Patterico's Pontifications

1/10/2011

Giffords, Ghouls and Gimmicks

Filed under: General — Karl @ 8:28 am

[Posted by Karl]

On Saturday, Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). He killed a federal judge, a nine-year-old girl and four others, and injured many more. Their fates were still unknown when political ghouls leapt from their muck to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and other assorted elements of the right. Doug Mataconis and Gabriel Malor identify some of the more prominent ghouls and respond to them, so I need not do so at length.

Notably, the most prominent ghouls reek with the stench of hypocrisy and disingenuity. For example:

And there are more where that came from. This was sadly predictable, although one might have thought the sheer horror of this incident might have given the ghouls a moment’s pause before taking the lowest of roads for political gain. However, it was equally predictable that the shooter would not turn out to have any sort of conventional association with the right. The ghouls have a solid track record of failure in this regard.

Given the total lack of evidence for the smear, the saner provinces of the media were not about to jump aboard the ghouls’ bandwagon, especially while the evidence mounted that Loughner was a disturbed man with an ideology — to the extent one could be discerned — far outside any definition of the mainstream right, with a long-standing grudge against Giffords. Something more subtle would have to do. People on Twitter could watch the groupthink develop in real-time. When Politico’s Glenn Thrush wrote, “Whoever the shooter–this is a watershed moment that will immediately redefine current debate and view of pols embracing of extreme rhetoric,” it was quickly echoed by the paper’s Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman, the Hotline’s Josh Kraushaar and dozens more. This was the narrative pushed by the New York Times within hours, leaving the evidence that Loughner was a nutter with a liberal past to a separate piece. The WaPo echoed the narrative by the end of the day. By Sunday, the establishment media had its talking point firmly in hand, summarized in The New Yorker headline “It Doesn’t Matter Why He Did It.” Had Loughner turned out to be a Tea Party activist in good standing, who he was and why he did it would be the sole topic of discussion. But he wasn’t, so by Saturday evening, I was tweeting [in reference to Sullivan's own attempted backfilling] about the center-left’s emerging fallback position of “Fake, But Accurate.”

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today succinctly exposing the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of the “Fake, But Accurate” gimmick:

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo (“proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do”), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on “rhetoric” and a “climate of hate” to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Of course, intellectual dishonesty is very much about having and eating one’s cake. When someone tells you not to think of an elephant, it is impossible to not think of one. When the establishment media tells everyone that there is no evidence to blame an elephant, while reciting the smears from the ghouls, and raising questions about “the discourse,” they know they are forcing people to think about the elephant. They are dressing the ghouls in nicer clothes, and are quite content to do so. Indeed, the Politico could bury in its coverage an anonymous quote from a “veteran Democratic operative” urging Pres. Obama and the Democrats to “deftly pin this on the tea partiers.” They could hardly be less deft than the ghouls and the establishment media, who have been as subtle as a truck loaded with horse manure crashing through a plate glass window.

Mind you, a few of the smarter ghouls (and Keith Olbermann) will be careful to stress that the rhetoric needs to be toned down on all sides. Indeed, in Saturday’s Extra-Special Comment, Olbermann even blamed himself. This tactic is known as the “Neutral Story Line,” a gimmick perhaps older than “Fake, But Accurate.” Hypocrisy is at the core of this gimmick, just as it is with the ghouls.

After all, anyone who was awake through the last 10 years — as opposed to just the last 2 — knows that violent and hateful rhetoric has been a recurring theme of the left. But you would never know it from the establishment media. The death threats at anti-Bush rallies? The establishment media must have been out on an eight-year smoke break. Did they wring their hands over The Bush assassination porn in movies, books and art? Not really. When a man — an avowed MSNBC viewer — was convicted of threatening Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) in the aftermath of the healthcare debate, was there a concerted stroking of chins, or wagging of fingers? How about when a man made a bomb threat against a Republican fundraiser featuring Senate candidate Linda McMahon? When fmr. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) suggested that Rick Scott, now the Republican Governor of Florida, be shot? How about when Sarah Palin’s church was burned down? (Aside: Imagine the media coverage had Obama’s church had been burned down.) How about when then-candidate Obama bragged that he would bring a gun to a knife fight? That was not condemned, but celebrated as scrappy an pop-culure savvy. The list goes on and on. When Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30 at Fort Hood, it was very important to the NYT and CNN that no one speculate on a possible motive; now both are keen to blame the rhetoric of others for the actions of Jason Loughner.

All of this is the “who, what, where, when and how,” which leaves the question of “why.” Surprisingly, Slate’s Jack Shafer is willing to identify “The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting.” Unsurprisingly, Olbermann called Shafer’s piece “100% tonedeaf,” by which he means off-message. The entire point of the exercise here is to suppress speech. The blatantly unconstitutional bill to outlaw political target maps being floated by Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) has no chance of passing, but exists solely to milk the ghoulish exploitation for all it’s worth. And as the litany of examples in this post shows, the left and the establishment media rarely show any interest in policing hateful extremist rhetoric of the left when it happens. Rather, they only acknowledge it much later (once the stories have lost any political saliency) to feign fairness when attacking the right.

Thus, in practice, the proposed suppression of free speech is not about tone, but viewpoint. It is nothing less than a naked power play by those in the business of manufacturing consent to a center-left agenda, using the shop-worn gimmicks of “Fake, But Accurate” and the “Neutral Story Line.” If that means dressing up ghouls in nice clothes and exploiting the murder of a nine-year-old girl… well, that’s just the cost of doing business.

–Karl

104 Responses to “Giffords, Ghouls and Gimmicks”

  1. Well done, sir.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Once again, nice post Karl. Unlike those on the left, I think I would have trouble masturbating over the corpse of a child.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  3. Andrew Sullivan: It was Palin wif a candlestick in the Safeway parking lot.

    Ezra Klein: No… for sure it was a gun.

    Andrew Sullivan: oh. Ok it was Palin with a rope in the Safeway parking lot.

    Ezra Klein: Sweetie it was a gun for reals it was on the tv. Plus I don’t think Palin was even there.

    Andrew Sullivan: oh. Ok I’m going with Palin with a knife in the safeway parking lot.

    Ezra Klein: You kind of suck at this game.

    Andrew Sullivan: wanna play zhu zhu pets?

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  4. feets!

    Although I did not refer specifically to Ezra Klein, I would note that he once wrote that Joe Lieberman “seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.”

    Karl (928df3)

  5. I just don’t have the stamina for this topic.

    Krugman’s article was about when I started throwing up my hands at this.

    I can’t think of any serious political violence in this country in the past few years that wasn’t either a radical islamist or a truther like the Giffords shooter.

    That anyone would blame Rush and Beck and Palin again is predictable, but that Krugman goes all the way to saying the left doesn’t have inflammatory rhetoric is just more than I can believe a sane person would say. There’s little more inflammatory than saying the Bush Administration is slaughtering thousands of innocent Americans by helping along massive terrorism.

    What a national embarrassment. Sarah Palin does not have any influence over truthers, Krugman, Sullivan, etc.

    At some point, you realize Krugman is glad this happened and enjoyed his lying and smearing, and hopes for another opportunity to be this nasty. I don’t want to be up to date on this subject, but I appreciate the detail oriented nature of Karl’s post on it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. I think you need about 10 more links, just to be thorough.

    JD (dfe110)

  7. After sorting through the print and on air media circus yesterday can there be any doubt that a new, even more virulent form of the Journolist is up and running?

    elissa (a8031f)

  8. “I think you need about 10 more links, just to be thorough.”

    JD – Good call. I think there are three paragraphs that have only one link each so it is sort of a question of appearance and balance.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  9. But you must remember, this kind of talk only counts when those on the right say it. Because only Leftists are pure, and good, and…I’m already sick to death of making the obvious faux moral relativisms arguments.

    Dmac (498ece)

  10. Elissa – they clearly had their messaging in order.

    JD (dfe110)

  11. 7.After sorting through the print and on air media circus yesterday can there be any doubt that a new, even more virulent form of the Journolist is up and running?

    I was thinking the same thing. Maybe Rahm’s conference calls sound like happyfeet’s post.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  12. elissa’s right, of course. They are using coordination again, and again if they were real journalists their coordination would be discussed with the public they pretend to inform.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. Twitter is the new JournoList. They just have to be a little more subtle about it.

    Karl (928df3)

  14. Not letting this crisis go to waste, are they. I bet Rham’s proud.

    Robert C. J. Parry (f27afb)

  15. #

    Twitter is the new JournoList. They just have to be a little more subtle about it.

    Comment by Karl — 1/10/2011 @ 8:39 am

    Interesting. Perhaps there’s just a bit of a step above that with personal, one on one communication, but if this is the major dissemination of marching orders, I find it a lot better than the listserve method. At least it’s pretty much out in the open.

    I hate twitter, though.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. Another excellent post Karl.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  17. Bravo on a wonderfully thoughtful and thorough post.

    LukeHandCool (765277)

  18. Oh, sure, everyone else pile on and make it look like I was kissing Karl’s ass. Thanks.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. Judy Clarke will defend Jared Loughner

    Previous clients (all now serving time):
    9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui
    “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski
    Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph
    Susan Smith, who drowned her toddlers in 1994

    Neo (03e5c2)

  20. I guarantee if you check thru your list you will notice a trend????

    JOURNO-LIST.

    All of these twits were members and operatives of that blatant lefist attack squad who planned to use their positions in MSM media outfits to destroy Sarah Palin and all conservatives by hiding their hatred and nasty attacks behind the facades of the NY TIMES, WASH POST, MSNBC and other news organizations.

    As I recall, these scum decided that “it does not matter if the charges were true, simply pick a conservative, any conservative and go“.

    LogicalUS (37c907)

  21. And do include Glenn Reynolds’ article in the WSJ where his byline said that people on the left were accusing their opponents of being “accomplices” to murder. And then go show me any instance where someone said Palin helped load the gun or drove the getaway car.

    Jim (8de501)

  22. And do remind careful readers that Patterico altered the image from the Kos website to include a target which was not a visual from the original website.

    [Speaking of careful, you're not very careful , making a false accusation like that. -- P]

    Jim (8de501)

  23. “it does not matter if the charges were true, simply pick a conservative, any conservative and go“.

    Ohhh, THAT liberal media. Don’t ever lose that quote.

    This Palin smearing is completely insane, and it’s no surprise the same bastards are working up their rage again (all along, telling us this is about toning down the rhetoric). What they mean to do is establish political correctness such that you can’t effectively criticize a democrat, but bashing the Tea Party is actually required.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. And every single claim against Palin/GOP is based on what?

    Absolutely nothing. Zip. Zilch.

    You can’t get any more brazen in one’s lying than basing it on nothing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. Of course, this is where it comes from the Soros Org, (Think Progress, Kos, Huffington,) Politico,
    MSNBC, and so on,

    narciso (6075d0)

  26. This is an outstanding post

    Anon (34eb05)

  27. Did Daily Kos actually use a bulls eye GRAPHIC in connection with Giffords or anyone else?

    (Hey, I think Daily Kos, Soros and the like do not mean well for America. On the other hand, I think overstating their positions by conservatives reduces conservatives’ credibility.)

    Ira (28a423)

  28. #

    #

    Did Daily Kos actually use a bulls eye GRAPHIC in connection with Giffords or anyone else?

    A ton of leftists used a graphical threat. Some hung Palin in effigy.

    but I fail to see why the comparison costs credibility if it’s not this perfect similarity.

    If you’re using targeting rhetoric in a way that suggests you are not intending to kill someone, but rather have set an election win as your goal (or target), that is not the kind of rhetoric that crosses the line.

    Kos’s bulleye and Palin’s target sight are very similar in tone. They both suggest a goal of winning an election legitimately, through persuasion, by using the same metaphor of targeting. That’s the logical similarity, and I think your objection doesn’t make sense.

    Sure, we can point out leftists using graphical death. Kos even showed a picture of DEAD PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST MURDERED and said he felt nothing and it was justified. But that comparison only proves someone’s a bastard. It’s not the same think Palin did, which was to use a target as a metaphor for winning a congressional district.

    Logically, this comparison is perfect, unless you somehow think saying something in audio, text, or picture is somehow a change in meaning.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  29. Very nice compilation.

    Or what Grandpappy Anon said.

    Anonymous III (0bed2f)

  30. Ira – Patterico linked to it and showed a screen shot, along with multiple others. The only people losing any credibility are the sophists trying to spin this.

    JD (306f5d)

  31. I have no proof that Ira molests children but he may be responsible for other people molesting children.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  32. Kos even showed a picture of DEAD PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST MURDERED

    Yes, one of the things he will forever have to answer for was his callous response to the atrocity perpetrated on those Blackwater employees in Falujah.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  33. JD, Patterico said that Patterico drew the visual bullseye but that Kos used the “targeted” rhetoric in his blog so that Patterico was justified in changing the original Kos post to include the visual. Lame excuse for altering the originanal by Patterico to me.

    [Once again, Jim, I altered nothing. -- P]

    UPDATE: For the benefit of the terminally stupid, the bulls eye graphic did not appear on Kos’s original post, as should be self-evident to a) any sentient being who examines the image, or b) any person who bothers to follow my link to the original Kos post. Kos “put the bulls eye” on Giffords and others with written rhetoric. I think you all knew that already, but Tommy Christopher insists that my credibility demands that I explain this to you as if you were all five year-olds.

    Jim (8de501)

  34. Some Republicans responded with indignation—why should the alleged act of an apparently deranged young man with a record of barely coherent, and only vaguely ideological rantings get charged to their account?

    Others acknowledged what they called an unavoidable reality—flamboyant or incendiary anti-government rhetoric of the sort used by many conservative politicians, commentators and tea party activists for the time being will carry a stigma.

    A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans.

    “There is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

    The vast majority of tea party activists, this senator said, ought not be impugned.
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294.html#ixzz1AfPaNuXy

    Sarah Palin-Don't retreat, reload (14e3bb)

  35. Linking to bullies. And what an incoherent quotation at that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. Tell me, Willy, why do you get to condemn me, just because of my religion, with a rant about incest rape victims being forced to bear children, and later tell me that I should see this as a cautionary tale about rhetoric that is too extreme?

    Is it because you have dehumanized conservatives to the point where they do not deserve basic fairness?

    Why is it that a 9/11 truther who hated Christianity as much as you do is blamed on … Republicans? What in the world justifies your leap of logic? An anonymous quote in Politico?

    You’re a truther too, right? Giffords was a fiscal conservative to some extent, and the reason Jared hated her was because she was (in his head) part of a government conspiracy to control us with grammar.

    It is OBVIOUS that he was influenced by leftist truther crazies, and that he was not embracing any Republicans. That’s the truth.

    Another truth: the harder you and your masters push this issue, the worse it will be for you politically.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. and SPQR is right. Politico is trash.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  38. Willie likes to condemn half the country’s population and masturbate over the corpses of nine year old girls. He’s try to sneak into the morgue and get some IYKWIMAITTYD if he could.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  39. It is OBVIOUS that he was influenced by leftist truther crazies, and that he was not embracing any Republicans. That’s the truth.

    Obviously.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  40. #31: “A senior Republican senator.” Dick Lugar, I’ll wager.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  41. hey, here’s another example of violent rhetoric.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108515/

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  42. Daley, please explain why you think it’s right and proper in any respect to accuse someone of masturbating over the corpse of a nine year old girl.

    Jim (8de501)

  43. ““A senior Republican senator.” Dick Lugar, I’ll wager.”

    Mitch – I’ll wager they’re just making it up, that’s why they’re not naming names.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  44. Obviously.

    Comment by Kman

    Yep. Truthers influenced him, and truther claims are incredibly hostile towards the government, and obviously related extremely closely to the idea that Giffords was part of the conspiracy to control our minds with grammar.

    I know you would like to pretend that isn’t fair, but it’s perfectly fair. Truther crap was much more heavily on his mind than anything from the Tea Party of Palin, which Jared decided he was going to hate Giffords like a madman. In fact, the Tea Party didn’t exist and Palin was relatively unknown at the time.

    Nothing Republicans say approximate at all with Jared’s rantings. This Mein Kampf, Truther craziness shows he’s completely outside either party’s ideology, though it wouldn’t matter if he thought he was doing this for something completely mainstream because his method is something no mainstream character endorsed.

    Truthers on the left (9/11 truther ideology is apparently correlated drastically more with the left than the right) had a lot to do with hating Bush and Jews and generally dehumanizing people. It’s a sick thing.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  45. Truther crap was much more heavily on his mind than anything from the Tea Party of Palin…

    Gee, are you psychic?

    Nothing Republicans say approximate at all with Jared’s rantings.

    Well, except for the distrust-of-Big-Government thing, which tends to come from the right.

    ….craziness shows he’s completely outside either party’s ideology…

    Well, now you’re changing your tune. Which is it, Dustin?

    Kman (d30fc3)

  46. Kman, no more psychic than the many Democrats commenting. Hypocrisy noted.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. Does that mean I blame truthers for violence?

    Hard to say, actually, if that would be fair. If you were to convince someone that the US Government, under Bush’s leadership, murdered thousands of New York civilians… that kind of argument could actually justify assassinations. But then, truthers don’t realize they are wrong. When crazy kooks convince eachother that the government is controlling their minds with chemtrails and HAARP (or whatever that’s called) and rainbows in sprinkler streams, they are convincing eachother of a huge threat. It just doesn’t really exist.

    So I both do blame the concept for sending Jared further over the edge, and also don’t pretend it was intended to manipulate him that way.

    I will also add: truthers who believe in this huge conspiracy and don’t fight back are probably even harder to understand than Jared is. I’m grateful for someone who believes the good guys are unspeakably evil and then does nothing about it, but if I thought someone killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, I’d want to fight them.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. Kman, no more psychic than the many Democrats commenting

    Well, I haven’t read all the comments, but you’re right, SPQR — anyone pretending to know what was in his head is full of sh*t and probably advancing an agenda at this point.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  49. Kman, your selective quotes fail to show me changing my tune.

    Please note that ‘leftists truthers’ are not a political party. When I say Jared’s POV is not part of the mainstream democrat party, perhaps I’m being generous? I really don’t think it is, even though a lot of democrat voters are truthers.

    Where’s the ‘tune changing’?

    I’m not psychic to say that Jared was not influenced by the Tea Party when he started hating Giffords. The Tea Party simply didn’t exist at that time, jackass.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  50. Now, for the record, I’ve argued with Kman many times, proven him dead to rights completely wrong, many times, and he’s always reacted by stubborn obtuseness. He’s going to pretend my basic points are completely beyond his comprehension, but he already realizes he was wrong.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. He’s going to pretend my basic points are completely beyond his comprehension, but he already realizes he was wrong.

    Not this time, MegaMind. I’m conceding to your awesome psychic powers.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  52. Further: when I say truther ideas permeate and influence the idea of the Giffords being part of a conspiracy to control us with grammar, that is an assumption.

    If this is what Kman means by ‘psychic’, he’s just an obnoxious dweed. Jared IS a truther, after all, and all truthers are idiots who are crazy and believe horrible things about the government. This is like saying someone who likes Oreos was influenced by their appreciation for chocolate. It’s an assumption, but it’s a perfectly reasonable one.

    It’s also drastically more reasonable than linking Jared to Palin, when his obsession predates the time he’s likely to have even heard of Palin. It’s also drastically more reasonable than Kman’s ‘distrust for the big government thing’, which is impossibly vague and blatantly dishonest. What a partisan hack.

    No, Kman, it is not reasonable to lump ‘Giffords is controlling my mind with grammar’ and ‘Bush let 9/11 occur, or caused it himself’ with ‘distrust of the big government’.

    What an insane generalization, obviously picked, ad hoc, in order to score political points. Pathetic. His views are known in more specificity.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  53. Perhaps, Dustin, there is a soul that resides within that hollow shell.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  54. 29. I have no proof that Ira molests children but he may be responsible for other people molesting children.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 1/10/2011 @ 12:33 pm

    Have you all yet heard that daleyrocks may be responsible for the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and future terrorist attempts?

    unless you somehow think saying something in audio, text, or picture is somehow a change in meaning.

    Comment by Dustin — 1/10/2011 @ 12:18 pm

    Images usually make a greater impression than written or spoken words.

    28. Ira – Patterico linked to it and showed a screen shot, along with multiple others. The only people losing any credibility are the sophists trying to spin this.

    Comment by JD — 1/10/2011 @ 12:26 pmUnless I missed it, the original Daily Kos post did NOT have a bulls eye graphic, while it did have the words “this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.”

    The site linked to by Karl when he wrote

    “Markos Moulitsas, the owner of Daily Kos, blamed Palin with a link to her target map, despite having put a bullseye on Giffords’s district himself ”

    seems to be a page photoshopped by hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com. If I am correct, that photshopped page certainly would not be admissible in evidence in any case in which the issue arises of which is more inflammatory: (i) the Palin “crosshairs” page or (ii) the Daily Kos page.

    Like I said, we (and I exclude daleyrocks from that pronoun) lose credibility with overstatement.

    Ira (28a423)

  55. What’s funny is that you ignore my points just as I said you would. Of course, I’ve read enough of your comments to know you always do that. You’re not here to discuss thoughtfully… you’re just here to try to insist certain people are wrong. It’s usually pretty clear you insist people are wrong without understanding what they said, or even really reading it.

    Your weird quotes of me don’t say what you seemed to think they did. I think you just lazily threw that together based on assumptions about what they meant. You probably barely read half my comment. You say I’m changing my tune when I say Jared’s views are not like any mainstream political party… but that’s not something someone would say if they had read my comment.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  56. Plus, I think the confrontation between the Truthers and the Giffords staffers in one of the posted videos is very informative of the twisted thought processes that drive these people.
    And then, there is that obviously drugged-out, alleged ex-Iraq GI with the “blown out ankle” – I guess the VA couldn’t justify keeping him on the ward.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  57. You err, Dustin, in trying to find reasonableness (and find reasonable connections) in what everyone agrees is an unreasonable mind. (You’re not the only one, but the real irony is that you can only see it in others, not yourself.)

    Kman (d30fc3)

  58. you’re just here to try to insist certain people are wrong

    Well of course they are; after all, they aren’t credentialed.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  59. Images usually make a greater impression than written or spoken words.

    Ira, this sounds like you’re saying Palin’s image made a great impression for killing Giffords, which I don’t think is reasonable.

    Both of them used the exact same metaphor. You seem to accept that. One used an image, the other used words. So what? As I also showed, if you’re talking about more egregious imagery, the left has plenty. But the real point of this issue is that Palin’s point was obvious, and it was the same as Kos’s. That point was that they set a target of winning an election. There was no ‘greater impression’ for violence, because such an interpretation is obviously wrong.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  60. Ira – again. Did you not look at the multiple screenshots provided? DLC and others, as well. Nobody is overstating anything.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  61. Let’s be clear. Kmart is a stalkerish creepy ass.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  62. #

    You err, Dustin, in trying to find reasonableness (and find reasonable connections) in what everyone agrees is an unreasonable mind. (You’re not the only one, but the real irony is that you can only see it in others, not yourself.)

    Comment by Kman — 1/10/2011 @ 1:40 pm

    Not really.

    I’m right that truthers are unreasonable. It’s been long enough that anyone who had questions, and was reasonable, has looked into it and realized there was no truther conspiracy.

    I’m unable to see how I’m being unreasonable in this case? Indeed, you’ve got me. I do not see how my opinion of this, or Jared’s other rantings, show any unreasonableness on my part. I don’t see anything crazy about my other point that this obviously had nothing to do with ‘let’s set a target of winning this election’ type language (or audio, or video, or images, or smoke signals, or morse code).

    Now, Kman, you’ve actually caused me to explain why being a truther is unreasonable. That’s how ridiculous and obtuse your commentary is.

    Since I’ve gone that far, you need to do the same. Back up your assertion. Show me that I’m unreasonable. Or you lose the argument.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  63. Please JD, he has to comport with Teh Narrative.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  64. JD’s right that the left did use explicit target picture icon stuff.

    I just don’t see the point there, but if that’s important, then fine… the democrats did it, and it’s completely OK that they did. Who cares?

    The real point is that Palin’s metaphor is completely unrelated to actual violence. Kos’s is too. They are similar in their explanation, and are very easy to understand.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. “Others acknowledged what they called an unavoidable reality—flamboyant or incendiary anti-government rhetoric of the sort used by many conservative politicians, commentators and tea party activists for the time being will carry a stigma.”

    Given what governments have done over the last few thousand years, that’s a stigma I’m happy to bear.

    I’d be an anarchist, if only I thought there was any chance of a functioning human society that had no government.

    Dave Surls (335dec)

  66. Show me that I’m unreasonable. Or you lose the argument.

    Dude, I already conceded when I was faced with your psychic abilities about what was in Jared’s head. Do your victory dance already.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  67. It is a interesting article. These liberals are stupid. The journalists from New York Times, Daily Kos, Politico and all these liberal news media have poor grammar. You can’t make this stuff up. I haven’t watch anymore news about what happened in Arizona since Saturday.

    m (d65a99)

  68. Well, I haven’t read all the comments

    Quel surprise – just like you don’t read the intial posts here. But yet you go ahead and bloviate anyway, regardless of not knowing just what the hell you’re talking about. Tell us does it get old, continally having to breathe via your arsehole?

    BTW, still waiting to here what AW got wrong in his characterizations of you earlier. You made a declarative statement that he was lying. So let’s hear it, all of it – right now.

    Or admit that you’re really just another stalkerish Troll who’s one plate short of a combo meal.

    Dmac (498ece)

  69. #

    Show me that I’m unreasonable. Or you lose the argument.

    Dude, I already conceded when I was faced with your psychic abilities about what was in Jared’s head. Do your victory dance already.

    Comment by Kman — 1/10/2011 @ 1:48 pm

    Sarcastically mocking me, for simply asking you to back up your assertion about me? This is a cowardly way of avoiding backing up your claims.

    But you started mocking me BEFORE you generated the claim I asked you to back up. You did that to avoid the prior argument.

    Is that how you intend to discuss things? Make egregious claims, and then joke and scoff when challenged on it, and then start over? What’s the point? Are you hoping that eventually you will not be challenged? Is this just an endurance contest for you?

    You’ve been following Aaron for 6-7 years. You’ve been given so many opportunities to explain why you say he’s dishonest… and never have. Nothing I said justifies your stupid ‘psychic’ point. Perhaps you’re not reading my comment, but Jared’s obsession predates the things I say couldn’t have instigated his error. That’s deductive reasoning. It’s fact. I’m right.

    I’d be just as right in saying your obsession with Aaron wasn’t caused by anything that happened in the Obama election.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. “Error” was supposed to be “anger”

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. 55.

    Images usually make a greater impression than written or spoken words.

    Ira, this sounds like you’re saying Palin’s image made a great impression for killing Giffords, which I don’t think is reasonable.

    Both of them used the exact same metaphor. You seem to accept that. One used an image, the other used words. So what? As I also showed, if you’re talking about more egregious imagery, the left has plenty. But the real point of this issue is that Palin’s point was obvious, and it was the same as Kos’s. That point was that they set a target of winning an election. There was no ‘greater impression’ for violence, because such an interpretation is obviously wrong.

    Comment by Dustin — 1/10/2011 @ 1:41 pm

    56. Ira – again. Did you not look at the multiple screenshots provided? DLC and others, as well. Nobody is overstating anything.

    Comment by JD — 1/10/2011 @ 1:44 pm

    Dustin, you and I are in basic agreement. Dustin and JD, my point is that using a “photoshopped” image and asserting that that image came from the opposition weakens our position. It’s also not intellectually honest. From what I can tell, the Daily Kos page in which Giffords was named as someone subject to a bulls eye did not have a graphic image of a bulls eye. And, yes, images do make greater impressions than do words. “Battle” metaphors are common and in many ways appropriate in political campaigns. (Hey, Patterico noted that “campaign” is a military term.) Do I believe that either Palin’s map, or the Dems’ 2004 map with graphic images of bulls eyes, would provoke anyone to commit violence? No. Notice, here I exclude lunatics (and idiots like daleyrocks that grope for sick sexual metaphors) because lunatics grab at anything (e.g., grammar) to motivate themselves. But, using a page apparently photoshopped image does not help us.

    2.

    Ira (28a423)

  72. The “2.” should be deleted.

    Ira (28a423)

  73. Dustin and JD, my point is that using a “photoshopped” image and asserting that that image came from the opposition weakens our position. It’s also not intellectually honest.

    that sounds reasonable to me.

    Patterico should have linked Kos’s site directly, do ensure people saw exactly that he put a bullseye on her district, but didn’t use the picture Hillbuzz used. Patterico should have credited the image to Hillbuzz. Also, it should have been obvious this was a montage that excerpted names, etc, by using a ‘this is taken from this URL, go there and see’ type disclaimer.

    Hold on…

    OK, I just checked. Patterico did all those things. Seriously. Perhaps the last part, the disclaimer, wasn’t clear enough, but it seemed extremely easy to me to see exactly what was on Kos’s page because it’s the primary link used to justify the claims Patterico makes. Hillbuzz is credited for their montage and uses a URL. Perhaps if you were just skimming the story, you’d think Kos uses strange arrows to explain what the word bullseye meant?

    but that seems really unlikely, and I think reasonable people can tell that image is an effort to clearly draw out the two highlighted aspects of the page, to show Kos uses the exact same metaphor he’s bashing Palin for using.

    At any rate, the confusion is easily dispelled if you read the post, and check the evidence provided. I personally think the photoshop was not misleading in the slightest because it is obviously intended to quickly highlight two words on a page full of text.

    This sounds a lot like (some of) the breitbart editing freakouts, where no distortion occurred, the editing was obvious and not deceptive, and people relied on the idea of edits to suggest someone was being framed.

    Ira, I don’t see how credibility is damaged when the original page is right there to see. You’re expected to click that link. It’s also noted on the ‘photoshop’ (it wasn’t photoshoped, actually, but rather a Document Editor had a couple of arrows added and text enlarged for clarity).

    The term photoshop is meant to suggest a lie, and that certainly isn’t the case.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  74. BTW, Kman, Hooten, etc:

    see how Ira and I are having a discussion, making arguments, counter arguments, direct responses to points, generally acknowledging the other POV as best we can?

    That’s how adults have a discussion. We may not agree, but it’s not like we all came here to prove we are right and there is only one legit POV… we came here to discuss.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  75. “Like I said, we (and I exclude daleyrocks from that pronoun) lose credibility with overstatement.”

    Ira – Do you have a problem with me using the same type of logic the left is using to pin responsibility for the Tucson shootings on Palin, the Tea Party and overheated rhetoric from the right?

    If you do, then, STFU and stop trying to rationalize the politicization of the killings by your brethren.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  76. 1.Dustin-Back at ya!

    2.Yes, folks, and here I include whoever is today signing on as “daleyrocks,” what makes this blog particularly interesting is the expansion of information obtained through the comments.

    3. From the link:

    “UPDATE: For the benefit of the terminally stupid, the bulls eye graphic did not appear on Kos’s original post, as should be self-evident to a) any sentient being who examines the image, or b) any person who bothers to follow my link to the original Kos post. Kos ‘put the bulls eye’ on Giffords and others with written rhetoric. I think you all knew that already, but Tommy Christopher insists that my credibility demands that I explain this to you as if you were all five year-olds.”

    Dustin, you are correct, I did miss the disclaimer. Obviously, however, I did recognize that it was an altered document. I, apparently like Tommy Christopher, do think that the altered page reduces credibility.

    In any event, I think any reasonable person would agree that Dems and Repubs have used military metaphors. The
    Dems’ 2004 bulls eyes map is just one easy example.

    And, what everyone should agree on is that using a tragedy to attack one’s boogymen (e.g., Palin or Tea Partiers or Republicans) or to promote one’s favorite causes (e.g., limiting access to guns by law-abiding citizens or limiting free speech) without there being a bona fide linkage between them is, well, un-American.

    4. When Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said,

    “There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol. People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences,”

    Dupnik may have been trying to deflect blame from HIMSELF.

    From a news story here
    http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_0e6ad2ce-1b8e-11e0-ab28-001cc4c002e0.html
    about Sherrif Dupnik’s news conference on Saturday:

    “He [Sherriff Dupnik] said the gunman [Jared Loughner] was a subject of, ‘some police interest in the recent past,’ and he [Loughner] has made death threats in the past, but not toward Giffords. There was no reason to worry about the Giffords event in advance, he [Dupnik] said.”

    Go here for an interesting article on the point titled “Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office”:
    http://thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-is-a-product-of-sheriff-dupniks-office/

    It looks like this may be a case of Sheriff Dupnik’s going easy (or some deputy’s going easy) on Loughner, perhaps because of a friendly relationship with a fellow county employee (Loughner’s mom), and now Dupnik is trying to find someone or anything else to blame besides himself or his office for the resulting murder and mayhem.

    If Loughner had been convicted of making death threats, he would not have been able to purchase firearms. He may have been still in some sort of incarceration and therefore unable to kill or otherwise injure almost 2 dozen citizens.

    Ira (28a423)

  77. “Did Daily Kos actually use a bulls eye GRAPHIC in connection with Giffords or anyone else?”

    Ira – You really homed in on the central question, because if they didn’t, IT MEANS PALIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHOOTINGS!

    Putz.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  78. daleyrocks, Ira said that she (he?) did not agree that Palin’s target image could provoke violence. I agree that the concept is laughably absurd that it could.

    And the real reason is that we understand Palin’s message (Which is the same message Kos was sending, using the same metaphor).

    anyhow, Patterico wasn’t playing around with the facts. It’s really clear exactly what really appeared at Kos’s site, entirely from the way Patterico presented this comparison.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  79. Does daleyrocks belong on this forum?

    Ira (28a423)

  80. Is daleyrocks slipping into Loughner’s dream world?

    Ira (28a423)

  81. Yes, daleyrocks belongs here. Without a doubt. I suspect, though I do not speak for him, that he has grown tired of the sophist playing semantic games, and the other hyper partisan asshats wailing about teabaggers and Palin.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  82. Ira – You are way late to this party and I’m jumping down your throat because of it. I apologize.

    We’ve had trolls here the past three days raising the same questions you are just reraising fresh.

    The cholla link has already been posted on a couple of threads. Pajamas media claims the writer has credibility. The only problem with the piece is he is unwilling to reveal sources.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  83. 1. By the way folks, here is the complete original posting from which daleyrocks selectively quoted

    25. Did Daily Kos actually use a bulls eye GRAPHIC in connection with Giffords or anyone else?

    (Hey, I think Daily Kos, Soros and the like do not mean well for America. On the other hand, I think overstating their positions by conservatives reduces conservatives’ credibility.)

    Comment by Ira — 1/10/2011 @ 12:13 pm

    Like I asked, does daleyrocks belong on this forum?

    Also, please see my point 4 in comment 72 about what may be deflection by Sheriff Dupnik.

    Ira (28a423)

  84. “daleyrocks, Ira said that she (he?) did not agree that Palin’s target image could provoke violence.”

    dustin – Ira and I cross posted on that. See my 78. Given the liberal asshattery here recently, Ira initial question and his sophistry on several prior threads prompted my harsh reaction. I was over the top.

    I apologize to Ira and everyone.

    My child molestation example, however, is similar to the logic being applied by the left.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  85. 1. Daleyrocks, I accept your apology.
    2. JD, I do not play semantic games. I do, however, want to avoid undermining our own arguments by overstatement.
    3. The cholla author may not want to reveal sources. The Arizona Daily Star article to which I linked points out that Sheriff Dupnik himself acknowledged that lunatic Loughner made DEATH THREATS and that the Sheriff’s Office knew about them.

    Ira (28a423)

  86. Daleyrocks, the vast majority of people named Ira are male. I am male. Interestingly, like boys growing up with the name “Sue,” we are slightly tougher and meaner than the average bear. There is no excuse for your child molestation example. But, like I said, I accept your apology.

    Ira (28a423)

  87. Ira – Regarding the death threats, one of Loughner’s internet posting said he was ready to kill a cop, didn’t it? I have not seen the Sheriff shed any more light on those Saturday comments. The blog post makes it sound like a cover up.

    Also, he had another run-in with the police after 2007 the details of which have not been disclosed. Who knows what that was about.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  88. “There is no excuse for your child molestation example.”

    Ira – Sure there is. Think it through. Liberals are trying to stifle speech and disagreement (violent rhetoric in liberal terms is when you disagree with what liberals want).

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  89. congrats to karl for being frontpaged on hot air.

    Aaron Worthing (1a6294)

  90. So, daleyrocks, without knowing who I am, but apparently freely willing to read only half of my original post and equally willing to associate me with people you already dislike, tried to stifle my speech? You are actually trying to justify your sick sexual references? Daleyrocks, and here no pun is intended, get ahold of yourself.

    Ira (28a423)

  91. I like Daleyrocks. Granted, sometimes I’m not sweet, and sometimes he isn’t sweet, and JD doesn’t seem very sappy either, but I don’t think we should be too sensitive to that sort of thing.

    Obviously he belongs here.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  92. I didn’t see comment 84… daley, I don’t think it’s a big deal worth apologizing over… you just cross posted.

    Ira, he’s being sarcastic, in mocking an illegitimate argument. He obviously doesn’t mean it.

    This shooting seems to bring out the worst feelings.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  93. Dustin, I understand your point. However, it is an ironic point in view of our castigating the left for the way it has been communicating about this tragedy.

    Ira (28a423)

  94. “So, daleyrocks, without knowing who I am, but apparently freely willing to read only half of my original post”

    Ira – I read your entire first post. I have no idea why you would assume I had not. Saying something like Kos and Soros are not good for America followed by but conservatives overstating their positions reduces their credibility is often a typical troll lead in. As I said, that point had been up, down and sideways discussed all over the blog all weekend. You weren’t part of it so I should have given you a pass to see where you went with your comment first.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  95. Dustin – I think Ira prefers to let the left control the narrative instead of fighting back. Does he belong here?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  96. 83. Ira – Regarding the death threats, one of Loughner’s internet posting said he was ready to kill a cop, didn’t it? I have not seen the Sheriff shed any more light on those Saturday comments. The blog post makes it sound like a cover up.

    Also, he had another run-in with the police after 2007 the details of which have not been disclosed. Who knows what that was about.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 1/10/2011 @ 3:24 pm

    I don’t know about any specific threats. The Arizona Daily Star article reports that Sheriff Dupnik referred to “death threats” in the plural. In any event, we have a reasonably reputable source (the Arizona Daily Star), and Reuters, referring to multiple death threats (though it is not clear that he had threatened to kill more than one person). The cholla blog post does make it seem that the Sheriff Office’s prosecutorial judgment may have been clouded by personal relationships. However, even if it weren’t clouded, and even if any other sheriff may have made the same decision not to proceed against Loughner for such threats, that decision still may be appear to be an error of judgment. Dupnik’s “vitriol” statement may very well have been an effort at preemptive deflection. Keep in mind that Dupnik has come out against Arizona’s law against illegal immigration, which is otherwise popular amongst Arizona citizens. In addition to deflection, he, like the leftists, may have seized upon the tragedy to score political points.

    Ira (28a423)

  97. There is no excuse for your child molestation example. But, like I said, I accept your apology.

    I think Daley’s analogy is quite appropriate, and you should have read the previous threads on this subject before getting the vapors so easily. You owe Daley an apology for acting like you’ve been so umbraged, yet have no knowledge of the other posts that have been going on here over the past 72 hours. It’s more than obvious that you’re not well – read on what’s been going on here, and acting like the wounded sparrow upon your intial posts isn’t going to get you any points at this rate.

    Interestingly, like boys growing up with the name “Sue,” we are slightly tougher and meaner than the average bear

    Are you kidding me? How about acting like a new visitor here and try to discern what’s going on first, before you faint dead away and demand some kind of fealty. Good lord, you’re acting like a complete jackwagon who has a serious case of pissy – pants.

    Grow up and accept the free – form nature of this blog, or else post your great thoughts at a more appropriate venue, one which observes the Marquis du Queensbury Rules.

    Dmac (498ece)

  98. Dmac, we have you and daleyrocks behaving like the leftists you supposedly abhor. All that would have been necessary for daleyrocks, or you, to do was point out that there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the Patterico post. But, no, daleyrocks went hysterical and re-exposed his/her sexual deviancy. See daleyrock’s comment 2 for the original exposure. I’m sure Patterico looks forward to having his blog associated with daleyrock’s perversion.

    Even with the disclaimer, the use of an edited version of the Daily Kos’ web page reduces the credibility of the point being made, a point with which I happen to agree.

    By the way, are you that sensitive to criticism that you too would reflexively react with depraved analogies?

    Ira (28a423)

  99. Since I haven’t offered an analogy, why ask the question? Or are you admitting once again that you’ve read nothing on this blog until the last 48 hours? Go ahead, use the search function – I’ll wait.

    Dmac (498ece)

  100. BTW, how many apologies must one make to satisfy your extreme sense of umbrage? Two? Three? A dozen, perhaps? Shall we lie prostrate before you in submission?

    Dmac (498ece)

  101. Even with the disclaimer, the use of an edited version of the Daily Kos’ web page reduces the credibility of the point being made, a point with which I happen to agree.

    OK, I explained this really carefully to you.

    What you’re describing this as is incredibly unfair now. What’s up with this?

    That wasn’t an edited version of the web page. It was a screenshot that highlighted terms and used big arrows. Did you initially think that was a screenshot of Kos’s page? It makes no sense that he’d have huge arrows like that. It is clearly not fabricated evidence.

    And you say this reduces the credibility of the point… why do you say that? It sounds like you’re saying Patterico was caught being dishonest and can’t be trusted, but the reality is that the post you’re talking about is very clear and links Kos’s actual page. It explains the imagei s from Hillbuzz. How in the world does this harm anyone’s credibility? Hell, it doesn’t change the logical proposition whatsoever, either. There is no exaggeration or distortion.

    Further, Kos’s site has truckloads of the imagery that would make the point Ira seems more concerned about, which seems to have something to do with powerful imagery (how powerful does she think this bulls-eye is? It seems like nothing to me, especially on comparison to pics of hanging dead bodies in Kos’s record).

    It’s the worst frame up job I’ve ever seen, Ira. Patterico links the truth FIRST, the ‘fabrication’ doesn’t distort anything and has a url to the page, AND Kos is completely guilty of this charge that Patterico wasn’t even making in his post (but apparently is implied somehow).

    Ira, I seem to remember that you’re a reasonable commenter in the past, so don’t think I’m piling on, but I really don’t get where you’re coming from on this. You’ve made your case, completely, and we’re just going to have to disagree.

    Daleyrocks said he was sorry, and I think you’re starting to harp on him more than is justified for what is a run of the mill ‘illustrating absurdity’ point. He was mistaken about your POV… he admitted it. Let’s move along.

    Also, while I don’t think you’re a moby, this ‘We should be more careful” and “we are losing credibility” and “those leftists” talk will make people suspicious. You don’t need to repeatedly mention you’re a concerned conservative… even if that’s honestly what you are. It’s just the way things are now that people will be suspicious of that kind of comment.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  102. I think it’s clear Ira’s criticism of me was overstated.

    Overstating things costs you credibility, Ira.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  103. As I told Tommy Christopher, anyone who looks at that image and thinks Kos added all the annotations is too stupid to boot up a computer.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  104. Got it.

    Ira (28a423)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5194 secs.