Archive for the ‘media’ Category

On facebook Sarah Palin puts out a video that first talks about the victims:

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Then quoting Ronald Reagan

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Then hits the media about responsibility:

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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. That is reprehensible.

And quotes some history:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?

And celebrates America:

Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

And a defense of liberty:

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

A thought provoking speech so how does Morning Joe react? They attack her for the use of the words “BlOOD LIBEL”. Ignoring that for two days the phrase has been used in this context:

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

That’s Glenn Reynolds (my guest this Saturday) on the media and the shootings. One of the most important bloggers in the world two days ago in the Wall Street Journal. It was quoted widely, but I didn’t remember the media hitting him over it.

But this is Sarah Palin, she who must be stopped. Apparently like the gift of flowers there is no occasion where attacking Sarah Palin is not proper, additionally the media had hit her for saying nothing, now they say she should be quiet.

Morning Joe followed up with Tim Pawlenty who failed to reject the “target” nonsense. This unwillingness to reject this meme has not only confirmed that I will not support him, but also means I will happily work against him. That’s not what a leader does.

Does this surprise me? No, I’m not surprised. Anyone watching the full statement can describe it in one word Presidential. President Obama’s statement will be held in comparison against it and it will be a tough act to follow.

And here is my conclusion/opinion. The “No Labels” crowd Morning Joe, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan crowd is using this incident and the blood of the dead and wounded to attempt to silence and put conservative voices that they consider “dangerous” on the defensive, voices they can’t beat in the court of public opinion or in the ballot box. I would call that Blood Libel.

If they are not ashamed of themselves they ought to be if they are capable.

Update: Tell me: if an unapologetic liberal lawyer who is also Jewish says Sarah Palin’s use of the term Blood Libel isn’t inappropriate can we let it go?

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.

Will that do?

One of the reasons the internet has been the bane of the left is it allows us of the right to permanently document their own actions.

Zombie Time Michelle Malkin and Pam Geller (who repeats much of Zombietimes’ imagery) go long on some of the violent public imagery of the left that for some reason never produced any bits of objections from the now breast beating left. Unfortunately like Boss Tweed said it is impossible for the public to miss “Those Damn Pictures”.

And Ann Althouse contributes but a single picture but is it more shocking being that a business considered it an appropriate item to have in their window to the public where she was.

Meanwhile at Berkeley the template has not changed:

I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.”

Again the “We’re better than them” mantra of the left has not changed.

I strongly suggest that we don’t let the left off the hook for both their misrepresentations and this nonsense. Each of these items on the internet is a testament to their mind set.

I didn’t hit the sack till 3 so I missed most of the first hour and a half of Morning Joe but the line I heard was similar to a couple of liberal hosts I heard on the radio this morning.

The gist was: We aren’t saying Sarah Palin is responsible but look at this cross hairs and the rhetoric being used. Politico was particularly not covering itself with glory and Mika seemed to egg on Tom Brokaw in the imagery business.

If Byron York was watching doubtless he would be feeling nostalgic because today he notes what Bill Clinton did to turn the attack in Oklahoma City to his political advantage:

Later, under the heading “How to use extremism as issue against Republicans,” Morris told Clinton that “direct accusations” of extremism wouldn’t work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the “ricochet theory.” Clinton would “stimulate national concern over extremism and terror,” and then, “when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans.”

As York notes this morning this is exactly the line Democrats in a political hole right now are trying to play.

One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

Another Democratic strategist said the similarity is that Tucson and Oklahoma City both “take place in a climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats.”

Lets cut to the chase, tough talk has been the political rule in the US since 1789 and before. Nuts are going to be nuts no matter what. The idea of watching out for “inflammatory” rhetoric is yet another attempt to suppress speech. No amount of speech restriction is going to make a dangerous nut any less dangerous.

Who decides what rhetoric is “inflammatory”? The eastern elites? The same media that had nothing to say about the nasty Anti-Bush stuff until he was out of office? The same media who didn’t say boo when we see signs in marches that say. “Behead those who oppose Islam” or “We support our troops when they shoot their officers?“. For some reason until the Bush years were over this was not a topic the media (other than fox) choose to bring up.

Look for the passive aggressive business for a while. It’s the left and the media best chance to put conservatives on the defensive without actually doing anything to actually earn support by positive action. Watch for it also be used to attempt to restrict 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

This weekends NFL games are an excellent metaphor on the more tragic events of this past weekend.


Looking at the Wild card games
3 times out of 4 the home team (the actual division winner) lost. The one exception was when the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks, after a week of breast beating concerning their presence in the postseason , defeated the defending Superbowl champion New Orleans Saints.

All of the predictions and punditry meant nothing, when the actual game was played the only things relevant were the facts on the ground. (Fans of teams like New England should take this to heart)

Likewise in the last election cycle. People claimed that opposition to the health care plan would not work, that opposing a president who was wildly popular would hurt Republicans. That conservatives needed to compromise. As the polls failed to back up those views pundits instead talked about how the John Stewart Rally, the Coffee Party and the idea that the president’s healthcare plan were not as unpopular as people claimed yet when the dust had settled a net gain of 63 seats in the house was the result.

One again prognostications were useless when compared to the actual facts on the ground.

Now we see the violence in Arizona and once again we see an incredible array of pundits making statements concerning the motivations of the shooter. It’s Palin’s fault because of a map icon, it’s the tea party’s fault because of their support of the 2nd amendment, On twitter this morning (1 a.m EST) an incredible array of people are trying to blame Andrew Breitbart.

All of these have in common a complete lack of evidence or objective facts to support their claims, in fact as time progresses the facts tend to show exactly the opposite.

As Glenn Reynolds has pointed out the narrative has been written long before this event and no quantity of facts on the ground is going to change it.

For example an Arizona state senator when faced with the anger and objections of supporters of the US Military after falsely stating the shooter was an Afghan vet (when in fact the Army rejected him) rather than retracting and apologizing (an easy thing, it was early and all the facts weren’t in) instead removed her contact information from her site.

This morning I suspect we will see the usual suspects continue this narrative, unfortunately unlike a football game or an election this isn’t a question of an actual result that is scored. This is all about massaging the ground for political gain. The goal is to influence those who normally don’t pay attention in the hopes that they will dismiss any arguments to the contrary.

With the race card gone the way of the dodo the violent tea party card is about to be played, facts be damned.

It will be up to the American people to decide if this rhetoric will be rewarded or not.