“We need to make sure that we tone down things, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords – who is doing really well, by the way – [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular … has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”
She goes on to say:
“You had town hall meetings that [the Tea Party] tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those town hall meetings,” Wasserman-Schultz said today. “When they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.” (Source: Washington Examiner)
This really takes some gall for a person who completely blanketed the Republican party as racist just a few months ago over the Voter ID laws currently being discussed and debated in various states across the nation.
Of course there was no mention of the rhetoric of the Occupy movement that she and her democrat colleagues were so willing to support. No mention of the Bush-Hitler signs. No mention of the movies that depicted the assassination of President Bush. No mention of the rapes, assaults, vandalism, death threats, breaking and entering, and various other lawless acts.
I dare any liberal or media member (one in the same) to find any evidence of actual of perceived violence that has occurred at a Tea Party event. I would also like to point out that the big Tea Party gatherings that occurred across the US before the 2010 elections were pretty mellow affairs (does using mellow date me?). Many gathering venues were actually cleaner after the Tea Party members left than when they arrived. Can the Occupy protesters claim the same? If I recall, the Tea Parties cleaned up after a gather of anti-tea party protesters who had left the Washington DC WW II memorial a mess. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
Meanwhile, the New York Times double-downed on Wasserman-Schultz’ comments in a recent editorial. The author tried to give the appearance of not being biased, but that only lasted for a paragraph or two.
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republican and particularly the most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people. (Source: New York Times) (h/t: Big Journalism)
So, the Republicans and Tea Partiers have history of violent rhetoric? What about the left? Is no one going to hold their feet to the fire for the violent protests conducted by occupy participants or the rhetoric stated on signs that were so common at the “gatherings?”
That the whirlwind has touched down mot forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in the country.” Anti-immigrants sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies program that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal. (Source: New York Times) (h/t: Big Journalism)
Of course, the editorial didn’t bother to mention that Dupnik will more than likely lose his job over the very heated rhetoric the linked article goes after. And the author says that the reason for the ending of the Latino Studies program was because people in Arizona are basically racist and bigots. How come he didn’t bother to mention that the program has been determined illegal by a court of law? How come he didn’t mention the court decided the course promoted the overthrow of the US government, promoted resentment towards another race, was designed only for Latinos, and advocated ethnic solidarity instead of people as individuals? And did he bother to report on the bigotry and racism that greeted an Arizona school official who visited after a Hispanic civil right activist told these Latino Studies students that “Republicans hate Latinos?” Of course you are most likely aware that a White Persons Study program would be attacked immediately as racist and bigoted. I wonder as white men (and women) become a minority over the next several decades will we be allowed to have a course that studies white history and contributions (good and bad) like blacks and Latinos have now.
Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Longhner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen firsthand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the violence of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls. (Source: New York Times) (h/t: Big Journalism)
And no editorial or column about conservative rhetoric would be complete without a screed against gun rights. And I wonder what type of “sensible controls” Mr. Columnist would propose. It has already been made fairly clear that very few gun control laws anywhere in the nation would have prevent Longhner from obtaining the weapons he used that tragic day one year ago. At least he didn’t call it an assault or automatic weapon like others.
The events of 10 Jan 2010 were beyond pale. Six people lost their lives and many others had their lives change irrevocably. Why can’t the press and other liberals just mark the day as a date that deserves respect and tribute for those who died and were wounded and just leave it at that?
Never let a crisis go to waste.