especially since the crash occurred 10 years after the statement was made. Stack’s perceived behavior of the IRS and their tactics is what did that.
Is there a threat from right-wing extremists? Probably. They tend to be religious and poorly educated and that combination tends not to think clearly when they feel threatened. However, let’s not make a nonsensical, “video games cause violence” type conclusion and claim that being right-wing implies you are violent. Being an extremists lends itself toward violent solutions regardless of political side.
Thomas…I’m just saying…that’s why the left saw the neat fit and jumped to conclusions. I don’t agree with all of that article, or that site, but it’s a compelling list of craziness.
And no, sane people are not the issue. But conservative rhetoric does fan flames for those on the edge, the extremists. It does none of us any good to have Bachmann saying the stuff I posted at 185. In the old days (ha!) mature political leadership shunned extreme rhetoric…Sharrron Angle would have been bounced from the race for her incendiary and racist words, Bachmann exposed by the media. The Birchers would still be at the fringes rather than having tea with a wing of the GOP.
Now, “crazy” is mainstreamed, and the press is neutered. This isn’t good.
Thomas, I appreciate someone actually responding.
One reminder, Sarah Palin is a national political figure, not just some hick (I don’t believe the old hick thing anyway). By a national political figure I mean:
– Governor of a State
– Ran on a Presidential ticket
– Is a headliner during campaigns
She is a very effective politician which a large voice. She has a large stage and she will set the tone and many others will follow such as Jesse Kelly. She can continue to be an effective force in American politics without resorting to this type of nonsense.
And people from Alaska aren’t hicks, they are a refreshing group of people.
One day, the self-righteous sophisticate from the left is going to wake up and realize he has acquired everything he wanted. There will be no media opposition, no differing view-points. The strange and deranged will be treated as equals while the strong and independent will be criminalized. Guns will be gone. Smoking will be gone. Public cursing, greasy food, pick-up trucks, dinner knives, blunt objects, winning, losing, fireworks and that racist American flag will all be gone. It will be a beautiful utopia.
And he will curse the day he was born.
Alfred: that’s eliminationist rhetoric.
Don’t just disagree with others, but dehumanize them. Nice job, asshole.
“Eliminationist rhetoric” goes with being a shit head. Ha, ha.
Can I add anything more to what has already been said?
If you have “one” opinion on this subject, thats the beginning. Now, go back and find the best argument for the opposing view. Compare and contrast. Do the sides contain arguable positions? If not, you need to think some more.
Partisan: not agreeing with simple truths.
All this for 1 dead politician?
All this for 1 NUT BALL killer?
ECA–that was weak. “All this” is always for ourselves. Look inward to yourself, not outward at the screen. The outward screen is a window into yourself. Don’t follow Alfie into the abyss of non recognition.
Ha, ha.
– Governor of a State
– Ran on a Presidential ticket
– Is a headliner during campaigns
I’m thinking of someone who was a Lt Governor, Ran on a presidential ticket, and was a headliner during campaigns.
When asked if he was going to visit New Hampshire during vacation, kill two birds with one stone, he responded that he could visit 1600 Pennsylvania and kill the bird with just one stone. Acceptable or not acceptable dialogue?
On Jan 6, Daily Kos had on its site, Giffords, you’re dead to me. Of course Palin’s old target list is the more likely culprit than something posted on JANUARY SIXTH.
One Congressman has already proposed banning things like this target list. No threats or anything that might incite violence against a member of Congress.
If you oppose this, then you support the killing of Rep Giffords. I think it’s appropriate the Congressman’s name is Brady.
Mike–calm down now, you are getting overheated and approaching Alfie territory.
Do you think there should be any limitation at all?
How about: “Political Person xyz should be killed. They live at ddd, and leave this address every morning at 800AM with no security service, usually come back home at 700PM again with no security. There is a clear line of sight from hills about 500 yards from the house with unobservable vehicle access.”
Is that free speech Mickey or actionable threat that “should be” illegal?
203 Alfred E Newman,
Fact. Oklahoma bombing was done by a racist white American right-wing fascist. And, sadly, as you’re addled brain cannot recall, it was done in a climate exactly as there is today: a Democratic president, and a fomenting right-wing lead by a hypocrite and a fraud.
There is no surprise that someone with brain damage (fill-in either McVeigh or Loughner depending on your political leaning) was incited by the rhetoric and politics of the criminal right. It’s a no brainer. And, oddly enough, a no brainer like you can’t even get it.