Dear Sarah Palin: A Giffords Cousin Speaks Out


See all articles on this issue at this link.

Dear Sarah Palin:

I am writing today about how you are responding to and how you will respond to the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murders of six other people.

By way of introduction and background, I am a cousin of Congresswoman Giffords. I am also an ally of Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor who provided abortion services and who was assassinated on May 31, 2009.

When the Congresswoman’s offices were vandalized after her vote on healthcare reform, I wrote to her. As I recall, I congratulated her on her strong spirit in the face of that attack and other threats. I told her that I was proud of her courage on behalf of health care reform and sorry that she had to show the same courage as those who provide health care to pregnant women who need abortions and other reproductive health care services. Both have been the subjects of hateful, vitriolic language. Both have been put in rifle crosshairs.

In the aftermath of the murder of Dr. Tiller and the attempted murder of Congresswoman Giffords, many have spoken out about the role that hateful language played or might have played in encouraging these acts of violence. Immediately after Congresswoman Giffords was shot, many people voiced concern about such things as your “Take Back the 20” map targeting congressional districts of those representatives, including Congresswoman Giffords, who voted for health care reform by placing their districts in the crosshairs of a gun sight. Commentators have also noted your advice to people disappointed in the outcome of the 2008 elections to “lock and load” and “don’t retreat, reload.”

As I am sure you are now aware, Congresswoman Giffords herself had expressed concern about your map in particular. She said: “We need to realize that the rhetoric, and the firing people up and … for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we’re in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action…”

Your response so far, has been to defend the images and language you use. In an e-mail to Mr. Glenn Beck you said, “Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence.”

Ms. Palin, the moment calls for more than this. I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and of your right to defend your words and to challenge those who seek to connect them to the assassination attempt and murders in Tucson, Arizona. I also know that there is often a very long distance between words and actions.

But even if your map and your language had nothing to do with these murders or any others that might occur in the future, a compassionate response would acknowledge that possibility and indicate a willingness, in her honor, in honor of the people who died, to consider this concern.

Whether or not you are willing to take this concern seriously, it is, nevertheless a critical moment to clarify your beliefs and principles. Now is the time to answer these questions and lead.

Do you believe it is appropriate to bring about political change in America through the use of or threat of violence?

When you suggest targeting candidates, use gun-sight crosshairs to do so, and speak repeatedly about guns, locking and reloading do you mean that violence is or could be properly used to encourage or ensure certain outcomes of elections or legislative votes?

If you do not mean literally that elected officials should be targeted with rifles and threatened by political activists armed with loaded weapons, what do you mean? What should politically frustrated Americans do when their views are not prevailing?

Throughout the course of history people have demonstrated that the most effective change comes through non-violent action. Many of us believe that the most courageous leaders and activists are those who are willing to be attacked for their beliefs not those who threaten to attack.

Ms. Palin, if you are among those who believe that political change can come about non-violently, without hate, violence, or the threat of violence, now would be an excellent time to say so.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • barbtries

    i hope she responds with as much dignity and respect as you have mustered for her.

  • seola1

    Can I see a copy of the letters you wrote concerning the same maps, including calling specific Republicans targets?  I am appalled that not only is the Congresswoman (who I believe to be more centrist and closely aligned with me than most politicians) laying in a hospital because of the actions of the crazed – but that her own family is taking it upon themselves to write a letter such as this.

     

    Giffords offered no words of concern for other “maps” of opposing politicians, other hateful or rude speech (though she did not partake) so why is it that her words of condemnation are applicable now?  Because she was a target of assassination?  So one has to be shot at to have a legitimate concern for ALL of the speech presented by BOTH sides?

     

    And lastly, you have said yourself – you don’t know that Palin influenced this unhinged man.  So why say that, then turn around asking dozens of questions and spouting the same rhetoric that you are admonishing?

     

    I pray for Giffords safe and continued recovery.  I pray for those who lost their lives because of this.  However, blame lies with all politicians – not just Palin, not just Republicans, not just Democrats.  All are guilty.  It just happens to be that the one that was able to get close was to a Democratic Congresswoman.  I can bet my chips, that if this had happened to a Republican aligned Congressperson, that no one would be calling out Palin would they?  No one would be calling out Democratic speech and hatred, in fact, most don’t remember it ever happened.

     

    If you think that a pixel map is the “causation” or the “end game” to all this, you are sorely mistaken.  You are underestimating the crazies out there, overestimating Palin’s influence and are being guilty of the same things that got us here – inciting the people.  If all it took was a pixelated map, then we’d have murders by the millions based off the success of Call of Duty game series.  Tipper Gore already tried to push that ship and it sank.

  • ack

    spouting the same rhetoric that you are admonishing?

     

    Ms. Paltrow doesn’t use violent rhetoric in this letter. She’s calling out a prominent politician who has repeatedly used it in her campaigns and public appearances.

     

    guilty of the same things that got us here – inciting the people.

     

    Who exactly is she “inciting”? And to do what?

     

    Additionally, I’d like to see the maps you’re referencing. This is a genuine request; I haven’t seen similar pieces created by anyone else. “Targeted district” is common terminology in politics; utilizing crosshairs to illustrate them, however, is not a common practice.

  • cmarie

    It’s odd that Gifford’s cousin doesn’t mention the shooter at all.  He might as well have been an earthquake or other natural disaster that Palin was somehow responsible for.  People are now starting to say the killer was a “left wing nut”.  It really doesn’t make any difference.  The left is no more responsible for his actions than the right would have been.  He’s a very sick and demented young man; clearly not equipted to live in a country with any kind of freedom of speech, unless he’s securely locked up in a prison.  (Not a hospital like Hinckley, I hope but a prison).   Anyway, this is from Palin’s Facebook page: 

    My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona. 

     

    On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

     

    - Sarah Palin

  • goatini

    Correction:  ”The RW Noise Machine and Blogosphere are starting to say”

  • jodi-jacobson

    The author asked that Sarah Palin (and ostensibly others who routinely involved in vitriolic behavior and language) answer the three very simple questions at the end of the letter.

    Is that so hard?

    I do not think there is equal fault at all in the vitriolic environment that has been created. But that is beside the point. I can answer those questions as a common citizen. All our leaders should be required to answer them. To date, I know that Senator Leahy, President Clinton, President Obama, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a wide range of other Democrats have condemned both the attack and the environment in which we are currently conducting our politics.

    To date, to my knowledge, the only conservative who actually called for an end is Pat Buchanan (though I would hope to be corrected). 

    Shouldn’t we all question that environment?  Isn’t it the duty of every leader to do so?

    why is that so hard?

     

    Jodi Jacobson

  • crowepps

    You are underestimating the crazies out there,

    I don’t underestimate the crazies out there AT ALL, which is why I’d like to see some reasonable gun laws that prevent them from buying automatic weapons. 

  • kanawa

    It is impossible to take seriously a lecture on the inappropriateness of violence, by a woman who proudly proclaims to support the most heinous violence of all, the slaughter of innocent human lives in the womb.

  • dpetty

    Bottom line is this Cousin needs to be praying for Miss Gifford and stop political grandstanding as the shooter is to blame and the Pima Cty Sheriff for Dereliction of duty.

  • toby928

    The dark night of political violence is forever descending on the right, and landing on the left.

  • bring

     

    Remind me……who said,  “if they bring a knife we bring a gun”?

     

     

  • leftcoaster

    She has every right to comment on this.

  • leftcoaster

    Palin’s strong endorsement of Giffords’ opponent, who organized actual shooting exercises using M-16s combined with the words “Help us remove Gabrielle Giffords from office!” .. so insanely different from using stupid metaphors, I question the intellectual capacity of anyone who makes a comparison.

  • leftcoaster

    God is the world’s most prolific abortionist.

    Please – stop insulting us by comparing the life of a 9-year-old to that of a 9-week-embryo.

  • rebellious-grrl

    My condolences go out to the victims and their families. I am so sorry for the pain they must be enduring. May they find peace and healing.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Giffords said, “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list…..but the thing is that the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.”

    It’s insane that the right is running as fast as they can form any possible culpability of this mass murder. If you threaten someone by targeting them literally by putting a gun scope over a map where they live and then they are violently killed, isn’t that what Palin wanted? If not she shouldn’t use gun metaphors and violent rhetoric? Come on, Tea Party folks like Sharron Angle are telling people to “exercise their 2nd amendment rights.” What does that mean? It means use a gun to get what you want. If you don’t like something bring a gun to threaten them. I am SO SICK of listening to the conservative right and Fox (faux) News deflect any responsibility of their bat shit gun-toting crazy rhetoric. The right-wing has been given a pass by mainstream media for the crap and lies they have spewed out.

  • colleen

    Do you think that bolding out your post will make your comment appear less crass and stupid? If so, you are wrong about that too.

     

     

  • colleen

    People are now starting to say the killer was a “left wing nut”.

    The only people saying this are right wing loons completely bereft of  integrity or basic decency.

  • wock

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • leftcoaster

    Baaahahahahaha!!!

  • wock

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • squirrely-girl

    … but I think it’s quite tasteless and narcissistic to tell somebody else what they should be doing to grieve and process this kind of assault on a family member. 

  • arekushieru

    Please look up the words innocent, violence and slaughter.  Then look up the phrase organ donation and realize how many actual innocent human beings your movement ‘slaughters’ while bleating about the very same right being utilized by women, when they CHOOSE to terminate or conTINue a *pregnancy*.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Two points. There was no Democratic Party map with cross-hairs/sights, much less targeted on specifically named people. There was a map using targets for geographic areas.  These are different.  Not equivalent.  I do not think we can forever avoid the use of the word “target” or “targeting” because it is a word that means a great deal more than “gun target,” and is used for fundraising (what target audience are you seeking funding for?), media (who is your target audience?), consumer productive development (what is your target demographic for this product), and so on.

    The differences between the Democratic Party map and the Sarah Palin map are that a) Palin specifically used cross-hairs to specifically target individuals, while b) simultaneously, repeatedly and in bellicose terms using terms like “lock and load,” “reload,” and so on throughout her campaign.

    If you are a leader, it can not be so difficult to say: We need to be careful about how we each contribute to this environment. Isn’t that what personal responsiblity is all about?  Isn’t that what leadership is all about?

    To me, this all sounds like a toddler who engaged in bad behavior, and then keeps pointing to his sibling saying: “He did it too.”  That is immaterial: You need to take responsibility for your actions, your part….

    Second is to ask: Can you provide actual specific links or references directly to the things you claim above to have been done by leaders in the progressive movement or among Democrats (not the same thing necessarily).

    I look forward to seeing the specific facts and links associated with the examples above you assert to have happened.

     

    Thanks much in advance.

    Jodi

  • grainnekathleen

    thank you ms. paltrow for speaking out about this issue of violent rhetoric and imagery, especially in politics, that have become far too accepted and pervasive in our culture.  we must change it by peacefully but persistently calling out and confronting it at its source, as you have done. 

    i am so sorry that your family has been put through so much worry with your cousin on a map with crosshairs, as well as being the recipient of violent threats and vandalism, and now the ultimate, an assassination attempt and a mass slaying of her supporters.   i agree with you 100% that whether or not ms. palin’s map helped loughner to pull the trigger, ms. palin and all others who are poisoning the dialogue in this country ought to be asked to cease and be civil. 

    my family continues to pray for your cousin and for all the victims and their families.  and i pray for you and the good work that you do.  thanks again.

  • cc

    As documented by Media Matters: “Right-Wing Media Link Arizona Assasssin to Liberals.” They do a thorough analysis of how Glenn Beck and other hate media types use Nazi metaphors to describe liberals. It wasn’t that long ago that a crazed gunman shot up a Unitarian church because he hated liberals. He was a fan of Sean Hannity. Two other apprehended gunmen were fans of Glenn Beck. And who could forget Bill O’Reilly’s constant demonization of Dr. Tiller which resulted in Tiller’s assassination. While Jared Loughner seems to be a deranged person, there is a climate of hate that is ginned up by the right which plays to an intolerant and violence worshipping  culture that reveres guns, “warrior” Jesus who smites his enemies, and hates gays. If Loughner hadn’t shot Giffords, he just might have shown up “locked and loaded” (a favorite Palin phrase) at a Planned Parenthood. Scary times.

     

  • crowepps

    It’s been a rough week for America. We sometimes get so caught up in our passion over our country and the direction we think it should take that our language gets away from us. Then tragedy strikes and we are overcome with a wave of remorse for anything we may have said or done to imply to anyone that this kind of action is acceptable in America as a solution to the issues that divide us.

     

    There is a lot of anger welling up against the tea party in general and Sarah Palin in particular. I think we need to control that anger lest we create a similar situation from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Because I would guess that despite the hot rhetoric, few in the tea party wanted to see violence used as a means to an end. And I really, really, really doubt that Sarah Palin wanted someone to die.

    We need to be careful in our political discourse because, quite frankly, every society on earth has its fringe members, and they tend to be people without the natural restraints our common humanity imposes on the rest of us. But we are wrong to try to lay this shooting at the doorstep of any particular party or person. One person pulled that trigger, and there is no one who can say for sure that he wouldn’t have done it with or without the rhetoric of our last political season. If he really wanted to do it, he would have found a reason somewhere.

    We are part of a democracy that fosters debate and discussion. It the responsibility of each and every one of us to ensure that no matter how impassioned our speech is, we never cross the line that takes our speech from championing a cause to proposing violence as a solution.

    It is sad that every few decades we need to be reminded of where that line is.

    Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/01/11/1644106/dont-blame-rhetoric-for-madness.html#ixzz1AqG7lsgC

  • stuartbramhall

    If Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, et al were Muslims, they would also be in jail. There is an on line petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/IndictSP/petition.html which calls for the Dept of Justice to indict Palin for incitement to violence. It has over 4,200 signatures.

  • foggycity

    The Germans are raising the warning flag on the radicalization of politics in America. a strong safety net there is the result of learned lessons from people being forced to the wall economically.The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

    “Regardless of the motives of the assassin, the debate is urgently needed. The political radicalization in the US has reached a point that is unworthy of a democratic state.More than any others, the members of the Tea Party movement made rhetoric of war into normal discourse …” 

    “It speaks volumes that Tea Party members and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin removed crude imagery from their websites in a hurry on Saturday …”

     

    The “Blood Libel” words today of Palin are just wrong to use and Jewish groups are also sounding the alarm on this and rightly so.

    Jewish Funds for Justice:

    We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin’s decision to characterize as a “blood libel” the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term “blood libel” is not a synonym for “false accusation.” It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line. [...]

    Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement.

     

  • foggycity

    Before the last Presidential election and after progressives have sent emails to networks and commentators as well as written letters to the editor warning of the escalation in violent pushing rhetoric from the right wing. It was ignored by the media and ignored by the right wing. 

  • arekushieru

    I have already said this about the Swedish, but I commend Germany, another part of my ancestry, for the straight-talking and the personal responsibility they’ve demonstrated in regards to this issue.  My maternal grandparents were German.  My grandfather and his father-in-law fought on this side of both wars.  Now, if only the English, the last part of my ancestry, would uphold these views….  

  • wock

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • wock

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • toby928

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • crowepps

    There isn’t any evidence that I know of that he was “left wing”.  For sure trying to label him that on the basis of a list of his ‘favorite books’ won’t work, since the ideology of those books is all over the place.  Mein Kampf and Marx aren’t both leftist, the points of view in them are actually OPPOSITES.  Mein Kampf has about as much conservative right wing religiosity as you can find.  Marx is communist and Animal Farm is ANTI-communist.  The opinion of an ex-friend about what he thought his politics were five years ago in high school isn’t much use.

     

    Certainly there are a lot of indications he is mentally ill.

  • colleen

    There is obviously some evidence that he is mentally ill. I have no idea if he is menatlly ill in any clinical or legal sense. I imagine that we will find out.

    There is NO evidence that he is ‘left wing’ at all.

     

  • arekushieru

    Your comments are not ‘scrubbed’.  I DO wish your side would look up definitions for once.  Your comments are STILL there.  (Unlike many  conservative websites I can name, which DO ‘scrub’ comments.)  I can STILL respond to them if I click on the grey subject line (OBviously, since I am responding to one of them, RIGHT NOW), after all.  But, of course, leave it to a right-winger to complain about websites that attempt to strike a balance, attempt to address the concerns of those who don’t like comments ACTually being scrubbed.  Derrrrr….

    Your second link proves our theory right off the bat. 

    There was NO implication that Sarah Palin was merely using the word target for Republican gains.  As it states right in the title of the Democratic ‘target’ map used IN your link.  There IS, however, EVery implication she was using the word in its reACTionary form.  Really, NONE of you right-wingers know that there are different definitions/nuances for… the… SAME… word… either…?  *Faceplant* 

    Of course, proving your ignorance, once again.  Even if these maps used the same definition for target, the use of the phrase ‘not equivalent’ would STILL be applicable.  Since we are using it in its more *generalized* form.  I pity you that in your ignorance you didn’t understand that.

    No.  See above.

    This has NOThing to do with intelligence.  (Of course, you might think ignorance insinuates the same thing, but it doesn’t.  Lack of knowledge is ignorance.  Lack of WISdom, how to use knowledge, refers to intelligence and, in either case, someone who exhibits the behaviour deliberately, is worse than the one who does not.  JFYI: Your kind of ignorance is the worst kind to display.)  This has EVerything to do with mental illness.  Which changes the parameters upon which you were trying to falsely base this, a little more to the FACTUAL basis.  

    Refer to above and see how little difference those words make when using the phrase ‘not equivalent’ in its inTENded context.  Oyyyy….

    Since the whole storyline is not in shambles, how about the Republicans exhibit some of that personal responsibility, that you, TOO, were calling for?  Oh, what’s that, it only applies to Liberals.  Guess it’s not the Liberals who are the hypocrites around here…?

    The words you use to describe the shooter, shows to me that you really have no compassion for anyone nor any real understanding of mental illness. No wonder the more compassionate, logical contingent is inclined to support the Liberal version of things.  Why would you even THINK that proof that the shooter had never met Ms. Palin, was proof that the larger culture and society did not create a climate of desensitization to violence.  Any logical person would realize that ’individual’ and ‘society’ and ‘culture’ are NOT the same thing….  Yikes….  Or, explain to me, how peers cannot pass on the same impression within this climate?  Or didn’t you realize that it isn’t just media that perpetuates this climate…?  Wow, really…?  (Btw, it WAS you, yourself, who referred to his friend, so don’t backtrack, now….)  Or, how you can’t understand that this is about exacerbation of someone’s actions NOT their origin?

    There IS no opposing ’worse’ behaviour.  All leads back to that ‘not equivalent’ phrase.   There IS opposing ‘better’ but not ‘perfect’ behaviour.  Thanks.

    Umm, because, as you apPARently didn’t know, JUST because Sarah Palin doesn’t hold political office, DOESn’t mean she isn’t a leader.

    Seriously, you accuse US of using biased websites, then use your OWN?  BAAAAHHAAAHAAAHAAA!

    That’s pretty much the whole content of any of your replies whether VISibly so or NOT.   

     

  • nonsense-nonsense

    This letter is ridiculous and the people trying to make it out to be some kind of gospel are insane. How on God’s green Earth is it Palin’s/the Tea Party’s/Republicans’/anyone you don’t agree with’s fault that the guy sent has been fixated on Gifford for three years? How is it any of the aforementioned persons or entities fault when the guy didn’t even watch the news or listen to it on the radio to even know what they were talking about? Come and step up to the plate someone. This entire thread is about as worthy of a facepalm as was the quote from the guy who said this was the fault of the Arizona immigration law.

  • arekushieru

    Umm, maybe read the thread first before spouting your own Nonsense, next time?  Or, is that screen name supPOSed to refer to you?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Surprise surprise, I did read the thread before making my comment. And if you must know, my screen name refers to this thread, more specifically the people claiming this is the fault of someone else other than Loughner. By the way, my questions still stand. Please provide evidence of these grandiose assertions being made. Show some proof that he was influenced by Palin, the Republican party, the Tea Party or any political rhetoric at all, especially since all the available evidence shows that he wasn’t influenced by any political ideology in the slightest and had shown an interest in Gifford long before the majority of the country had even heard of Palin or even before there was a Tea Party. Or are you content to make more unsubstantiated claims and skirt providing evidence of those claims?

  • freetobe

    to debate this issue as it is very complex. I just read that the gunman had deep hatred of women and that at a previous rally of the Congresswoman the gunman asked her a question when she answered he was not satisfied and since then became fixated on her as a target.

     

    This guy was obviously very disturbed he was refused by the army,kicked out of college and was also a high school drop out. I ask where was his parents?

    This proves once again that some people should not be parents. Perhaps he was unwanted in the first place.

    There is so much more to this than just politics although Palin,Beck and Limbaugh  do spew lies and hatred. The news I watch bases it’s news on facts and videos of the actual people saying what they are ACTUALLY saying not some ridculous rant.

     It might do the right some good to actually do some research on thier own before believing  all the pied pipers and letting themselves get into an unnessary furor.

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    So I find the similarities between this situation (shifting blame) and general rape apology to be sad and disturbing but par for the course…

  • prochoicekatie

    Let’s just get down to the base of this critique, here, ok?

    It doesn’t matter whether the gunman was motivated by a specific political diatribe. People’s queasiness stems from the use of violentic rhetoric that blatantly uses gun metaphors and the fact that someone has now been shot.

    Whether the actual connection existed in this particular context, people have become upset because they are uncomfortable that reality has matched that rhetoric. Their uncomfortable feelings are making them question the use of such rhetoric.

    So, to be clear, we’re not saying one map or one quote made this incident happen. We’re saying we REALLY hope that such rhetoric doesn’t make incidents like this happen, and that maybe it would be best if we didn’t use said rhetoric. We can’t really justify the use of said phrasing when push comes to shove, anyways.

    Secondly, IT DOESN’T matter which side is doing it or has done it. If it’s wrong, or unpleasant, we should stop. We shouldn’t defend such rhetoric because “both sides did it.” I happen to think conservatives use said metaphors more, but that doesn’t mean I’ll defend a Dem telling people to “reload.” I won’t.

    Either you agree, the rhetoric has gone too far and we should stop, or you don’t think we have any reason to practice civility.

    The high road still remains the high road, even if no one is driving on it.

  • prochoicekatie

    Media: A member of Congress was shot. Here’s a map with her name/district in gun crosshairs. Here is SP telling people to “reload.” SP, what do you think about the role of your map/comments in this incident?

    HIGH ROAD ANSWER: Well, I don’t think we can say that one quote or one image made someone carry out this action. This was clearly done by someone who was not mentally stable. HOWEVER, I am uncomfortable looking objectively at how violent rhetoric has invaded politics. I personally will make an effort to remove such rhetoric and imagery from my political work. I believe strongly in my political values and feel that they will successfully sway the American public without the use of such metaphors.

    LOW ROAD ANSWER: Oh, those weren’t gun crosshairs. That was a surveyor symbol. I wanted to metaphorically “survey” those people. I know I love guns and hunting and I don’t know poo about surveying, but that’s what I meant. Oh, all the gun metaphors in my speech? Those are just metaphors. There’s nothing wrong with that. Except, if you do think something’s wrong with it… look, look, the dems are doing it, too. So therefore I am not responsible for the things I’ve done that may have been innappropriate, because someone else did them, too.

  • toby928

    Other than the accounts of his former friends. Those are somewhat dated though and may simply be youthful firtation before his mental illness took control. He appears to have been pretty anti-social during the recent past.

    What is true is that there is no evidence at all of involvement with, or interest in, current right-wing groups or politicians. Indeed, one of his acquaintances says that he neither watched the news nor read internet blogs. The attempts to link him to Sarah Palin, who he may not have even heard of (odd as that may seem) is calumny. Pure and simple.

  • squirrely-girl

    So if a “crazy whacko” did it without any “influence” does that suddenly make it acceptable for wannabe politicians to post maps with targets over real politicians’ districts and make comments about “reloading?” 

     

     

  • crowepps

    If he left a copy of the referenced map in his safe with an autographed picture of Palin and a note that said, “For YOU, Sarah, for YOU!” then we’d be hearing all about the whole thing is the fault of his mental illness and Palin ‘didn’t cause his illness’.

     

    I do wonder though, since ”deranged criminals” are 100% responsible for their crimes and it is totally unfair to shift blame to anyone else and it will destroy democracy if to ask people to curb their violent analogies and hate speech, why would Palin object to the liberals speech ATTEMPTING to incite hatred and violence?

     

    After all, they too have a right to robust political speech and anything they wanted to say would ALSO be constitutionally protected free speech so it should be okay for the liberals to make up ludicrous accusations, imply Sarah is evil and wants to destroy the country, label Sarah a murderer or whatever else they can come up with.

     

    If some deranged person listening to their rhetoric gets all charged up and commits a violent act, hey, the responsibility would still remain 100% on the criminal.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    It’s only okay if said wannabe politician is a Democrat/liberal/person you agree with. At least, that seems to be the consencus around here. Looking at the two maps in the following link, which one do you think is worse? The one with targets that says “It’s time to take a stand” or the one with bullseyes that says “Targeting strategy. Behind enemy lines”?

     

    http://img268.imageshack.us/i/bullseyej.jpg/

     

    Only one of those pictures makes use of war/military terminology, and it isn’t the one belonging to Palin. There is a lot of hypocrisy and political hackery in this thread coming from those individuals who would put themselves on the left.

  • crowepps

    Personally I’m not real fond of gun or war or sports or ‘fight’ rhetoric in political campaigns.  Personally, I prefer to get (or give) information about POLICY POSITIONS.  You notice that neither one of the referenced graphics does that.  They’re both about how WE need to WIN.

     

    As a registered independent voter, I personally prefer to READ things that lay out voting records and statement about current issues and then pick the person who is likely to vote in a way congruent with my views.

     

    But then, I’m deficient in testosterone, don’t have obsessive compulsive disorder (are we PURE?), don’t watch a lot of television, and am not in terror that the ‘brown’ people are taking over.

  • squirrely-girl

    …which one do you think is worse?

     

     

  • colleen

    Other than the accounts of his former friends. Those are somewhat dated though and may simply be youthful firtation before his mental illness took control. He appears to have been pretty anti-social during the recent past.

    I understand that you’re prepared to both diagnose him and pretend that the American right has no culpability for ANY of the political violence, threats and intimidation which have become their defining  characteristic.

    I see no point in trying to converse with anyone tacky enough to pretend this was an isolated incident caused by a mentally ill leftist and particularly when they’re trying to make their point with what can only be described as unsourced gossip from teenagers and on a national day of mourning for the victims.

  • cmarie

    So is this debate about “being inappropriate” or about using words that may have led Loughner to decide that the number six is really eighteen in disguise and that consequently he killed six people and injured several others?  If the writer believes Palin’s language is inappropriate in general this is an odd time to write about it.  If on the other hand, the writer believes there is a connection between Palin’s maps or words and Loughner’s actions, I would have to disagree.    Although there is no mention of Loughner following Palin, he did apparently attend at least one rally for Giffords, where he was given an opportunity to ask a question.  He asked “What is government if words have no meaning”?    She did actually try to give him an answer but he was still confused and held a grudge against her since then.  I can’t imagine anyone could have answered a question like that and certainly not to his satisfaction.  It sounds to me that the reason he centered his rage on Giffords is that she was the one high profile person who had at least tried to communicate with him as a constituant by trying to answer the question. 

    Another important factor.  Within several minutes of the shooting on Saturday the first news stories began to come out.  They had the name of the shooter wrong, they had his age wrong and also the gender of the child killed was wrong.  They were also already blaming Sarah Palin.  They have since then corrected the first three of those mistakes.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Story at Alternet – “Is this the end of Sarah Palin as we know her?”

    http://www.alternet.org/story/149522/is_this_the_end_of_sarah_palin_as_we_know_her/

    Palin’s cavalier use of violent imagery may not have directly caused the Tuscon shooting that left six dead and a dozen wounded–but it seems uglier now. Her endless gambits to rule the news cycle may be grudgingly admired at other times–but when it takes precious time away from mourning those whose lives are lost forever, it has a pathetic, out-of-touch-feel.

    Palin is not the only person on the right who has used violent imagery, violent rhetoric, etc. There are others that are culpable for the U.S. culture of gun violence etc. (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, for starters.)

     

    I’m so sick of listening to the right-wing wing-nuts whine about their first amendment rights being infringed upon, taken away – whatever. They have no idea what they’re talking about. From someone who has faced police repression of my first amendment rights (i.e. being tear gassed, maced at anti-war protests) I have faced this for real, they think if someone is critical of something they say is an infringement of their first amendment rights. If you say something stupid (yes you Sarah Palin, Rush and your ditto heads, Glenn Beck, Fox and company) be prepared to be criticized and analyzed. That is not a violation of first amendment rights. All I can say to the wing-nuts is grow up. If you preach violence then don’t be surprised when it happens.

     

    An article that came out last Apr. critical of the violent rhetoric of the right, “Force is the weapon of the weak: decrying the right’s violent rhetoric.”

    American political discourse is being poisoned by some truly scary rhetoric from the right-wing, which is increasingly resorting to threats and condoning of violence, a trend that has played out in recent weeks right here on the Guardian’s Politics blog.

    http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/04/08/force-weapon-weak-decrying-rights-violent-rhetoric

  • rebellious-grrl

    opps double post

  • crowepps

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/14/fbi_questions_blogger_critic/index.html

     

    There’s an article at Salon where a blogger announced that the FBI had questioned him about possibly being a ‘threat’ and he felt they were intimidating him.  The article implies that the FBI not wanting to discuss their investigation is suspicious.  Aside from the fact that the investigation was on the basis of a complaint from a Congressman, if the FBI had talked about the investigation they would be accused of ‘smear tactics’ and ‘implying he was dangerous’, blah blah.  The last line of the article really got me:

     

    The New York Times recently reported that “studies of assaults on public figures have found that attackers have almost never telegraphed their intentions to their targets or to the authorities ahead of time.”

    He did not include the line from the NYT that some of the people who were checked out after threats tucked away in psychiatric hospitals and  therefore assaults may have been prevented.

  • beenthere72

    This http://archivist.leapserve.com/uncategorized/re-visiting-a-prophetic-post-marianne-williamsons-letter-to-sarah-palin-in-april-2010/

     

    led me to this from last march:

     

    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/palin-advises-tea-partiers-stop-cars-with-obama-bumper-stickers.php

     

    Where this comment really creeped me out (though most of the comments are pretty darn funny):

     

    u see no one is trying to
    defend this bull
    she is REALLY going to
    get someone killed

  • kanawa

    Dear Arekushieru,

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

  • rebellious-grrl

    That doesn’t surprise me.

  • toby928

    You got nothing. No evidence, no testimony, no confession. Just your desperate desire to smear your political opponents.

    Wishcasting of the darker type, it is.

    Shocker, that.

  • toby928

    Strawman much?

  • toby928

    And that doesn’t surprise me.

  • toby928

    It certainly makes it irrelevant as an argument.

  • kanawa

    Dear rebellious grrl

    There is no reason the inability to understand an incoherent post should surprise you.

  • arekushieru

    This is really surprising (actually… no… it’s not) when you and your right wing friends can’t come up with a comprehensive argument as to why it’s nothing more than a political smear….  (But, that’s typical of right wingers… hence… the sarcasm.)

  • arekushieru

    Uh, no, it doesn’t.  I don’t know how you can say that (oh, right, of course, I can.  It’s your typical right-wing arrogance and ignorance) when we have said BOTH sides contribute to it.  And, it needs to stop, no matter WHO is the worst.  The only reason I have been arguing this with Wock, is because he/she made the claim that Liberals are ‘worse than’ or ‘the same as’ Republicans with NO evidence.  

  • arekushieru

    You mean your incoherent post?  And yours certainly made no sense.  Not even to yourself, OBviously, when you are the one using words such as innocence, violence and slaughter, then unable to understand why I am telling you to go look them up.   Or when you refer to one kind of organ donation (pregnancy), why I am referring other kinds of organ donation.  It’s really simple, after all.  A uterus is an organ.  The woman is donating, not sharing, it, since the uterus is NOT the fetus’ organ.  SO simple. 

    So, the above is the sign of an illiterate, ignorant poster, as you see.

  • kanawa

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • arekushieru

    Uh, you DO realize why late-term abortions are performed, don’t you?  If not, your ignorance is apPALling.  If so, your misogyny is EQually appalling (and, before you say it, women can be JUST as misogynist as men).  NO right to life for women, as WELL as no right to bodily autonomy, even though you would grant a right to life to a FETUS that no one BORN has.  Derrrr…..

  • plume-assassine

    Kanawa, if abortion is “the most heinous violence of all” in your mind, then I fear that you are terribly ignorant of war or torture… or they are pretty far down your list. You know, have you ever considered real violence that kills born, actualized, innocent people every day?

  • kanawa

    Dear la plume assassine,

     

    I consider all violence real. Who taught you the word “actualized”?

    The womb is where life is most vulnerable.  The human in the womb can not duck, hide or run away. he/she depends on us for protection and care. You can make yourself feel better by de-humanizing the human life growing within the mother, using terms like “actualized” but it can not change the fact that a human life is being destroyed. By de-humanizing the life being sheltered and nurtured within the mother, you de-humanize yourself.

    Celebrate life, not death on the altar of “choice”

  • julie-watkins

    when you insist what should be a gift is an obligation.

  • saltyc

    Absolutely, forcing women to stay pregnant to term is violence, hideous violence. Just talk to women whose wombs are being held hostage. They are desperate. And no, it’s absolutely NOT a person in there, so it’s no “fact” that a human life is being destroyed if by that you mean a person, and if you don’t then big whup, “human life” is destroyed all the time when you shed skin cells.

    Just try talking to women as I do, who are actually being forced to gestate against their will and against their better interest, against the interest of their children, and you’ll see what real violence is.

    It’s getting so bad, that we get 40 calls and I can only help three, and now I’m not even calling the 37 back anymore, because the other day one of them told me off because I couldn’t help her, telling me I just didn’t care, and that really got to me, and I need to protect my own emotional well-being, but I feel so badly about that. But why would someone snap at someone who’s trying to help, unless they’re backed in a corner, like a rat? 

    This is REAL violence, and you so-called “pro-lifers” are to blame for it, but then again so is Obama, who threw our rights away and got–what?–NOTHING for it which only shows what he, a Democrat, thinks of our rights. 

  • kanawa

    Dear SaltyC and Julie Watkins

    You are both accusing me of things I have not stated.

    I have not advocated “insisting” or “forcing” anything.

    I do advocate choice, a choice of life over death, a choice of good over evil.

    “And no, it’s absolutely NOT a person in there, so it’s no “fact” that a human life is being destroyed if by that you mean a person, and if you don’t then big whup, “human life” is destroyed all the time when you shed skin cells.”

    You may tell yourself that, but it is false. To equate a human being growing in the womb to some “shed skin cells” shows the illogical lengths that supporters of abortion will go in order clear their conscience.

    If you support abortion, proclaim it proudly..don’t hide behide lies and euphemisms.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    You are both accusing me of things I have not stated. I have not advocated “insisting” or “forcing” anything.

     

    And yet, that is precisely what happens when laws reflecting your particular set of beliefs are enacted. Isn’t that funny?

     

    I do advocate choice, a choice of life over death, a choice of good over evil.

     

    So, in other words, you’re anti-choice.

     

    You may tell yourself that, but it is false. To equate a human being growing in the womb to some “shed skin cells” shows the illogical lengths that supporters of abortion will go in order clear their conscience.

     

    No, actually, fetuses are not the same as autonomous human beings. That’s not conscience-clearing, that’s basic reality. Feel free to continue pretending that a zygote and a 10-year-old have equal moral status, however. It’s cute, in a sad way, kind of like a grown adult who still believes in Santa Claus.

     

    If you support abortion, proclaim it proudly..don’t hide behide lies and euphemisms.

     

    We don’t support abortion. We support women having the right to choose what happens to their bodies, which may include abortion. We don’t tell anyone that they should have an abortion, any more than we tell anyone that they should go through with childbirth, or adoption.

     

    You, on the other hand, support forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, whether they want to do so or not. Which is about the same thing as saying that you support forcing women to have sex with men, whether they want to do so or not. After all, when you’re okay with taking away womens’ right to control their bodies… what’s the big deal with rape?

     

    If you support rape, proclaim it proudly… don’t hide behind lies and euphemisms!

  • saltyc

    I have not advocated “insisting” or “forcing” anything.

    So now that you have learned that women are in fact being forced to carry pregnancies to term against their wishes, health and best interests, due to lack of funds, lack of access and bigotry, which are all the direct consequence of the violent “pro-life” movement, will you change your position? No? Then in effect you ARE advocating forcing women to give birth against their will, you just don’t want to admit it. And you can say that a fetus is a person all you want it doesn’t make it true. You only do it to make it easier to deny the real violence you and your movement are doing to actual breathing, conscious and reflective women and their breathing conscious and suffering families. How can you live with yourself? You can only keep doing damage with your eyes closed. Open your eyes and see the damage your self-righteous ignorance is doing. 

    don’t hide behide lies and euphemisms.

    I only say what I know damn well to be true. I talk to the people affected, I don’t just go by the propaganda and mythology promoted by the bloody “pro-life” movement.

  • julie-watkins

    Yes you were “insisting”, which is why I wrote you de-humanized women. Insisting one choice is moral and the other is not is putting a moral obligation on women.

    I did not want to become pregnant. My IUD failed and we did not want children. After my abortion I had my tubes tied so I would not become pregnant again. (The tubal worked. If I had known the IUD wouldn’t work in my body I would have started with a tubal.)

    I am not hiding behind a “euphemism”. I am insisting women should not be de-humanized.

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    You do realize that “partial birth abortions” are NOT performed… right? I mean, you did get the memo when SCOTUS upheld the federal ban… right?

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Well said. I’m so tired of having these conversations with the antis/forced birthers.

    I’ve been spending my day fixing a leaky toilet and making a few trips to the hardware store for parts and just don’t feel like responding to the same crap from them. It’s much easier to fix a toilet than to get a point across to the antis/forced birthers. Big sigh.

    Thanks for the awesome posts! :)

  • plume-assassine

    Thank you for making it painfully obvious that you care more about embryonic and fetal life than people, especially women.

     

    By valuing fertilized eggs and fetuses more than women (hello, I am not “the womb,” I am not “the mother”) you de-humanize me. You are partially responsible for perpetuating violence against women when you reduce me to an object — nothing but an incubator.

     

    The absurdity in your worldview is apparent when one considers that you believe you are empowering, giving a voice to, or liberating embryos and fetuses. But how do you empower something that can only exist inside of a person’s body? How do you a give a voice to something that does not have the capacity for thought about its existence or the capacity for consciousness? How do you liberate something that must sustain itself from within a person’s body to survive? There is NO liberation or empowerment in forced birth. The truth is that you self-identify more with embryos and fetuses more than you identify with people.

     

    I celebrate life by valuing the life-affirming choices of women everywhere and educating people about a culture of resistance against violence. Abortion is not violence; it is a grace for women in need should they choose it of their own free will, and it is a part of women’s lives and always will be whether you like it or not.

  • crowepps

    I’ve got to agree, it is really wearisome to respond to about the 200th post that says “DEHUMANIZING” as though we are all going to go, “That simply never occurred to me and nobody ever pointed it out!  Of course I should agree that the laws must change and pregnant women be allowed to die or suffer unnecessary anguish so that I/society don’t DEHUMANIZE!”

     

    I mean, I know Liberty University has some sort of on-line embryology course to prove that because a table is made of oak all acorns should be assumed to be tables, and because books are made of paper which is made of spruce pulp all pinecones can be copyrighted.

     

    I know that there are lots of ProLife sites on the internet that have posted the ProLife checklist of absolutely sure-fire arguments so these absolutists can cut and paste them into every single news story written anywhere no matter what the actual subject of the news ‘all this anguish over a dead goat but why should anybody care when ABORTION — genocide — feminism — gays!’

     

    But their obvious conviction that posting this endlessly recycled drek is going to CONVINCE anybody just really gets BORING.

  • arekushieru

    Dear Kanawa,

    It seems I must repeat this for a third time:  Take a scale with two arms, where one arm has one bowl labelled ‘existence’.  This arm represents the fetus.  The other arm has several bowls labelled ‘existence’, ‘social agency’, ‘physical agency’, ‘moral agency’, ‘intellectual agency’, ‘mental agency’, ‘emotional agency’, ‘sapience’, ‘sentience’, ‘thoughts’, ‘feelings’, ‘hopes’, ‘wishes’, ‘wants’, ‘dreams’, etc….  This arm, of course, represents the woman.  Either the bowls on the second arm are the same size or smaller.  You fill up the bowl on the first arm, then fill up all the other bowls equally on the other arm, so that the scale balances out.  At the end, you either find smaller bowls filled to the top or similar sized bowls filled only half way.  But, again, either way, the woman loses out because you insist that the fetus should be respected and valued ‘just as much’ as the woman.  Guess what, you’re actually respecting and valuing the fetus MORE.  It’s too bad that you anti-choicers can’t see that.  

    The woman cannot duck, hide or run away from her body, either.  It is too bad that, in your mind, it is more acceptable to punish the woman than it is to punish the fetus, punish her for the exact same thing that you say you don’t want to punish the fetus for.  A biological function that is beyond its/her control. 

    Pregnancy is where life is most vulnerable.  That’s why attacking a pregnant woman is considered aggravated assault.  That’s why pregnancy is the second-leading cause of death in women, worldwide and would be the first, if not for advanced medical treatment, something that can’t be attributed as a true reduction of the risk of pregnancy.  That’s why it is so easy to abuse pregnant women.    

  • arekushieru

    If you think a fetus has more consciousness and awareness than a few skin cells… if you think a fetus is a person just like a woman… are you prepared to call a fetus guilty for implanting and gestating in an unwilling woman’s uterus, of committing rape?  You do realize that the only way a fetus can’t be guilty, is if it lacks the capacity to be either innocent OR guilty?  But that that protection disappears when you claim it is a person with full rights, because along with personhood, comes intent?   Derrr….

  • princess-rot

    Few things are more absurd than the rapidity with which an anti will come onto a thread and scream “ABORSHUNZ!!11″ and suddenly we find ourselves moving from a rational discussion to trying, in vain, to reason with a threadful of hysterical reactionaries. Even when the topic under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, they’ll  perform logical contortions to form tentative links between the subject and abortion.

     

    It’s the right-wing boogeyman of choice. Ignore all nuance and the actual people involved, the wingnut has super-special commonsensical knowledge of everything, therefore that’s more than enough to trample over everyone’s boudaries. After all, being left of Genghis Khan is enough to “offend” the Right, what sort of mere incubator gets to define her own life, when everyone should be living by the Right’s rules, like or lump?

     

    It’s rather telling that the mere perception of wrongness justifies “retaliation” by any means. I suppose it could be said that the trolls are proving the point that right-wing noise has a hand in creating violent atmospheres which has violent outcomes, but to be honest, I think it’s irritating noise, so in this case I’m glad for our ability to collapse nonsense comments.

  • princess-rot

    It happened at an open-access forum which Loughner attended and Gabrielle Giffords was speaking. Loughner spoke up and asked: “How do you know that words have true meaning?” or something to that effect. After a short pause, she replied to him in Spanish and went back to presenting, proving that spoken words have meaning even if the listener doesn’t understand them.  Which was rather cool and clever of her.

     

    I wouldn’t have been that subtle. I’d have asked him if was stoned, after staring at him like he was a moron. (Then again, that’s why I’m not a politician, but it’s a rational response to a question that is both childish and condescending in a sober atmosphere.) “How do you know words are true?” is the sort of thing you say at a 3am bullshitting session when you’ve all been hitting the bong. In fact, Pandagon has named this tactic “The Stoner’s Gambit”.

  • kanawa
  • prochoiceferret

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/114200224.html

     

    Well, I guess that puts to rest the notion that all abortion doctors are good people. I’m sure this comes as a terrible disappointment to you, especially after learning the same thing about police officers, firefighters, and even school principals.

     

    Is there no profession out there in which every single practicing member is free of wrongdoing??

  • beenthere72

    What this ‘doctor’ did is exactly why abortion needs to remain legal so it can be regulated and kept safe.   Investigators dropped the ball big time here.   The state should be held liable for letting this guy slip through the cracks.  

     

    None of us are going to defend this ‘doctor’ for what he did so don’t even try slapping this on us like this is what abortion is.     This is what *criminal* abortion is.    

     

    You do realize there are criminals in every profession? 

     

     

  • amyc

    I looked at the image. On first glance it did look like they were very similar, but take a look at the one on the left. At the bottom of the map is a key and an explanation:

    BEHIND ENEMY LINES: President Bush won nine states by single-digit margins. Those states should be ripe targets for Democrats. They are: Florida, Arkansas, and Virginia in the South; Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri in the Midwest; and New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado in the Rocky Mountain West.

    The key simple says that blue=democratic voting state, maroon=bush margin %20 or more, red=bush margin %10-%19, and the “targets” (they are colorful versions of the Target store logo, not cross hairs)=bush margin <%10.

    The Palin map has cross-hair targets positioned loosely over the district of 20 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill. Some of the cross-hairs are white and some are red. The red cross-hairs mean they are retiring at the end of their terms (so they shouldn’t bother to oust them). It then lists the names of each of the representatives along with their state and district number.

     

    While the terms “targeting strategy” coupled with “behind enemy lines” are regrettable, they are followed by a thorough explanation and context. The map is targeting states they have a chance of turning–not specific representatives. It seems the map on the right is an accurate depiction of a perfectly legitimate strategy for looking at which states to try to win, and the Palin map is a list of representatives she doesn’t agree with coupled with vague rhetoric such as: “It’s time to take a stand,” and,”3 down, 17 more to go.”* Now honestly, which one seems more likely to incite violence?

     

    *the star indicates that it was not visible on the image you linked to, i did a google search to find the full map. others can find it here: http://www.chocolatecity.cc/wp-content/uploads/SARAH-PALIN-TARGET-MAP.jpg

  • crowepps

    That’s why it’s so important to keep it legal.

  • churchmouse

    This letter is ridiculous and just an attempt from the Left, another pro-abort who preys on human life to feel good about herself…. to bash those on the Right for doing the same thing as they do. A few years back the Democrats had a map that targeted REpublicans.

    I would wonder if I were a counsin…why the memorial service for all the victims turned into a pep rally for Obama. A photo opportunity for him to rise in the polls. A joke an absolute joke. 

    As for this tragedy…

    This had NOTHING TO DO WITH SARAH PALIN or the TEA PARTY. This crazed man had it out for her back in 2007. He was obsessed with her. He was a registered Indep. for crying out loud.

    This letter is an attempt to make it look like there is some sort of connection…that SArah Palin and followers are wrong. This woman is using her cousins tragedy as a politcal platform to elevate herself.

    Why doesnt she ask the LEFT, the Democrats….who are also in a power struggle to gain control back…..if they have hate in their hearts? 

    Now I am so so sorry that this congresswoman was shot, but lets be realistic and not place blame on someone that had nothing to do with it.