Gay Patriot Header Image

Reaction to Tucson Shooting: Defining Moment for Left

In the immediate aftermath of the attempt on the life of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), many (but fortunately not all) on the left were quick to blame conservative rhetoric.  They thought hoped this shooting would prove to be their silver bullet in their war on the right, proof of their creed that conservative rhetoric breeds violence.

They intended to use it as a defining moment of the currently re-ascendant conservative movement.  Instead, their reaction has made it a defining moment of the left.

New Media“, my friend John Nolte writes, has soundly defeated the “Left-Wing Media’s Political Witch Hunt.” (H/t Instapundit.)

Americans increasingly see through this rhetoric of blame.  The antics of Paul Krugman et al. are already putting the mean-spirited nature of him and his kindred left-wing pundits, bloggers and yes, even elected officials into sharper focus.  So ready are such folk to blame the right that they seek to use the horrific actions of a very troubled young man for political gain.  People are beginning to recognize how politicized they are that they refuse to see the actions of a madman for what they are.

To be sure, not all those on the left have joined the mad rush to fault conservatives in general and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party in particular.  Some have even criticized the “narrative” as recited by their ideological confreres.

These sensible voices on the left reflect the opinion of an overwhelmingly majority of Americans.  According to a CBS poll, “Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords“.  Only 32% believe such rhetoric had anything to do with the shootings.  And the CBS poll tends to skew left.

The “public”, Ed Morrissey contends, has apparently “been able to separate the spin from the actual facts, which show that Loughner was a loon acting out of insanity and a personal grudge against Giffords, one completely of his own making.

In the world of the new media, folks like Krugman can no longer shape the narrative.  Indeed, they may well find their attempts to so spin the news backfiring as they put themselves in the position they wish to place their ideological adversaries:   as foes of civil discourse.

Share

48 Comments

  1. Defining moment for the Left… Yes Dan, good point.

    Palin’s own comments on her left-wing critics, are pertinent: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/video-journalists-and-pundits-should-not-manufacture-a-blood-libel/

    …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 phrase wonderfully captures the essence of what too many left-wing activists have tried to do with the tragic Giffords shooting: they have tried to create a blood libel about conservatism (and of course about Palin).

    “Blood libel” is an interesting phrase. It referred originally to a specific, infamous libel against Jews – that they killed Christian children and used the blood ritually. But the phrase has passed into general political discourse, for any libel designed to inflame antagonism and passions. Jim Geraghty has listed some of its recent uses (and in another thread, NDT thoughtfully posted the link): http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 2:06 pm - January 12, 2011

  2. And when the right defended itself against the smears of the left, we were accused of being “uncivil” by the likes of Mark Helperin. So, apparently, it’s not uncivil to accuse Sarah Palin and right-wingers of being accomplices to murder, but it is “uncivil” to point out that the left’s accusation is a lie.

    And then, there is vile Vermont senator Bernie Sanders using the tragedy as a fundraising opportunity… that’s … the word reprehensible doesn’t seem to quite cut it. But again, he’s not condemned for exploiting the tragedy, but anyone who points out that he is doing so is being “uncivil.”

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2011 @ 2:13 pm - January 12, 2011

  3. The modern hard Left has double standards, and doesn’t care. They are all about shutting down the American people’s dissent against leftism, by screeching whatever comes into their heads at the moment.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 2:20 pm - January 12, 2011

  4. Seriously. What kind of brain dead sonofabitch do you have to be to call Palin an “opportunist” whilst liberals are running around using the dead to raise money and/or political fortunes? No. These ain’t tinfoil hatters. These are wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-around-the-house-all-day types.

    Did these people eat paint chips as kids?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2011 @ 2:21 pm - January 12, 2011

  5. I would take issue with the threadline only in that the left defined itself a long time ago during the deranged “Bushitler” Era, but the Tucson shooting may be the moment the left got a much needed intervention.

    Also, left-wing thought leader Markos “Screw Them” Zuniga is still gloating over the Palin smear.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2011 @ 2:30 pm - January 12, 2011

  6. Also, I think it’s important to point out that the accusations against Palin weren’t led by the kook fringe but by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman; effectively putting the imprimatur of establishment approval on the notion that Sarah Palin, in using target symbols, was practicing a form of political voodoo; that you could bring about the death of a human being by manipulating an inanimate object.

    Comment by V the K (Assistant to the Regional Manager) — January 12, 2011 @ 2:40 pm - January 12, 2011

  7. The “liberals” are all in a twist over the “blood libel”-phrase and calling her anti-Semitic now….

    The way the liberals on the news and blogs attacked her, I think she used the right-word; a libel that’s unconscionable and unforgivable.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 12, 2011 @ 2:40 pm - January 12, 2011

  8. I’ve noticed no new comments from Granny Goodness. Could it be he’s waiting to be told what to think, now that it’s coming out that people aren’t buying the liberal lies?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 12, 2011 @ 2:43 pm - January 12, 2011

  9. Now, due to a horrific event that was completely unrelated to ANYTHING or ANYONE Conservative whatsoever, there’s Congressman Brady in Pennsylvania who wants to make political discourse and free speech a CRIME if it is deemed that it MIGHT be taken the wrong way by some unhinged crackpot who would probably take “have a nice day” the wrong way anyway!

    Comment by Zilla — January 12, 2011 @ 2:51 pm - January 12, 2011

  10. To adapt a line from Peter H: Some lefties love free speech / the First Amendment, the way OJ loved Nicole.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - January 12, 2011

  11. And in related news, Barack Obama calls local Obama Party sheriff and college who have been blabbering about how Loughner had already been making death threats and been reported on multiple occasions, and wham, just like that, records are magically sealed.

    Entertaining, when you consider that this is the same Barack Obama whose campaign workers and supporters were illegally accessing and releasing protected and confidential information about Joe the Plumber.

    Doesn’t Barack Obama want to know the truth? Why would Barack Obama want to cover up that his Obama Party sheriff, who he’s been congratulating for his great work, refused to deal with this nutjob who was clearly obsessed with Giffords as far back as 2007? Doesn’t Barack Obama believe in transparency of public records? Doesn’t Barack Obama believe in holding public officials accountable?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - January 12, 2011

  12. Oh, bring on the anti-Semitic. The party of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and everyone else that Minority Token James Clyburn endorses and supports can just try to f*ck that chicken.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2011 @ 2:58 pm - January 12, 2011

  13. Coming to Your Town- Jihad Lee Loughner

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — January 12, 2011 @ 3:24 pm - January 12, 2011

  14. I refuse to comment on this thread until I hear from that font of wisdom and titan of intellectual dishonesty, Auntie Dogma. :-)

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — January 12, 2011 @ 3:38 pm - January 12, 2011

  15. I believe most people can cut through the MSM garbage to get to the truth; furthermore, since before the November 2010 elections, the people are paying attention now more than ever. As a result, the lazy MSM cannot slander the Right with superficial propaganda that can shatter like the most delicate glass.

    The heated rhetoric from the Left shows their deep desperation to silence Conservatives, the Tea Party, & Republicans to unrelated agenda items such as the upcoming ObamaCare repeal in the House & turning back the Marxists’ & Obama’s other radical agenda items.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — January 12, 2011 @ 3:42 pm - January 12, 2011

  16. Howard Kurtz: Sarah Palin should have confessed her guilt and pologized. So, the left is metaphorically denying it has a drinking problem and buying another round.

    Comment by V the K (Assistant to the Regional Manager) — January 12, 2011 @ 3:49 pm - January 12, 2011

  17. As I said on day one, the sherrif spent a lot of time deflecting. The media, the right was to blame. Now we are learning more and more about how inept his department was in preventing this seeminly preventable horror.
    5 trips to his house. When people complained he might be nutts and do something dangerous, the sheriffs dept counceled that they had him under control.
    With this lefty as the sheriff of law enforcement in Tucson…some of the confusion about why this happened is starting to become clear.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 4:01 pm - January 12, 2011

  18. Or, phrased another way, in the view of Howie Kurtz, Oalin lost the high ground by defending herself against the charge that she was an accomplice to murder.

    Comment by V the K (Assistant to the Regional Manager) — January 12, 2011 @ 4:01 pm - January 12, 2011

  19. OMG Obama and this White House can’t do anything right.
    Did he really compliment the Sheriff on his great job??
    What a bumbler.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 4:02 pm - January 12, 2011

  20. I wonder if the sheriff would have reacted differently if the Congresswomans rally was headed by an Arab American intead of a Jew?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 4:04 pm - January 12, 2011

  21. From FOX news

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/palins-words-reach-sordid-history/

    Blood libel dates back to the 12th century in England, France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe, when many Christians believed that Jews killed children, usually boys, for supposed rituals including re-enacting the crucifixion of Christ, historians say. According to the belief, Jews would torture and kill the children and use their blood, often to make matzoh, the “bread of affliction” that is central to celebrating the Jewish holiday of Passover.

    “That was the Christian fantasy,” Hsia said. “In some of these cases, the Jewish community was interrogated and in many cases people were tortured into confession and executed. Sometimes the Christian authorities tried to intervene, but sometimes the authorities also believed in the supposed allegations.”

    Belief in blood libel spread through northern Europe before fading in the 18th century. But it reappeared in the 19th and 20th centuries, with cases as recently as one in Poland after World War II. The best-known case was in modern-day Ukraine where a Jew named Mendel Beilis was arrested in 1911 after a boy was found dead. Beilis was imprisoned for two years, but eventually acquitted, despite the attempt by prosecutors to pin responsibility for the murder on him based on his religion.

    Palin is not the first to use the term in the context of the Tucson shootings. In the past few days, it has been used by commentator John Hayward on the conservative website Human Events and in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who runs the website Instapundit.

    And the term has been used before, in other situations far removed from its original meaning. In 1982, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin said charges that his country stood by while Lebanese Phelangists slaughtered Palestinian refugees “constitute a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere.”

    Matt Goldish, a professor of Jewish and European history at Ohio State, said it’s clear Palin does not know the term’s meaning or history, but that he did not think many people would find it offensive.

    “The combination of the words, blood and libel, obviously kind of ring up together,” Goldish said. “and you can imagine somebody who’s obviously heard the phrase in their distant past have it come up on their radar screen.”

    Comment by rusty — January 12, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - January 12, 2011

  22. who he’s been congratulating for his great work,

    Heckuva job, Dipstick.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2011 @ 4:17 pm - January 12, 2011

  23. Matt Goldish… said it’s clear Palin does not know the term’s meaning or history

    Really? I would have said the opposite. Palin, having applied the term in its modern meaning or in a valid metaphor, clearly does know it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 4:20 pm - January 12, 2011

  24. Tucson Tea Party Leader Receives Death Threats. I wonder if Sheriff Dupnik is gonna do anything about it. He has a history of, you know, not really acting on death threats.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2011 @ 5:27 pm - January 12, 2011

  25. In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

    The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. 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.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 12, 2011 @ 6:30 pm - January 12, 2011

  26. Yup. Hey, look at the Geragthy link I re-posted at #1. It shows that even Andrew Sullivan uses the term “blood libel” outside its original, narrow meaning. Andrew Sullivan! That’s darn well settles it, right? (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 6:57 pm - January 12, 2011

  27. Weigel also points to Geraghty’s post:

    Dershowitz Gives Palin the Go-Ahead on “Blood Libel”
    Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:49 PM | By David Weigel
    Big Government scoops a statement from Alan Dershowitz, the acting chairman of Making Sure Things Aren’t Offensive to Jews.

    The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.

    This is basically my position, which is why I am on Capitol Hill right now following other stories and not giving a ghost of a goddamn about what Sarah Palin said. I take Adam Serwer’s point, though:

    “Blood libel” is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.

    It is unusual for “blood libel” to be applied to something that will only affect one person. National Review’s Jim Geraghty has been collected examples of “blood libel” used by other pols and pundits, and most refer to smears against entire groups of people — especially smears that have been around awhile.

    Comment by rusty — January 12, 2011 @ 7:01 pm - January 12, 2011

  28. Dan, I’m sorry to say that neither the Alamo-like vocalists on the Right or those on the Left rushing-to-judgment have shown their best side(s) in responding to the Tucson tragedy. Hillary Clinton, included. No decent person could contend that the aftermath of dialogue has been respectful to the victims, their families or the damage done to our body politic is acceptable. I think the dialogue and trading of barbs back and forth has been one of the lowest points in the last 4-6 yrs. It nearly matches the crass political opportunism that followed Katrina.

    It’s good to see the recent poll bear out my earlier point that the American people weren’t going to be fooled by the opportunistic rhetoric from some on the Left nor all the hot air and manufactured outrage from some on the Right –both groups equally opportunistic in “managing” the narrative on this horrible story.

    No wonder Americans are fed up with the uncivil, unAmerican tone that the most vocal in our society take and advance in our public discourse. I’m sorry to see so many here get wrapped up as tightly as those injurious fools who foment the corrosive brew that has flooded the airwaves and watercoolers of late.

    For those tit-4-tatters who take solace in being able to argue that their opponents did it first or more vehemently, I hope there’s a special place on the outer margin of society awaiting them… both sides have failed to conduct themselves with compassion, decency or humanity.

    Despite what Palin would like to project, we haven’t been the “best” or done our best in this tragedy –we’ve lost another shred of our decency and humanity in “managing” the narrative for short-term political gain.

    And the fat lady –Prez Obama in this case– hasn’t even sung yet.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2011 @ 8:16 pm - January 12, 2011

  29. Oh, come now, Michigan Matt. When Krugman and company start the Klaxon horn of ideological blame, are we supposed to sit politely by and mind our knitting?

    It was precisely because of the blowback from the right that the left-wing media got taken to the cloakroom for a caning. Tonight, Obama’s speech disavowed them in no uncertain terms.

    They served up the crow and now they are left to feast on it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 12, 2011 @ 10:10 pm - January 12, 2011

  30. #23 Vthe K
    how can the sheriff in Tucson be expected to follow up on death threats when he is on MSNBC every 20 minutes or so.
    The police had gone to JL house ten times, that’s TEN!
    The cops have never been to my house once.
    I mean how do you spell inept. No wonder this sheriff is deflecting attention to the media and talk radio. Geez.
    Incompetent Democrat sheriff seems redundant.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 10:34 pm - January 12, 2011

  31. It is unusual for “blood libel” to be applied to something that will only affect one person.

    OK, that may be. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 10:45 pm - January 12, 2011

  32. I think that Palin wasn’t just talking about herself, but many of the Right who used as “usual suspects”; herself, Bush-43, Cheney, Limbaugh, Beck, etc… And while I might not have used the term blood libel, considering the context of the Left’s “blood on their hands” false-rhetoric it might be justified.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 13, 2011 @ 4:04 am - January 13, 2011

  33. Liberals throwing around “anti-Semite”? That’s f*king rich.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 4:32 am - January 13, 2011

  34. I wish to hell there were a national election (read: ass kicking) next week so that liberals would see that THEIR words and deeds have consequences.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 4:33 am - January 13, 2011

  35. The real reason the phrase “blood libel” stings is, while it may not be a technically accurate usage, it does have a sting of truth.

    But since when have the media cared about restraining words to their narrow meaning? Every blizzard on the Eastern Seaboard is now called a “Nor’easter,” not because the weather pattern fits that narrow definition, but because “Nor’easter” sounds cooler. And every time there’s any kind of shift in the political paradigm, it’s a “sea change.” That’s not even close to what “sea change” means, you media morons.

    So, I really don’t get why people who butcher the language on a daily basis are so upset that Sarah Palin used “blood libel” in the same way… honestly… they would if a Republican had accused a Democrat of being complicit in the killings.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 8:20 am - January 13, 2011

  36. Helio at 28, the short answer is yes… those faux-aggrieved folks on the Right (some of them found in these many threads) who felt the Left was over-reaching on the blame game should have held their powder –the facts now being revealed proved the Left wrong and all the bluster and (I think) faux outrage from guys like OReilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham & Malkin only further poisoned the discourse and distracted us from the important issue(s)… praying for the victims, treating their families with respect and somber consequence they deserve and not engaging in the opportunistic management of some narrative.

    I’m not sure what speech you heard, but the one I watched had take-away shots of Pima Co Sheriff Dupnik applauding Obama when he made the call about unnecessary finger pointing… almost like the sheriff thought the Prez was talking about the Right’s reaction, not the sheriff’s role in all this debasement.

    Masterfully ambiguous oratory… allowing each in the audience to hear what they wanted to hear from the words spoken with teleprompter sincerity.

    Look, we can and should push-back and vigorously debate policy matters with our opponents –but in this case and other national tragedies, we ought to approach the tragedy with some humility, some respect for the victims and their families and not use the “opportunity” or crisis as some kind of PR gift to march out the same tired us vs them arguments.

    Americans first; political animals some other time. Decency requires it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 13, 2011 @ 9:34 am - January 13, 2011

  37. those faux-aggrieved folks on the Right (some of them found in these many threads) who felt the Left was over-reaching on the blame game should have held their powder

    Because the George W. Bush strategy of never responding to left-wing attacks served his presidency so well.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 11:16 am - January 13, 2011

  38. Of course, Michigan-Matt.

    Because, as we know, the facts always prove out over media smears for voters, which is why a large plurality of them still falsely believe that Sarah Palin actually said she could see Russia from her backyard.

    But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? It certainly would benefit Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican establishment like you if another thing, like being accused of murder, wrongfully stuck to Palin. You could go into all sorts of waxing about how this makes her unelectable, etc., when in fact, it’s all just based on lies.

    Nice touch, by the way, hiding behind the bodies and pretending to care about the victims. Personally, I think that someone with as great sympathy, compassion, and principles as you claim to have would be incensed by an innocent woman being wrongly accused of murder by a bunch of liars, but then again, it’s more important that Palin be destroyed, isn’t it?

    The entertaining thing for me is how short-sighted and selfish the Republican establishment that you represent is on this issue. For some reason, they think allowing the media to smear and attack Palin with impunity is a good thing because it gets her out of the way for them, and because the media will of course love them for not siding with her and not antagonizing the left.

    The fact that someone who saw the 2008 campaign and the 180-degree turn that the media did on John McCain is trying to push the “don’t embarrass the Obama Party or the media” angle is absolutely amazing — until one remembers that you are indeed one of the narrative-pushers who insists that John McCain was doing just fine with 42% of the vote until Sarah Palin came along and pushed it to 50%.

    So here’s what this means, Michigan-Matt. You don’t care if people tell lies about Sarah Palin, because you think their doing so advantages you politically. You are wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 11:24 am - January 13, 2011

  39. It takes one hell of a blazing hypocrite to write such a phony, posturing post about the (alleged) phony posturing of other people who have, in fact, been successfully defending the entire Republican Party against the Left’s (actual) phony, posturing blood libels.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - January 13, 2011

  40. (continued) So maybe the reaction to the Tucson shooting isn’t only a defining moment for the Left. Maybe it’s a defining moment for posturing hypocrites, everywhere.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 12:52 pm - January 13, 2011

  41. P.S. NDT, good comment. I hadn’t noticed what MM was up to or even read his comment, until reading yours.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - January 13, 2011

  42. Anybody else noticed that ModerateMatt hasn’t been carpet bombing the blog with dropped names like he used to?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - January 13, 2011

  43. VdaK> “Because the George W. Bush strategy of never responding to left-wing attacks served his presidency so well.”

    W was trying to respect the Office of Pres and its traditions as he saw them V.

    Respect -a concept that eludes most of the ax-grinding soc-cons who wanted W to get muddy, bloody and smeared with the Left’s feces flinging nonsense… so they could recognize one of their own.

    W’s approach to respecting the Office of Pres was a marked contrast to the era of Slick Willy… and W’s continued respect for that Office while another president holds court is a lesson you and fellow soc-cons could profit from, no?

    NDT> “It certainly would benefit Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican establishment like you if another thing, like being accused of murder, wrongfully stuck to Palin. You could go into all sorts of waxing about how this makes her unelectable, etc., when in fact, it’s all just based on lies.”

    What? Trying to out-do Levi for ass of the thread, NDXXX?

    Sheer, blithering idiot and it’s no surprise the echo-boy of ILC is glumming onto your idiocy here.

    Gov Palin was being very, very well served by many in the media who were defending her and attacking with sharp, eloquent arguments as her near-surrogates.

    It isn’t about Romney; your conspiracies-everywhere strategy doesn’t serve you well this day, NDXXX.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 14, 2011 @ 10:28 am - January 14, 2011

  44. So, apparently, this civility concept flows one way only. Establishment GOP types can label conservatives as covered with filth with total impunity, but any conservative who questions policy when a RINO votes for massive deficit spending or for an arms treaty the severely disadvantages the United States, that’s just beyond the pale.

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2011 @ 11:58 am - January 14, 2011

  45. I am still unclear whether the establishment GOP wants Social Conservatives to GTFO of the Republican Party, or to continue supporting the GOP and take the constant hatred and vitriol expressed by the GOP establishment with good humor.

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2011 @ 12:03 pm - January 14, 2011

  46. MM, from a morbid curiousity about whether there is any hope that you might be made to comprehend for once, I will try to make it simpler for you.

    Under the cover of proclaiming to people that they shouldn’t dream of exploiting the awful tragedy for political ends, you… did exactly that. You used your proclamation as an occasion to get in some of your usual poo-flinging at your perceived *political* opponents in the Republican Party / conservative movement.

    That is hypocrisy. And NDT didn’t do it, at comment #36. You did.

    The fact that your opponents’ efforts to reverse the Left’s attacks are part of what saved the situation for your party only adds to the sad irony of your posturing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - January 14, 2011

  47. Has anyone ever come back from beyond the Sullivan Event Horizon of political lunacy?

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2011 @ 12:11 pm - January 14, 2011

  48. Sheer, blithering idiot and it’s no surprise the echo-boy of ILC is glumming onto your idiocy here.

    Wow, I’ve never read anything that remotely connects ILC’s thinking to NDXXX.

    Comment by Guilty White Male — January 16, 2011 @ 5:50 pm - January 16, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.