The claim made by Sarah Palin’s staff that the cross-hairs in her now-notorious “reload” ad targeting 20 Democratic Representatives were intended as surveyors’ symbols ought to go down in history as one of the dumbest defenses ever offered. Of course, since the right wing takes Nineteen Eighty-Four as an instruction manual rather than a warning, Palin has dropped the offending ad down the memory hole.
Note that Rep. Giffords complained about the ad at the time; if the former half-term governor didn’t intend the cross-hairs to represent gunsights, she might have said so at the time.
But the real (pardon me) smoking gun wasn’t the ad, which was rendered ambiguous by the ubiquity of military imagery in politics (“target” districts, “attacks,” etc.). It was Palin’s silence when her Mini-Me in Nevada, Sharron Angle, talked about “Second Amendment remedies” if the wingnuts failed to get their way at the ballot box. That should have given Angle a case of political leprosy. But instead all the wingnuts who pretended that Barack Obama’s service on a board with a guy who had been involved in poltical violence in the 1960s made him a “pal of terrorists” didn’t have a word of criticism to offer.
Can anyone offer an interpretation of “Second Amendment remedies” that doesn’t involve the threat of political violence? Or any excuse for not denouncing – sorry, I guess that should be “refudiating” – that sort of nonsense, when engaged in by a political ally? Children think they can play with fire and not get burned. Grown-ups know better.
In the 1960s, mainstream opinion isolated the extremism of the John Birch Society, and Barry Goldwater’s failure to distance himself from that hotbed of lunacy helped sink his Presidential campaign. But Bircher rhetoric is now a mainstay of right-wing talk, and the official pundits have next to nothing to say about it. The wake of the Tucson massacre, some Republican office-holders seem to be getting nervous: but so far they’re doing so only anonymously. After all, the Tea Party listens to Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party is their base. Profiles in Courage, anyone?
Nice of you to mention Obama's friend Ayers. That he's a well regarded member of the liberal establishment really puts things into context.
What I find stunning Mark is the way, like children, they reach for the nearest lie at hand.
Thus those weren't crosshairs they were surveying symbols.
(Insert spit take here.)
But of course the quick lie is rarely the nimble lie:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/09/why-not-j…
Embarrassing? Or merely lame? Or just innocently childish?
Well, when I speak of Second amendment remedies, I'm usually talking about legal remedies in the context of the 2nd amendment. But I don't feel particularly motivated to argue that's what Angle was talking about, and, depending on the context, I'm not offended by talk of shooting politicians. I don't think we're in a context where it's currently justified, but we might certainly some day find ourselves in such a circumstance.
I would, however, dispute the notion that one's political enemies are entitled to assign "mini-me" status to some nutcase, perhaps retroactively, and then treat anything their own chosen proxy says as a statement by yourself if you didn't instantly repudiate it.
But given some of the things your own mini-me's have said in the past, without a hint of repudiation from you, I'm not surprised at this sort of rhetoric…
"I’m not offended by talk of shooting politicians. I don’t think we’re in a context where it’s currently justified, but we might certainly some day find ourselves in such a circumstance."
Eh?
Under any interpretation of constitutional law, assassination of political foes is not a thinkable remedy; that is its essence. Forget about original meanings or living documents; the purpose of having constitutions is that political change comes about without recourse to violence.
The purpose of having constitutions is so that political change comes without recourse to violence. But, what if the government up and decides that it doesn't need no stinking constitution? That a context you simply can't imagine?
Now, surveyor's symbols? That's lame. But I never did think Palin had what it took, after watching her in action in 2008.
" …I’m not offended by talk of shooting politicians. I don’t think we’re in a context where it’s currently justified, but we might certainly some day find ourselves in such a circumstance."
Most excellently honest. And of course, it's Brett who's going to be doing the finding. Are you sure you thought this one through Brett?
Brett,
I would, however, dispute the notion that one’s political enemies are entitled to assign “mini-me” status to some nutcase,
And when exactly did you figure out that Angle is a nutcase?
Jared Loughner called a college classmate who discussing abortion "like a terrorist killing a baby"
See here at 3 minute mark:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/rep-giffords-hero-…
Lots of crazy stuff about the gold standard too, and a failed effort to join the Army. Typical fringe libertarian lunacy to the extent it is semi-coherent.
Yes, let's talk about Bill Ayers. No prominent political candidates or office holders ever supported Ayers's views, including Obama. His offenses occured 50 years ago, and no one died. If Ayers is the best rebuttal you have to the constant barrage of wingnut violent rhetoric from Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Angle, Scarborough and a ton of other prominent righties, then take your ball and go home. You lose.
Despite his past and present extremism ("I don't regret setting bombs", Ayers is immune to "political leprosy".
"no one died"
So if Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Angle, Scarborough planted some bombs, you would have no problem with it as long as the bombs didn't kill anyone.
Carter, a couple of questions I'd have for you. First, do you think that there is a lot of extreme, dishonest and dangerous rhetoric coming from the right? And second, do you think there is an equivalent amount coming from the left – either now, or in the past 10-20 years?
I used to listen to a lot of AM radio in the 90's – Michael Savage in SF. When Oklahoma City happened it seemed to fit right into the paranoid narrative: the government is illegitimate, conspiracy theories and the endless likening of liberalism to creeping communism. This was all over the airwaves. The callers would frequently start talking about violent revolution, the hosts muting them with a wink. If anything, the rhetoric seems to have gotten worse, with FOX news turning up the volume to eleven.
I don't ever remember things getting this bad on the left, even during the worst days of the Bush administration, from the left's perspective. I think there are numerous reasons for this, the largest being the left's disinterest in guns and violence in general, as a cultural matter. What I don't understand though, is the right's seeming willingness to be entertained by so many obviously immoral media personalities. And I mean immoral in the sense that they are routinely meanspirited and dishonest. They revel in ad hominem attacks, and traffic endlessly in overgeneralizations and transparent falsehoods. The left just has never had this. AM radio is completely dominated by the right. MSNBC is giving FOX a run for their money, but their audience pales in comparison.
I suppose you could chalk some of this up to the generally liberal, or at least centrist, slant of the mainstream media, which likely alienates many rural and conservative citizens. But how could you trade something like NPR for Rush Limbaugh? What am I missing? Why isn't there at least an NPR equivalent on the right, something that attempts serious journalism, treats people with respect and isn't more akin to the Jerry Springer show than intellectual engagement? Given the obviously large size of American conservatism, fact that there hasn't been anything built up on the right that isn't largely mean, dishonest or vapid would seem distressing. If all liberals seemed to be interested in was a sort of Air America-style format, I'd really worry about the seriousness of the left.
When one man murders his wife, woe betide his neighbor, who merely beats his. This isn't just a question of causal influence. Normal people will contemplate this tragedy and be reminded of their distaste for even non-psychotic purveyors of hateful and violent political rhetoric — for example, non-schizophrenics who're given to ruminating over whether the time has come to plan to assassinate supporters of US law.
http://www.samefacts.com/2010/04/watching-conserv…
In the last two years, leading Arizona politicians have suggested that the President is guilty of high treason, demonized federal officials, denounced the government as is enemy of the people, hinted of violent remedies, etc. They'll now be on the defensive. Life's unfair like that.
There are only two possible political remedies to be had by Second Amendment means: intimidation through the threat of violence or actual violence. No political remedy is available through merely carrying a weapon: a weapon merely carried casts no vote, vetoes no legislation, decides no court case, achieves no political solution whatsoever in any manner, and persuades only through the threat of violence.
We know exactly what remedies the proponents of Second Amendment remedies mean: one of the above two.
We also know exactly what type of cross-hairs were chosen and intended. It is revealed throughout the rhetoric of those who chose that symbol when directing their supporters to attack their opponents and carried on in even less uncertain terms throughout the right-wing blogosphere.
Not that I think Palin intended such actions; she merely knew the potential consequences but didn't care, because appealing to the violent psyches of her cultish followers was viewed as a political necessity.
"Most excellently honest. And of course, it’s Brett who’s going to be doing the finding. Are you sure you thought this one through Brett?"
I wrote that upthread, and bided my time while waiting for another Brett comment, which has now happened. I think it's fair to say that Brett thought his comment through, and he is on record for advocating gun violence, at his discretion, against politicians.
http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12….
They are not cross hairs. They are registration marks once used in preparing artwork for printing. Telescopic sights have windage and elevation marks or a dot in the center and the cross marks do not extend outside the circle. You;re making a mountain out of less than a molehill.
@pacific_waters: Then why did Sarah Palin refer to them as "bullseyes"? Just askin'.
Carter:
The political generation of the 1965-1975 era and the current era have behaved very differently. Ayers was a symptom of a political discourse that liberals almost unanimously rejected in the years after 1975. You can't say the same thing about the other side, though. Can you? Ayers, whatever his flaws, seems to have accepted this and reinvented himself as a more conventional player in politics. The thing that you will never understand is that the constant mentions of Ayers from the right actually makes the point that liberals have behaved rather well in the 1980-2011 era, not poorly. But whatever. You'll write I've advocated using violence or something, and that's just silly. Other readers will see that I've got a point.
Thomas, when you say that I never condemned the Truthers, did you miss this? Or are you simply immune to fact?
http://www.samefacts.com/2009/02/climate-change/g…
Most of the glibertarians, cultural conservatives, and gadget-heads who constitute the useful idiots around the core oil-and-coal-company global-warming denialist constituency would be horrified to imagine themselves playing the role of 9/11 Truthers, or RFK Jr. pumping the thimerosal/autism link, or Thabo Mbeki claiming that AIDS isn’t caused by HIV. But all four “movements” are alike in depending on compete mistrust of actual scientific experts.
Or my reference to Trutherism as "crap" here:
http://www.samefacts.com/2008/06/lying-in-politic…
Unlike the various Faux News/Teahadist fanatasies – e.g., about Obama's place of birth and his "socialism" – Trutherism never caught hold on on the left: it's just a refuge for people tired of arguing about who killed JFK. So no, I never bothered to comment on it much. But there wasn't much to comment on. I assume that every RBC reader knows that Trutherism is false.
Is it possible to kick some people off this thread as complete wastes of time? There are some very intelligent comments from a wide variety of perspectives at Same Facts, but this crap from the lunatic right is dragging it down.
"I think it’s fair to say that Brett thought his comment through, and he is on record for advocating gun violence, at his discretion, against politicians."
Why, indeed, I am. Since the alternative is the slavish doctrine of non-resistance to tyrants, I should hope all of us would be willing to go on record for advocating gun violence, at our discretion, against politicians. With the understanding that the exercise of that discretion properly is highly important.
I realize that there's a faction on the left who can't distinguish between getting somebody to admit that they'd gladly have offed Pol Pot if given the chance, and getting them to admit that they're a mad dog killer. Sad, pathetic people…
@pacific_waters- That's an awful lot of registration marks. I always use four outside the image area so they can be cropped off or taped over on the press.
You know what they are representations of and so do all of the rest of us. Sarah wouldn't have bothered to scrub them off her site if they were surveyers cross hairs or registration marks. She has blood on her hands and she knows it. I doubt she really cares outside of the PR problem it may cause her. I say 'may' because I really doubt many of her suckers (er…supporters) will care. Sadly she will probably get a boost for instigating the first blood in their fantasy revolution.
I" realize that there’s a faction on the left who can’t distinguish between getting somebody to admit that they’d gladly have offed Pol Pot if given the chance, and getting them to admit that they’re a mad dog killer. Sad, pathetic people…"
You're not going to get to walk this back now, Brett. You're a fanatical gun nut with 100 round clips who is on record as stating that you think sometime soon it will necessary to shoot United States politicians. What's sad and pathetic is the collateral damage to the people around you when you finally get your wish.
Surveyor's Symbol?!!! Give me a break. If that is true then Sarah won't mind this shirt: http://tinyurl.com/palinscrosshairs
They are not cross hairs. They are registration marks once used in preparing artwork for printing. Telescopic sights have windage and elevation marks or a dot in the center and the cross marks do not extend outside the circle. You;re making a mountain out of less than a molehill.
I'm very familiar with print registration marks, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have to be "reloaded."
ishulman, thanks for reminding us of the many instances of rhetorical violence directed against Palin, while of course purveying more of it for yourself. None of those instances have been condemned by our host. Of course, there's no evidence that that rhetorical violence has yet led to any real violence. That's much different from what we see in Arizona, where the truther meme has apparently taken victims. Why wouldn't the left cut this cancer out before it was too late? A young man of the left hearing that rhetoric for years growing up, with no condemnation. Maybe it's fair to say that in some sense he was condemned to his fate by the evil that was tolerated on the left. And yet still no move by Mark and others on the left to repudiate that ugliness and repent. What is wrong with these people?
Liberal professors indoctrinated Christopher Monfort with the notion the justice system is racist, then he murdered a police officer. I don't get the sense anyone on the left feels guilty about that.
Gus,
It's simple enough just to ignore comments one finds distasteful. Personally I think he adds a bit of hilarity to the comments. It's also amusing to watch Mark take the bait so regularly.
Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign.
Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats.
Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings.
Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country.
Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods.
Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake.
Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacke…
The most obvious evidence that the shooter may be liberal is that he is apparently capable of actually reading books!
It took Mark less than two hours to make demands of his political opponents. In the intervening days we've learned that Mark's initial reaction was, well, misplaced, and that the politics and rhetoric which led to this atrocity were the politics and rhetoric of Mark and his political allies. And yet Mark hasn't had time yet to respond to what we've learned. Amazing.
Show some courage, my friend. Stand up and admit the error of your ways. If you repudiate (or even refudiate) your prior rhetoric, disassociate yourself from some of the sources of the outrageous rhetoric that led to these events, and otherwise indicate your seriousness about making amends, then surely you will be welcomed back to polite society. But don't wait too long.
(Mark): "…glibertarians, cultural conservatives, and gadget-heads who constitute the useful idiots around the core oil-and-coal-company global-warming denialist constituency…", not to mention "teabaggers".
Yeah, let's consider the contribution which inflamatory rhetoric makes to political violence,
Malcom, Mark apparently used to believe that calling names was consistent with civility, because he was only calling bad people names. Now I'm sure that he sees that calling names is part of a process of dehumanizing one's opponents. That is, Mark's name-calling is part of the rhetoric that led to this atrocity. I'm sure Mark will bring that up in the big apology post that's coming.
Just thinking about when they decided to deep six the "Don't Retreat, Reload" comment.
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome tweet?"
I see three names from The Reality Based Community on this list. Did any of these people protest at the time the recommendation to libel Tea Partiers as racist? If not, I cannot credit any newly expressed support for civility as anything but opportunism.