Since the tragic shooting of Arizona Representative Gabriel Giffords there has been much talk about the heated rhetoric,and,vitriol of recent campaigns being responsible for the shooting of Ms. Giffords and the killing and injury of several others.
One person in particular-Sarah Palin-has been singled out as the "poster girl" if you will of what is wrong with the highly charged atmosphere of current American politics because of her use of such terms as "targeting,don't retreat reload, and other firearms related references!
Well guess what seems the Democrats are as guilty as anyone else of using this kind of "firearms related speech" in political campaigns. In fact according to some sources they have used maps depicting targets against their political opposition since at least as far back as 2004.
As I was preparing for this post I recalled Bush years when it was common to see liberal activists hanging George Bush in effigy,displaying posters calling for Bush to be killed ,and,others calling him a terrorist and calling for his death!
etc,etc
Where was all the concern and outrage on the left over hate filled rhetoric then? I remember Bush being asked by reporters how he felt about such incendiary language at the time and his reply was usually that they had a right to their opinions under the principle of free speech.
Political language in American politics has historically been quite heated and charged with vitriol. We are told by the talking heads on television that the political climate has never been as overheated and highly charged as it is today. Nonsense!
What of the era running up to the Civil War when the rhetoric became so violent and hateful the it wasn't deranged lunatics killing people for unknown reasons but sane people taking up arms against their own neighbors!!
You see I live in Missouri and it is an historical fact that because of the political climate prior to the Civil War their was a very bloody "Border War" going on between Kansas and Missouri. There was also an incident on the steps of this Nation's Capitol where one Senator nearly caned another to death!
No the current political climate,and, the speech of the Tea Party or anyone else is not to blame for Sunday's tragedy. The blame lies solely with a deranged lunatic who decided to grab a semi-automatic pistol and open fire on a group of unarmed and innocent people!
8 comments:
I agree that the blame lies with a deranged lunatic. But to equate these two examples of maps with targets is ridiculous. The Democrat example is clearly just showing the 'target states' for election; the other is implying the "targeting" of specific candidates. That coupled with Palin's "reload" rhetoric puts it a world away from the Democrat example, no?
You have a bit of a point. However they are still targets. Furthermore the wording under the map says behind enemy lines.
The dems don't just see repubs as opposition but as an enemy. Such martial talk-using their logic-could lead to real acts of violence against said enemy-and who was the face of that enemy-none other than George Bush so using their own standards they were inciting and encouraging violence against Bush
I also wanted to point out their hypocrisy on this issue seeing as how they spewed forth incredible "hate" speech against Bush
I tend to agree with Jim. The Dem map is from 2004 and there was bipartisanship then, but nothing compared to the sheer hate-speech that we're hearing now. We've gone from "I disagree with you" to "I hate you" and statistically speaking, there are going to mentally unstable people out there who feel the need to act on this.
I agree it's not fair to pin it all on Palin though. I believe it is the whole tone that politics have taken on since Obama was elected. Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" comments count among the more extreme statements. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and FOX News are all very guilty of fanning the flames of hate and fear, and sadly, their motivation is money (i.e. ratings). During the past two years, especially over Health Care Reform and the mid-term elections, the rhetoric has really gotten out of control.
The only time Bush was ever hung in effigy (that I can remember) was in Afghanistan by Shiite protesters (not even American, let alone Liberals).
I know the Dems aren't perfect; Alan Grayson (D-FL) compared a political opponent of his to a Muslim, calling him "Taliban Dan" over a sexist comment the man made during church about his wife. It was taken out of context, but I guess someone thought it sounded like good fodder for a campaign add. Or maybe not; he didn't get reelected.
I really believe the Tea Party movement/Conservative side of the political spectrum is worse about violent rhetoric than the Progressive/Left side. This might be largely due to a) The way it's reported on all news channels and b) there is a lot of hate speech on FOX, which is essentially a fund-raising arm of the Republican party.
I do agree you completely though about everything that led up to the Civil War, and don't you find that disturbing? Maybe we need to change our tone a little and try to avoid that kind of divide again. No laws or repressing of freedom of speech, just a little common sense and courtesy.
Since the turn of the century, we've been fairly decent to each other across the aisle. Even under Bill Clinton, who was impeached, both parties found a way to work together and there wasn't this level of destructive talk.
I surely hope everyone, regardless of party affiliation, takes this opportunity to reshape our conversation and the form our rhetoric takes in politics.
I tend to agree with Jim. The Dem map is from 2004 & there was bipartisanship then, but nothing compared to the sheer hate-speech that we're hearing now. We've gone from "I disagree with you" to "I hate you" & there are mentally unstable people out there who will act on this.
I agree it's not fair to pin it all on Palin; it's the whole tone that politics have taken on since Obama was elected. Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" comments are extreme. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & FOX News are all guilty of fanning the flames of hate & fear, & their motivation is money/ratings. During the past two years, especially over Health Care Reform & the mid-term elections, the rhetoric has really gotten out of control.
The only time Bush was ever hung in effigy (that I can remember) was in Afghanistan by Shiite protesters, not American Liberals.
I know the Dems aren't perfect; Alan Grayson (D-FL) called a political opponent "Taliban Dan", comparing him to a Muslim. Not cool, he didn't get reelected.
I believe the Tea Partiers/Conservatives are worse about violent rhetoric than the Progressives/Dems. This might be due to a) The way it's reported on the news & b) the amount of hate speech on FOX, which actively fund-raises for the Republican party.
I do agree you completely about the Civil War, & don't you find it disturbing? Maybe we need to change our tone a little & try to avoid that kind of divide again. No laws or repressing of freedom of speech, just a little common sense & courtesy.
Since the turn of the century, we've been fairly decent to each other across the aisle. Even under Bill Clinton, who was impeached, the parties found a way to work together & there wasn't this level of destructive talk. I surely hope everyone, regardless of affiliation, takes this opportunity to reshape the direction of our political discourse.
Freedomlover, can you please point to an example of "hate speech" made by democrats against Bush? Anything remotely comparable with the kind of stuff heard from Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis?
Now, Bush certainly wasn't much liked, that's for sure, and rhetoric undoubtedly became quite heated. But isn't hate-speech a bit far? Especially when compared to the kind of language being spewed forth by the right today.
Ok folks here are some examples of liberal "hate speech"...
""O&A - "Condoleezza Rice"
Charlie - "I'd love to f--- that b*tch dude" (laughter)
Charlie - "She's the F---in man"
O&A - "yeah"
Charlie - "I'd F...that b*tch...."
O&A - "I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice's face...."
- "(laughter) ..... as she realizes what's going on"
- "...as you were just holding her down and F'n her."
Charlie - "punch her all the F'n face, shut the F--- up b*tch"
O&A - "that's exactly what I meant" (laughter in background)
Charlie - "you know F--- it .... and George Bush wife? I'd F--- that b*tch to death" -- "Shock Jocks" Opie & Anthony talk rape & violence with their guest "Homeless Charlie."
""A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes show"
""One of the reasons I have such trouble believing in God is that if he were real and the justice that pious believers speak of were genuine, guys like George Bush should be vaporized instantaneously one day just by opening his mouth. I'm still waiting." -- Daily Kos diarist, snafubar"
This stuff just barelt scratches the surface.
Source:http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/10/five_years_of_the_violent_left.php
Hold on... You're using a couple of shock-jocks as examples of Democrats? A bit strange...
Shock Jocks yes! They speak to a large liberal audience.
As for the target maps. the one from the Democrats was a map from the Democratic Leadership Committee.
I'm sure it was used to raise money to defeat the Republicans in the areas "targeted" therefor by extension it also targeted individual candidates.
I am also sure that the specific candidates were probably mentioned in literature accompanying said map.
To top it off the title was "Behind enemy lines: martial talk to be sure. When The right uses militant language horrors of horrors it is "hate" speech. Give me a break.
And what of the other liberal rhetoric i mention?
My bottom line is that in a free society,with,free speech things will get heated. Things will get passionate.
And to paraphrase the father of the 9 year old girl tragically murdered by the Arizona lunatic.
I prefer free speech in a free society to the alternative
Post a Comment