for those who have not seen it ...

[writerspleasure.livejournal.com]

2009 map from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC):

c/o http://bigjournalism.com/?p=156616

[ how many murders took place in the targeted states? clearly many mad people were driven to it by this terrifying graphic. ]

Responding to the accusations regarding the AZ shooting.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

x-posted to my journal

I was using this as a response to someone else, but in constructing the response I found some important information that I need to save for future reference. I'm posting this here in case anyone wants to use it.

Regarding the AZ shooting, and dealing with these sorts of discussions in general:


The problem is these types of discussions often devolve into a challenge of 'Whose side has more examples of XYZ bad behavior?' This can go on endlessly because there is no way to list EVERY single incident or comment that one side or the other has made, and lay them side by side to see who  has more. That's impossible.

Use an example or two, but then get them back to the main point. In this case:

"How does whatever Sarah Palin said or printed" (you can get specific) "mean that she's responsible for these shooting? Didn't Barack Obama when he was campaigning, say his supporters should: 'argue and get in their face' of their friends and neighbors? Here's the video. That's not him saying that?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

"Didn't he also use a movie quote, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” to illustrate his fight with Republicans?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15campaign.html?_r=1

"So by this reasoning, isn't Barack Obama responsible for these shootings, especially since by the shooter's own admission, he seems to have more Left views than Right ones?"

And then you wait for a response. This means they will have to watch the video and read the article. If you see they're not doing that, then you tell them you won't go further until they do. You took some time to provide this evidence and it's only right that they consider it in their answer. If they keep yammering, ask them why they won't look at what you have provided. You considered what they had to say. Why will they not do likewise? By this time you will see the smoke coming out of their ears.

If When they start screaming, then you calmly end the conversation.

Sarah Palin: “Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel”

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Sarah Palin has now responded in depth about the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and the Left's attack upon her.

Link: http://vimeo.com/18698532

I'll also include Ed Morrissey's take, particularly as he has transcript and addresses the upcoming criticisms of Palin using the term of "blood libel."

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/video-journalists-and-pundits-should-not-manufacture-a-blood-libel/

I may opine later, or not.

respond, leftists. now.

[writerspleasure.livejournal.com]

we know what your reaction would have been if sarah palin had said this about giffords:

"Instead of running [to represent Arizona] they ought to have her and shoot her. Put her against the wall and shoot her."

and you would have been right. and i know that a number of people here, i among them, would have been with you. shooting innocent persons is a violation of their individual rights, their liberty, and individual liberty is precious to us.

okay, so: to use your favorite locution: where were you when this was said -

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have [Rick Scott] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

who said that? the terrifying teabagger paul kanjorski. y'know, the guy who airily opined in the new york times op-ed page yesterday: "it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation." "Paul E. Kanjorski (born April 2, 1937) is the former U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania's 11th congressional district, serving from 1985 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. The district includes the cities of Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton, as well as most of the Poconos." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Kanjorski

where were you there? no targeting marks. no "hidden threat of violence beneath the surface" (the best kind of violence - the kind that doesn't manifest yet can be used against your political opponent). an open call to assassinate a political opponent.

now listen to kanjorski's excuse. it is priceless: Reached by phone Tuesday, Kanjorski said "only fruitcakes" would take his statement about Scott literally. The 73-year-old Democrat from Nanticoke, who this fall lost in his bid for a 14th term representing the 11th Congressional District, admitted he's well known for using "colorful language." "I probably would never have made the statement if I anticipated anything like this happening," Kanjorski said. "It was obviously not in humor, but not literally."

- http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/kanjorski-only-fruitcakes-would-take-my-call-shoot-governor-liter

don't like the washington examiner? let's use the notorious tea party rag, the wall street journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576077892006683586.html

so when a democrat openly calls for assassination, it's just "colorful language" that "only a fruitcake" (!!!) would be influenced by - and that makes it okay. but targeting marks of the same order used by dems - by the way, surveyors shoot a line - those have magical demon powers when used by sarah palin.

okay, leftists. so where were you? how many crazies is kanjorski's call for assassination influencing right now, and how will it come out? how many crazies are being influenced by your frothing about bushitler, end of the world, global uninhabitability, etc.? and what are you going to do about - by your own premises - your own responsibility for violence.

answer. now. rationalize away kanjorski's call for assassination and your own utter lack of response. explain to us the subtle ways in which a democrat's call for murder is A-OK.

Political voodoo: The Left's ultimate argument in the Tuscon shootings

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Allahpundit did his usual fine job in analyzing what the Left's true argument in the Tuscon shootings. The original context was the MSM criticizing Sarah Palin for responding or "inserting herself into the story," per her new video, today. (Remember my recent Mark Halperin entry, as such template is in place.) He then shifted toward Ace and Jim Treacher's insightful commentary of political voodoo. (They are within the link, and should be read, as well.)

Voodoo, the same way sticking a doll with a pin can inflict pain on someone a thousand miles away. When Palin slapped the crosshairs on Giffords’s district, Loughner somehow just knew and reacted. No proof of real-world cause and effect needed. That’s one of the two big takeaways from the left’s reaction to all this — that in a pinch, if the narrative requires right-wing culpability, magical thinking is acceptable. The other big takeaway actually doesn’t have to do with Palin, even though I think many of her supporters want this story to be mainly about her and how badly she’s been smeared. She has been egregiously smeared, to be sure, but her “role” in the shootings isn’t the grand lie. The grand lie is the left/media professing to care remotely about the “tone of political discourse” while spending four days doing everything it could to make it worse. Instant politicization of a massacre, smear after smear about who’s to blame, total amnesia about their own chill attitude towards the vicious demonization of Bush and his circle for years, and every bit of it surreally accompanied by hand-wringing about improving “the dialogue.” Magical thinking — and yet, supposedly, “reality-based.” That’s where we’re at after four days of stomping on our allegedly fragile national debate.

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/abc-why-must-sarah-palin-insert-herself-into-this-story-by-defending-herself-against-charges-of-inspiring-murder/

If there is a better explanation, present it. I wish there was a better one, but it all fits.

Update: Robert Kennedy Jr. definitely confirms this theory. Headdesk or Facepalm?

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/rfk-jr-you-know-my-uncle-was-also-shot-amid-a-climate-of-right-wing-hate/

Palin aide: She’s getting death threats at unprecedented levels

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

The Subject line says it all, and Allahpundit will guide you in. I'm just not up for the rest, at the moment. Per the memorial service that's currently running, I'll just wait for the talking heads to opine. (If anyone wishes to use the entry to discuss on such, fine by me.)

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/palin-aide-shes-getting-death-threats-at-unprecedented-levels/

Exit quotation: "Now, let’s see tomorrow how the media and the left react to this story. There’ll be three responses, I assume. One: “Hey, maybe we should tone down the rhetoric on Palin before she gets shot.” If so much as one person offers that, consider it a victory. Two: “I condemn the threats, but we can’t be held responsible for the actions of crazies.” That’s actually the right answer, I think, or at least it would be if they’d been criticizing her for something she’d actually done. Having invented the Loughner connection out of thin air, though? Nope. Three: “She’s lying, either to turn down the heat on herself and earn sympathy or because she enjoys the media spotlight.” Mind you, there’s actual documentary evidence of some of the threats, but this will be the default explanation anyway thanks to the magical civility gene that makes liberals who are mentally ill somehow utterly immune to the worst rhetorical excesses. Demonize Palin all you want — have Paul Krugman and Frank Rich scream in the face of an untreated schizophrenic that she’s the prophesied antichrist — and it won’t motivate him a bit, because even deranged liberals are ultimately too smart and civilized to do anything wingnutty like take a shot at someone. That, as best as I understand it, is the going theory for why the left’s endless casual assertions about the basic malevolence of the right — racist, sexist, fascist, plutocratic, 50 times a day in assertions great and small — can be shrugged off as harmless to even the most diseased sympathetic mind. “Only fruitcakes” would act on stuff like that. Right, Jared?"