Home > Uncategorized > Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot

January 8, 2011

Google wonders: did I mean congressman?

No, Google; I meant “congresswoman”.  And the first search result is a right-wing site that uses the improper “Democrat” instead of “Democratic”,  even in a news story about an assassination.

It is not actually clear at this writing if Giffords is still alive.  At last report she was in surgery in “critical” condition.  And several other people were also shot.  The shooter was, by all we know about him now, a complete loon.

Anyway, Giffords was on Sarah “don’t retreat, reload!” Palin’s hit list.  And when I say “hit list”, I mean a map with rifle scope icons on it.  Expect Caribou Barbie to twist herself into a pretzel claiming not to have inspired the shooter. But as it says in Proverbs; “The wicked man flees even when no one pursues”.  She has already removed that map from her website, and many other right-wing websites are busy scrubbing their pages like Jules and Vincent cleaning the back seat of their car in Pulp Fiction.

But my take on the gun-toting right wing is that even if it turns out he was a total Palintologist, it will only raise her standing among them.

Giffords voted for Obama’s health care reform act, and she supported GLBT rights. Enough to put her in the crosshairs, I guess.

NOTES and updates:

  • Palin, apparently lacking all sense of when to shut the hell up, suggests we all pray for Giffords.
  • Pam Spaulding on Why the Right has run from its rhetoric.  (I wouldn’t guess they’ll stay away long, though.)
  • Cuttlefish and Phil Plait both wish we’d hold off on the speculation.  A great thought, to be sure.  We probably would, in a political vacuum about issues that don’t matter.  But the torrent of violent rhetoric from the Right (and no, the Left has not come even close to “keeping up” on that axis) is a sensitizing factor.
  • Dana Hunter, not at all shy about connecting violent rhetoric and violent behavior, asks; What did you think would happen?
  • Earlier I said Palin would “twist herself into a pretzel” to disclaim responsibility.  But I had no idea how far her camp would go.  An aide has said, apparently with a straight face, that the symbols on Sarah’s map were “surveyor’s symbols”, and they never imagined anyone would think they had anything to do with firearms.   Surveyor’s symbols, really?  Seems unlikely given the wingers’ fixation on Sarah Palin with guns, big guns with scopes, and her use of the slogan, “Don’t retreat; reload!” But don’t worry Sarah, there’s enough violent Right-wing rhetoric to go around when it comes to inspiring some loon.  It doesn’t all rest on your shoulders.
  • Oh, and when I say; “some loon” I must hasten to add, that only a tiny minority of loons are dangerous in any way, and this event shouldn’t be used as an excuse to discriminate against the mentally ill.  If indeed the guy was.
  • Michael Moore asked on Twitter; “If Detroit Muslim put map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 got shot, where would he b sitting now? Just asking.”
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. January 10, 2011 at 00:14 | #1

    I think you’ve got the Right’s number there: Any backing off of their hate rhetoric is temporary.

  2. January 12, 2011 at 17:13 | #2

    What evidence do you have that Sarah Palin had anything to do with the shooting, or that the murderer was in any way influenced by her or anyone else on the right?

    Oh wait, you’re making claims with absolutely no evidence on which to base them. Tell me why your claims should be considered to have any credibility whatsoever?

    Maybe it was something you said here on your blog that made him snap? That claim would have as much validity as yours (I.E. none)

  3. dof
    January 12, 2011 at 17:57 | #3

    Gee, Mike, I didn’t actually say she was responsible. Maybe he never heard of Sarah Palin. And I don’t even think for a moment that she knew Loughner existed. It’s just curious that she immediately felt the need to scrub her website, and then tell ridiculous lies about her graphic. (“Surveyor’s marks”? Really?) The wicked flee when no one pursues.

    And she is not alone in that respect. There’s Angle and Bachmann and Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and many, many more. The right keeps planting seeds of violent rhetoric. Not unreasonable to wonder if some of them fell on fertile ground (the mind of an insane person) and sprouted bullets.

  4. January 14, 2011 at 14:20 | #4

    “Any backing off of their hate rhetoric is temporary.”

    I certainly don’t expect to see the Left backing off of their own violent rhetoric, and they’ve got plenty of it.

  5. Neil
    January 15, 2011 at 02:53 | #5

    mike w.: “I certainly don’t expect to see the Left backing off of their own violent rhetoric, and they’ve got plenty of it.”

    Citation, please? And could you maybe make sure the source is a major modern American left-wing figure, pundit, or politician, on the same fame and influence level of Limbaugh or Palin or Beck? Perhaps Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, or Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow? Happy hunting, you shameless liar. You might find something suitably violent or radical in say, the writings of Castro, or Stalin, or Mao, or even minor American radical figures, but it would take a Glenn Beck-level of lying and idiocy to make any real comparison to modern American Democrats and liberal pundits.

    Nobody has said that the violence-loving, fearmongering right-wingnuts should be held responsible, but they scatter like surprised cockroaches anyway. From your blatant lie of a quote here, I can see you’ve mastered the essentials of republican strategy: The big lie and blatant, shameless hypocrisy. Misrepresent everything others say, and whatever wrong “your side” is doing, deny it and ignore it while accusing others of being worse. With no evidence or logic or any support at all for your assertions, of course.

    It’s just plain old disgusting, Mike w., and that’s the nicest thing I can say.
    It’s sad and shameful what self-delusion can do to a person, and if I were you I would be ashamed of myself. But if you ever decide to grow up, reality and honesty will still be waiting for you. Peace.

  6. dof
    January 17, 2011 at 16:18 | #6

    The false equivalency of “Well liberals do it too!” (ignoring that it compares fringe liberals to mainstream conservatives) sounds so much like a little kid caught with hands in the cookie jar trying to distribute blame. As Jon Stewart says; “You know who doesn’t like the ‘blame game’? People who are to blame.”

    Sure the guy was nuts. And he was fascinated with the conspiratorial stories of the Ron Paul frame. The dots connect through his favorite conspiracy documentaries Zeitgeist and Loose Change, and the promotions of radio conspiracy nut Alex Jones.

    60 Minutes last night profiled Loughner with interviews with his friends and at the college he attended. Of special interest was the section on the Secret Service’s research on assassins; very seldom are they primarily motivated by politics. The “are what you eat” chain is a bit more complicated than that, but it doesn’t support deniability.

  7. January 19, 2011 at 17:25 | #7

    Nobody has said that the violence-loving, fearmongering right-wingnuts should be held responsible.

    It takes quite a bit of gusto for someone to call ME a liar and then make a statement like this. Also, thanks for launching right into personal attacks based upon my one line comment.

Comments are closed.