After Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in Arizona stated that it is likely the violent political rhetoric that instigated the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords , the Left has all but openly accused the Conservatives of being responsible for the Giffords tragedy. Yet an MSNBC editorial acts surprised that the Conservatives have pushed back. What did they expect them to do?
I know, I know. I will be told that it is in general the rhetoric and symbolism everyone uses on all sides that might set off a lunatic and so we should ALL be careful what we say and how we say it. That would have been partially tolerable if Olbermann, Krugman, MSNBC, and other leftists had just left it at that point. We could have at least agreed to the general idea. But no. They go on to mention Conservatives by name and give examples of what they have said and done and intimate with no evidence, let alone proof, that these Conservative actions may have somehow contributed to the shooting. And now they’re surprised that the Conservatives have taken offense?
We can look to Keith Olbermann as the personification of everything that is wrong with liberals/far-leftists. While I hate to recommend anyone listen to him or read anything he writes, I will however direct you to his latest article “Violence and threats have no place in democracy” . No one can argue with the title, but it’s downhill from there. He goes on with naming the prominent Conservatives and what they have done to have “possibly” contributed to the Giffords shooting, calling on them to apologize. Later on in his article, in a feeble, unconvincing attempt to show his “open-mindedness”, he apologized for one situation where he himself had usedsome possibly inciteful rhetoric (no detail given). I can tell you, Mr. Olbermann, you have a lot more than that to apologize for. I don’t watch your show often, but I heard you say of Dick Cheney (and I paraphase) “Get out. We don’t want you”. Although I’m not a psychiatrist, I don’t think a homicidal lunatic should be hearing that even though a gun wasn’t mentioned. You should also apologize for the above article, since you have painted a contemptible picture of Republicans (as always) and have set them up as “targets” for violence. No doubt if I listened to you on a regular basis I could come up with countless examples of hateful statements. I would also have to include Pepto-Bismal in my regular diet.
Let me ask this question. If all these so-called suggestive statements and symbols had not been present, should Gabby Giffords feel safe if she were to allow Loughner to spend the night in her house? If the answer is “no”, then one has to admit it doesn’t matter what is said in the course of political debate and placing blame on a particular group of people should be called what it is. A despicable, bottom-feeding attempt to turn this tragedy to one’s own advantage.
In a predictably knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy, Bob Brady is proposing legislation that would prohibit language or symbols which could possibly incite violence against a member of Congress. I suspect this legislation will not pass, but it points to the Liberals’ idea of doing something even if the results are worse than the present situation. The results of such a legislation would be so restrictive of free speech as to prohibit any effective campaigning. However, on the up side it would put Keith Olbermann out of work.
