Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:10 PM ET, 01/18/2011

Joe Scarborough to right wing: Stop whining about shooting!

By Greg Sargent

Well, take a look at this. Joe Scarborough, in an open letter of sorts to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, has managed the impossible. He says Beck and Palin are not to blame for the shooting, while simultaneously saying that asking whether incendiary rhetoric can lead to violence is a perfectly valid line of inquiry:

You weren't personally responsible for the slaughter at the Safeway. Maybe you can put it on a poster at the next "Talkers" convention.

But before you and the pack of right-wing polemicists who make big bucks spewing rage on a daily basis congratulate yourselves for not being responsible for Jared Lee Loughner's rampage, I recommend taking a deep breath. Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don't connect in this case doesn't mean you can afford to ignore the possibility -- or, as many fear, the inevitability -- that someone else will soon draw the line between them....

Now that the right has proved to the world that it was wronged, this would be a good time to prevent the next tragedy from destroying its political momentum. Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Giffords?

Again, it's wrong to blame anyone for the shooting. But ask yourself this. How many figures on the right have been willing to engage in any way on the broader question of whether it's at least possible that our current climate could lead to future violence? How many conservatives have been willing to discuss the topic at all?

I get that right-wingers have been in a defensive crouch since the massacre -- in some ways understandably so, because some on the left did pin blame for the shootings on them. But the argument from many liberals has been far more nuanced than that. Many of them simply insisted that the shooting is a reminder that we need to have a broader conversation about the relationship between political culture and political violence, about the excesses of our current climate, and about who is primarly to blame for those excesses.

Some right-wingers -- perhaps in order to avoid the topic completely -- dismissed even the more nuanced response from liberals as nothing but a cheap political trick, as thinly-disguised blame for the murders. But that was pure B.S. -- this was an entirely legitimate line of inquiry from the outset. And it's nice to hear a right-leaning commentator in good Beltway standing step up and say so.

By Greg Sargent  | January 18, 2011; 4:10 PM ET
Categories:  House Dems, Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Do Americans really want health law fully repealed?
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Greg,

Why haven't you banned Joe Scarborough yet, like you did Carol Channing?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

I would ban everyone and their mother, if it weren't so easy to come back under a new name.

;)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 18, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Ohmigod, Greg! - Please put an end to these posts defending the legitimacy or validity of your own posts. (I thought you were opposed to torture?)

"Again, it's wrong to blame anyone for the shooting. But ask yourself this."

But, however, and so on.

This is known as employing the "Yes, but" defensive technique (aka having your cake and eating it, too).

Posted by: sbj3 | January 18, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I still have not heard any MSM reporters or pundits, draw attention to the fact that Sarah Palin linked President Obama to the violent acts that Bill Ayers perpetrated, when Obama was a very young schoolboy.

Don't you think, that is something that should be drawn attention to, now that Sarah Palin says she should not be linked to the violence in Tucson, and only those who commit the acts should be blamed?

I agree, that she should not be blamed for what the Tucson assassin did, but how come she is still not even being asked to explain why she spent two months accusing Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists"

Isn't it fair, to put that question in play, now that Sarah has decried such tactics?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

yep, very fair, Liam. I'll dig around on that.

and sbj, you are complaining to the wrong person. you should take your objections up with Joe Scarborough.


Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 18, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"'Again, it's wrong to blame anyone for the shooting. But ask yourself this.'

This is known as employing the "Yes, but" defensive technique (aka having your cake and eating it, too)."

This is known as employing the "stick your fingers in your ears and go nahnahnahnahnah!" avoidance of the issue technique.

Posted by: mmyotis | January 18, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget Glen Beck:

"Byron Williams: Arrested while driving to the HQ of the liberal non-profit group The Tides Foundation carrying numerous guns and body armor, intent on killing everyone in the office, before moving on to do the same thing at the ACLU. Williams confessed he views Beck as a “schoolteacher” who “blew my mind.” The would-be killer admitted that Beck “give[s] you every ounce of evidence you could possibly need” to commit violence. He awaits trial in jail."

http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/6-lunatics-inspired-by-fox-news-and-glenn-beck/6399

The entire article is worth reading.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 18, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

So when is Congresswoman Giffords going to apologize to Sarah Palin for letting herself get shot, which really caused poor Sarah more pain and anguish than anyone who got shot in Tucson.

Why hasn't the nation dedicated a month of mourning to mark the terrible suffering that Sarah Palin has endured?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "sbj, you are complaining to the wrong person."

How about I complain about your lack of analysis of the Fuller incident?

Posted by: sbj3 | January 18, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you said you wanted to whack a troll. That's inciting violence against mythological creatures. What's next on your hitlist? LEPRACHAUNS11!!1! That's bigotry on 2 fronts: Imaginary creatures and the Irish. Why haven't you baNNed yourself???

Posted by: cao091402 | January 18, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Is Joe Scarborough running for anything? He says the R have moved away from him. Have they? Or has Joe moved from them?

I know nothing whatsoever about Joe Scarborough other than what I read here. Is the following correct?

He was a Congressman from FL [R] in the 90s.

He was not implicated in a scandal

He lost his seat

He is a news analyst for a cable network
-------------------------------------------------------
Why does anything he says have special value? Because Greg agrees? B/C Scarborough identifies as an R and is critical of Rs?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 18, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Interesting post Greg. I wonder about Scarborough. Now that he makes his living as a pundit and not an elected official he has the choice to remain as honest a broker as possible...or go wack a doodle on us.

I realize that many of my friends from the right feel J.S. already sold out when he joined MSNBC...perhaps...maybe it's a cynical ploy to make himself even more popular with the MSNBC crowd. Who can really know?

As for me I'm going to take Scarborough at his word. If Conservatives believe their mantra I hear over and over and over and over again ad nauseum that the nation is Center Right...if you accept THEIR belief then WTF are they doing going off to the extreme right. And make no mistake the TPers have moved the Party so far right that a Center Right country will eventually start screaming...perhaps as early as 2012.

Perhaps Scarborough realizes this and wants to be in position when the adults return to reclaim the R party from the infantile TPers. There are still plenty of Center Right..even simply Right..people left in the R party who are not extreme right wing ideologues. Scarborough and David Frum are not alone...I watched poor Mike Murphy squirm on Bill Maher Friday night..he is a rational man it's truly difficult to defend the vitriol and hate that has come from the R's the past two years. And of course there is the infamous take of Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan when Palin was announced as the VP candidate...an exchange which of course they believed to be off mike during a break...perhaps MSNBC set them up...had to toss a bone to my righty conspiratorialist friends. Murphy was shocked by what he considered a bad choice and Noonan actually hit the nail precisely on the head..."Political B.S." is how she referred to it. Yeah Peggy the Palin nomination was nothing more than a cynical "Hail Mary" pass in the hopes that capturing the PUMAS could spark life into a dying campaign. How'd that Palin nomination work out for y'all.

At some point the pendulum will swing back from idiotic stuff like...she's no Harvard educated person but she knows the will of the Founding Fathers will be sorry old joke from our past. Intelligence and talent will once again count for something. When things like knowledge of the issues, intellectual achievement, a record of actually completing an assignment one signs up for...that's when folks like Scarborough and Frum will be in perfect position.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 18, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Let's re-frame the smear campaign so maybe this time we win - and if we don't win then, let's just attack the Republicans again.


Greg writes this garbage:


more nuanced response from liberals as nothing but a cheap political trick, as thinly-disguised blame for the murders. But that was pure B.S. --


__________________________


NO, just about everything the democrats have said since the mass murder is BS


When will the Washington Post stop paying you for this nonsense?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

What I find rich is right wingers complaining of the thought process of looking for reasons as to why this shooter lashed out that wasn't really a huge leap in logic unlike Beck's ridiculous daily rants on a chalk board.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149554/why_right-wing_fearmongers_have_blood_on_their_hands/

Unfortunately and unjustly as it might have been for Palin, her target map wasn't a difficult bridge to build between the incident and the cause.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 18, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Why haven't you banned your mother yet?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The tradegy in Tucson wasn't the fault of Beck, Palin or Limbaugh, no matter how hard the liberal cabal tried to portray it as such.

Having been repudiated by the Anti-Defamation League, President Obama and every fair thinker in America, the liberals are now saying that the Tucson wasn't DIRECTLY the fault of conservatives, but it COULD HAVE BEEN their fault, so we'll continue to falsely blame them.

Joe Scarborough is just another talking head on MSNBC, with about as much credibility as Olberman, Matthews or Schultz. If he really represented the conservative POV, MSNBC wouldn't have him, and if he had a solid listener following (ratings), he wouldn't have MSNBC. It's just two loser entities, MSNBC and Morning Joe, who have formed a symbiotic relationship. Scarborough bashes conservatives because he is paid to.

Posted by: amazd | January 18, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Some right-wingers -- perhaps in order to avoid the topic completely -- dismissed even the more nuanced response...

The Right doesn't do "nuance." It's not part of their always attack/never take blame approach to life.

Posted by: filmnoia | January 18, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I would imagine that Joe's opinion should be given the same attention as those of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Sarah Palin.

After all; of those three, Joe has more actual office holder experience than Beck or Hannity, and of course Palin no longer holds any elected office either, and yet, you have not asked why should Palin be listened too.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Liam should still be banned for partipating in the smear campaign - attempting to link innocent people to a mass murder.

I would say you let his mother off.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Liam should still be banned for partipating in the smear campaign - attempting to link innocent people to a mass murder.

I would say you let his mother off.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The difference between Joe Scarborough's comments and the defensive crouching right, is that Joe is saying the violent rhetoric **could** incite sane people to violence, murder and armed revolution.

The defensive crouching right seems to be saying that their rhetoric could incite nothing violent (i.e. "just talk"), a position which only a defensive crouching person would find reasonable. This of course implicitly acknowledges weakness (We're nothing but a bunch of big talkers. Don't take us seriously).

Joe is playing one move ahead on the chess board. Smart.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 18, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Scarborough is in "good Beltway standing"?! That should sound alarms right there. Obviously, no one asked Lori Klausutis.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 18, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK—According to media analysts, the nation's TV commentators and political pundits have proved uncannily accurate when describing the deeply disturbed inner thoughts of accused Arizona gunman Jared Loughner.

"It's strange, but when it comes to getting inside the mind of this human being who seems to possess no empathy, sense of morality, or hold on reality, and who is motivated only by personal animus and self-glorification, the nation's major political pundits have been amazingly adept," said Horizon Media analyst Bob Cullen, who has studied extensive tape of commentators on all major TV news programs and found their remarks on "what the killer is thinking" to be consistently thorough and detailed across the board. "It's almost as though they have some way of knowing, firsthand, exactly what this demented and highly dangerous individual with the eyes of millions upon him is going through."

Researchers at Horizon Media also reported that a number of prominent TV pundits appeared to be mimicking the exact same chilling gleam in Loughner's eye for what they could only speculate was "dramatic effect."

- the Onion

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"because some on the left did pin blame for the shootings on them."

====================
SOME on the left? Try every stinkin' leftie columnist and blogger in YOUR paper tried to pin it on them...and you're only the paper I read. NOW you're changing the tune because that one went flat on you. Besides that your initial response gave up the ability to influence your rabid posters who hysterically fed off your rants and now you find you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...nice job. But hey...the right should stop its whining. And what about the guy who stands up and yell's "You're dead" to a tea party leader in Arizona...who's inciting now dude? It's funny that the same side of the aisle who tried to say political speech causes gun murders is the same side of the aisle that pooh-poohed the idea that violent heavy metal and rap music caused commensurate reactions in American youth...that was just a right wing canard. You can't have it both ways. Pick one.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | January 18, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3 "Ohmigod, Greg! - Please put an end to these posts defending the legitimacy or validity of your own posts. (I thought you were opposed to torture?)

"Again, it's wrong to blame anyone for the shooting. But ask yourself this."

But, however, and so on.

This is known as employing the "Yes, but" defensive technique (aka having your cake and eating it, too)."

sbj3 - I completely agree on your assessment of the content and purpose of this post, and I officially give up on this topic.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 18, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The main point is people are tired of divisive politics - there's nothing constructive about it and it distracts from the major issues. Notice how the ones who use it most present no detailed plans for fixing problems. Sarah's defensive about using it because if she didn't say something bad about others, she'd have nothing to say.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 18, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Willy writes

SOME on the left? Try every stinkin' leftie columnist and blogger in YOUR paper tried to pin it on them...and you're only the paper I read. NOW you're changing the tune because that one went flat on you. Besides that your initial response gave up the ability to influence your rabid posters who hysterically fed off your rants and now you find you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...nice job. But hey...the right should stop its whining.

____________________________

Excellent

And WHINING is all the liberals have been doing since the November election.

These people are whining and complaining and its all because they lost the election.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON—Sources struggling to make sense of the shooting rampage in Tucson confirmed Wednesday that it would take much more than brutally gunning down a congresswoman, a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, and 17 others for the nation to rise above its current corrosive state of politics.

"This was obviously a horrific tragedy, but nowhere near the unspeakable manifestation of evil it would take for politicians and pundits to act like decent human beings,"

said analyst Grant Ames, adding that this event would have been ripe for disgusting political opportunism even if 30 or 40 people had been killed.

- the Onion.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

@Mike in A

"Unfortunately and unjustly as it might have been for Palin, her target map wasn't a difficult bridge to build between the incident and the cause."

Exactly Mike and again the eerie video of Congresswoman Giffords seemingly prescient (although we now all agree it wasn't actually prescient..it was still very eerie and the optics were simply horrible." The left didn't put up the crosshairs and refuse to take them down despite pleas from those in the crosshairs. The left didn't force Cong. Giffords to make that statement...and remember it was made BEFORE the shooting.
The question about violent rhetoric was not originally raised by the Tuscon tragedy, it preceded the shooting...the shooting only provided the match for the gasoline.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 18, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Ding..ding..ding...we have a winner.

"Sarah's defensive about using it because if she didn't say something bad about others, she'd have nothing to say.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 18, 2011 5:02 PM |"

BINGO CHRIS!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 18, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Joe Scarborough wrote an opinion column on Politico.com( A Conservative website) and all Greg did, was link to that opinion piece, and put it up for discussion.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

chris76543, was the following "something bad" that she said?

"Like millions of Americans, I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathies. I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country."

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 18, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Two of Emanuel’s rivals held rival events Tuesday at which they said Clinton’s appointment of Emanuel to the board of mortgage giant Freddie Mac aggravated the foreclosure crisis.


________________________


Something actually important to talk about:


Rahm Emanuel was on the board of Freddie Mac

Christine Gillibrand and Andrew Cuomo were at HUD when they created the sub-prime mortgage program.

Clinton - deregulated derivatives.

I tell you what Greg - are you going to continue to completely ignore the Economy and still write about:

1) Sarah Palin

2) The Republicans take secret money, but Obama never does

3) bad polls saying people want Obama's health care plan

4) Let's tweak this nuance so the liberals win -

5) Let's twist this word around so the liberal agenda sounds reasonable.


________________________

Greg -

Perhaps you could move this blog to the ONION - that is just about right.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

clawrence,

If what you quoted Sarah as saying was ALL she had said, she would have been fine. She should have stopped there. That's the point. She didn't, and everyone knows it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 18, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, thanks for your opinion, but I was asking chris76543.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 18, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Ohmigod, Greg! - Please put an end to these posts defending the legitimacy or validity of your own posts. (I thought you were opposed to torture?)


-----------------------------


Great Point sbj -

OR Greg, when you know you are wrong, let's twist things, or "nuance" them around a bit so you can SAY you are right


It really is pathetic.


How much longer will the Washington Post continue to pay you for this garbage?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

If what you quoted Sarah as saying was ALL she had said, she would have been fine. She should have stopped there. That's the point. She didn't, and everyone knows it.
------------------------------------------------
@sue,

To prove your point that everyone knows Mrs. Palin said too much, clawrence, a rabid fan of the Sarah, carefully chose his quote. Notice he didn't include the mountain of words that were defensive in nature.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 18, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I think we have spoken enough about this internet video of Sarah Palin.....

Can we move on ???

I think Sarah has about 20 more internet videos on her website - and I'm sure you will want to examine every phrase of every one of the 20 videos.

So, can all agree to go on to the next video?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

High Stakes Grifter Alert?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/18/christine-odonnell-sets-up-christinepac/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

" * January 18, 2011, 4:55 PM ET

Christine O’Donnell Sets Up ‘ChristinePAC’

Two of the most remarkable developments during the 2010 congressional elections were the sudden rise of Delaware Republican Christine O’Donnell and the millions of dollars spent on political advertisements by newly created independent campaign groups.

Now, those two forces are combining. Ms. O’Donnell is establishing an independent political group that will allow her to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of other Republican candidates.

Newly available documents from the Federal Election Commission show that one of Ms. O’Donnell’s close political advisers filed paperwork to set up a new political entity for Ms. O’Donnell called ChristinePAC.

Under new campaign-finance rules, Ms. O’Donnell can use the new political action committee to raise unlimited sums of money to run television ads or send political mailings to help Republican candidates win. But election rules bar the new organization from donating money to candidates.

Matt Moran, a spokesman for Ms. O’Donnell, said ChristinePAC “will focus on issue-activism” and will “empower citizen-activist candidates at all levels of government.”

“The ‘establishment’ has to realize,” he said, “that they ultimately represent a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ to represent ‘We the people’ and not their backroom deals and interests.”"


Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

If you haven't read Scarborough's entire article (linked at the top), do so.

Here's an excerpt:

And who on the right is really stupid enough to not understand that the political movement that has a near monopoly on gun imagery may be the first focus of an act associated with gun violence? As a conservative who had a 100 percent rating with the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America over my four terms in Congress, I wonder why some on the right can’t defend the Second Amendment without acting like jackasses.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47705.html#ixzz1BQdoZHpt

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 18, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Okay! I have figured this thing out. Now I know why the Obamacrat, media bobbleheads are obsessing hysterically about Palin and strong, conservative speech.

I'm so sure of this that no argument could convince me otherwise. Taking the mentality of media leftists, their M.O., and recent electoral disasters, IT'S ALL THEY HAVE LEFT.

Really! There's no ideas, they've spent all their political capital and all our money.

Obamacrats are broke and desperate.

It's why they are grasping and clawing to get some milage out of the Gabby Giffords shooting.

This surely is a rock-bottom, low point for the Democrat media.

And we thought they couldn't get ANY lower.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 18, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Liam wrote:

"...you have not asked why should Palin be listened too."

If that was directed at me, I accept your note as acute insight into the obvious.

If not directed at me, forget I mentioned it. Please.

A couple of you have provided responses about JS that lead me to believe you see him as positioning himself as a spokesperson for the center-right. There was a WaPo article this morning on center-right or near right Rs in Congress, and how their position mirrors Blue Dogs in the previous one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011703799.html

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 18, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell's PAC:

MyRentIsDuePAC
I'mHungryPAC
IAmNotAWitchPAC

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 18, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Okay! I have figured this thing out. Now I know why the Obamacrat, media bobbleheads are obsessing hysterically about Palin and strong, conservative speech.

I'm so sure of this that no argument could convince me otherwise. Taking the mentality of media leftists, their M.O., and recent electoral disasters, IT'S ALL THEY HAVE LEFT.

Really! There's no ideas, they've spent all their political capital and all our money.

Obamacrats are broke and desperate.

It's why they are grasping and clawing to get some mileage out of the Gabby Giffords shooting.

This surely is a rock-bottom, low point for the Democrat media.

And we thought they couldn't get ANY lower.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 18, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"And WHINING is all the liberals have been doing since the November election."

Not true. I don't hear them "whining" about anything that isn't relevant - Bush tax cuts, healthcare, etc. We need input from all sides. There's no great love for Republicans - they're on probation for another 657 days.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 18, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Source: Lieberman unlikely to seek reelection [Politico] Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:28:21 PM
The senator, deeply unpopular with voters in his home state, will make an announcement Wednesday.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"And WHINING is all the liberals have been doing since the November election."

That is just about what the lame duck session was all about

AND what the 5-day smear campaign was all about.

It is true.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

RIP Sargent Shriver

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sargent-shriver-dies-peace-corps-founder-vp-candidate/story?id=12627926

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 18, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is quitting?

Wow - that is interesting -


The Republicans are within reach of 60 votes in the Senate.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell's PAC:

MyRentIsDuePAC
I'mHungryPAC
IAmNotAWitchPAC

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 18, 2011 5:37 PM
.....................

She really missed out on TheRentIsTooDamnHighPAC.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

@Mark in Austin

As one who does wonder what might happen when the adults reclaim the R party I appreciated your link.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 18, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin can dish it out, but she can't take it. She spent months smearing President Obama for something that a domestic terrorist did, when Barack Obama was a very young schoolboy.

Now she is outraged, when her chickens came home to roost.

This is supposed to be the big tough Mama Grizzly? Good lord, she is just another Right Wing Cry Baby. No wonder she could not take the heat in the coldest state in the Union, and quit on the people who elected her to office.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

You Democrat, media jabberwockies ought to take some cues from your exalted ONE. Barack H. Obama is making you all look like wicked, little children with your wimpering, blame games.

Obama seems to be the only FAIR and BALANCED liberal standing and I know why.

He's a graduate of the "Bill Clinton School of Political Triangulation".

He knows he must become more reasonably conservative and moderate friendly if he is to have a chance for re-election.

But can he match Slick Willy??

Posted by: battleground51 | January 18, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

@rain, sbj, et ilk,

Instead of *saying* Greg was wrong, how about *showing* how he was wrong by *presenting evidence* of his error. Is apoplectic ad hominem all you've got to add to the discussion?

How about we move past the ad hominem and discuss the relationship between political culture and political violence and whether or not the current political climate could lead to future violence?

Any chance we can do that?

Posted by: mmyotis | January 18, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/bysiewicz-to-vie-for-liebermans-senate-seat/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29

"CNN) - A prominent Connecticut Democratic politician announced Tuesday her intentions to launch a bid for the state's Senate seat currently held by independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

Former Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz's announcement may encourage others eyeing the Democratic nomination to announce their intentions sooner rather than later. Reps. Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are said to be considering a bid; Lieberman's Democratic colleagues are rumored to be encouraging him to run for re-election as a Democrat."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I think the two key words in Scarborough's article are....

"...political momentum."

It's all about 2012 now. I seriously doubt that Republicans are eager to see Sarah Palin lose another presidential election for them. The beltway Republicans know it's time to start reining in the crazies in their party before they do too much damage to their chances in 2012....in other words, destroy what they see as their political momentum after the midterm elections.

Ms. Palin is something like the political version of an American Idol winner. Eventually, they all fade to obscurity. We've already seen plenty of subtle evidence that the DC Republican crowd is even now working on making sure she's in about minute 14 of her 15 minutes of fame.

Sure, she'll stick around, in some form or another, until 2012...if they can figure out a way to rein her in, and provided she raises serious cash for the Republican party. But we've already seen plenty of signs from establishment Republicans that she is eventually going to need to follow Michael Steele and exit stage right, stage left,....or perhaps they will come up with a deus ex machina in her case. After all, we've already seen plenty of jabs at her, including from Barbara Bush.

At any rate, despite the howls from her devoted followers, it's not going to be the Democrats who drive Sarah out of the spotlight. It's going to be the beltway Republicans.

Posted by: elscott | January 18, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Per Politicalwire.com

"Frist Urges GOP to Stop Health Care Repeal
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) advised Republicans in Congress to drop their bid to repeal the health-care reform law and instead make changes to it and build on it, the Huffington Post reports.

Said Frist: "It is not the bill that [Republicans] would have written. It is not the bill that I would have drafted. But it is the law of the land and it is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future efforts to make that system better, for that patient, for that family, will be based."

He noted the law "has many strong elements. And those elements, whatever happens, need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented.""

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 5:55 PM | Report abuse

What I hear the folks on the right saying is that their rhetoric is not/cannot/will not result in any violence.

BUT

The rhetoric from the left (pointing out the rhetoric from the right) has put Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (at least) in danger.

Do I have that correct?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 18, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still and Greg:

Did Governor Palin begin her political career at Jarred Loughner's house? Because Mr. Obama began his career at admitted terrorist Bill Ayers' house. See the difference? Did Mr. Loughner employ Gov. Palin in his organization like Mr. Ayers did Barack Obama? Did Gov. Palin work for an admitted voter fraud outfit like ACORN? Did Gov. Palin spend 20 years in the pews of an America-hating racist church? I could go on and on....

Posted by: sandbear | January 18, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Pragmaticiagin

You fail to listen to your own left - who speak in violent terms as well.

Your comment is extremely foolish.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Palin hits new low CNN Gallup Poll.

"ashington (CNN) - After a difficult and controversial two-week stretch for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor's favorable rating has dipped to its lowest level since she joined the 2008 Republican presidential ticket and became a household name.

According to the new USA TODAY/Gallup survey, Palin's favorability rating has dipped to 38 percent while her unfavorable now stands at 53 percent. Gallup reports the 38 percent is a new low when it comes to the percentage of Americans who give the former Alaska governor a thumbs up. The 53 percent who dislike Palin is also a new high in Gallup polling. A similar poll in July found 44 percent of Americans viewed her favorably while 47 percent did not."

...............................

Start the count down to when Sarah accuses Gallup of "blood libel."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

What I hear the folks on the right saying is that their rhetoric is not/cannot/will not result in any violence.

BUT

The rhetoric from the left (pointing out the rhetoric from the right) has put Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (at least) in danger.

Do I have that correct?
-------------------------------------------------
But, you don't understand, pragie...

You see the Right are just a bunch of blowhards not to be taken seriously. They're like my dachshund who barks like crazy, but then flips on his back and pees in the air as soon as a big dog looks at him. "Don't worry about me. I'm just barking." he says.

But, the Left--they are a bunch of scarey dudes. They are the Big Dogs.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 18, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

elscott: "At any rate, despite the howls from her devoted followers, it's not going to be the Democrats who drive Sarah out of the spotlight. It's going to be the beltway Republicans."

Good post!

And you are right, the Dems aren't going to drive her off the stage, and frankly, why would they want to anyway? She's a gift to the Dems. And a danger to the GOP. Seems like some of them are figuring this out, but handling her is not going to be easy, especially since she (rather crassly) announced that she is not going to sit down and shut up.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 18, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The possibility of Connecticut electing a Republican senator to replace Lieberman is quite small. A far greater possibility is that Lieberman's replacement would be a significantly more liberal Democrat than he ever was.

Posted by: mmyotis | January 18, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I just want to make sure you are aware that 12barbluesAgain is responsible for bringing Cao to this blog.

She did this knowing FULL WELL what he would do on this blog.

She acted to destroy this blog.

I just want to be clear.

12Barblues should be banned forever.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Drawing a line connecting violent rhetoric with murder *isn't even necessary* were it even possible.

Ask African Americans in Mississippi in say, 1920, what they thought of a connection between racist, degrading and violent rhetoric and the actions of so many Whites.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 18, 2011 6:10 PM | Report abuse

But Sandbear;

Your half baked Alaskan heroine just stated that only the person who commits the act of violence should be held responsible for it,

and yet you are still trying to lay the blame at the feet of very young schoolboy, as Sarah did.

Sarah and you want to smear President Obama with "a blood libel", while all the time whining about how unfair it is to draw attention to the violent political imagery and language Sarah sprayed around indiscriminately.

She can not have it both ways, but of course then she would not be Sarah Palin.

She took far more money back from Washington than Alaska send there, and she raised taxes on the oil companies, just to send out free checks to all the people of Alaska, even though there is no state income tax.

She governed more like Hugo Chavez than a fiscal conservative, while all the time campaigning against the big spenders in Washington. Yet she still kept taking more from them, than she sent to them.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

sandbear,

"Did Governor Palin begin her political career at Jarred Loughner's house? Because Mr. Obama began his career at admitted terrorist Bill Ayers' house. See the difference? Did Mr. Loughner employ Gov. Palin in his organization like Mr. Ayers did Barack Obama? Did Gov. Palin work for an admitted voter fraud outfit like ACORN? Did Gov. Palin spend 20 years in the pews of an America-hating racist church? I could go on and on...."

No one here ever blamed Sarah Palin for what Jarred Loughner did. So what's your point?

Posted by: mmyotis | January 18, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I think that Linda McMahon's loss had more to do with the people in that State just not liking her personally - the Stae can go Republican.


Also, the Republicans should keep an eye on the number of bags containing ballots in Bridgeport - apparently a number of extra bags turned up.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 18, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Per TPM

"FBI: Bomb Planted Along MLK Day Parade Route In Spokane"

"incendiary device found along the route of a Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was "likely capable of inflicting multiple casualties," the FBI said today.

A city employee found a backpack Monday morning, just before the parade was to start, in a parking lot that was both on the parade route and across the street from a performing arts center that hosted a pre-parade rally.

More than 1,000 people attended the parade, according to the Spokesman-Review.

Police responded, followed by the FBI. Several blocks around the parking lot were shut down, and the parade was re-routed. The area was shut down all day, as agents first dismantled the device, using a robot, and then called in hazmat teams.

The FBI said today that the device posed a credible threat.

"Subsequent preliminary analysis revealed the backpack contained a potentially deadly destructive device, likely capable of inflicting multiple casualties," the agency said in a statement.

The device was found stuffed in the backpack and wrapped in several T-shirts. The FBI is offering a $20,000 reward for information about the person who left it there. "

Posted by: Liam-still | January 18, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/happy_hour_roundup_167.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 18, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

mmyotis, perhaps this is the first Plum Line thread you've ever read, but SEVERAL people here have directly accused Palin of being an accessory to murder (someone today on the "Even Republicans say media handled shooting better than Sarah Palin did" thread accused her of having the blood of a 9-year old girl on her hands). I have also pointed out repeatedly that Greg only bans CONSERVATIVE posters when at least one LIBERAL poster says worse things and has never been banned.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 18, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

JS is positioning himself as a voice of reason in the Republican party, but he is also representing the voice of the Republican establishment.

The attacks within the Republican party to "disarm" Palin (to use her own lingo) have only just begun. Palin should talk to Hilary, because she is so ill-equipped and thin-skinned for what's coming.

Popcorn time. :)

Posted by: Beeliever | January 18, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising is really S.L. Palin in drag. Note the similar rhetorical flourishes, the same Geobbelesque dedication to repeating the small fib, the shrill tone...

I hope Ms. I Won the IQuitterodd never sits down or shuts up. Here mer (oh, so very mere) existence proves that evolution skips some gene pools. I offer myself up as the blameworthy one for the next time she tries to deflect criticism for her own inevitable Fubarian foibles.

Posted by: mmmapache | January 18, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he should be telling this to the Daily Kos and Obermann.

Posted by: Thor4 | January 18, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

sue writes: "She's a gift to the Dems. And a danger to the GOP. Seems like some of them are figuring this out, but handling her is not going to be easy, especially since she (rather crassly) announced that she is not going to sit down and shut up."

Sue, I figure that, at some point, she's going to go all Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard on us. It should be quite a show.

Beeliever, when that happens will you share your popcorn with us? ;)

Posted by: elscott | January 18, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

At some point, the law of averages will catch up with Limbaugh, Beck, Savage and the rest of the hate and discontent crowd in the media, when some suspect in a shooting or bombing is found to have a large collection of promotional material for some of these "entertainers". There will be a stampede out the door of most of their advertisers. No advertisers, no programs.

Posted by: ners1507 | January 18, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Worth noting that a honest pronouncement from a conservative is such a rarity that it merits a whole column.

So when did conservatives formally decide that truth didn't matter? Was it at Atwater time or was it Rove time?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 19, 2011 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Beck already has blood on his hand. How come everybody is talking about the incident that cant be proved and are ignoring the ones that are proven?? Like the guy above posted:
Don't forget Glen Beck:

"Byron Williams: Arrested while driving to the HQ of the liberal non-profit group The Tides Foundation carrying numerous guns and body armor, intent on killing everyone in the office, before moving on to do the same thing at the ACLU. Williams confessed he views Beck as a “schoolteacher” who “blew my mind.” The would-be killer admitted that Beck “give[s] you every ounce of evidence you could possibly need” to commit violence. He awaits trial in jail."

http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/6-lunatics-inspired-by-fox-news-and-glenn-beck/6399

The entire article is worth reading.

Posted by: jimbobkalina1 | January 19, 2011 4:59 AM | Report abuse

John Cole: I am entirely vindicated. Even though I was making a very limited point for the last week, it was enough for Joe Scarborough to understand and pick up on.

(4jkb4ia grins from ear to ear)

Posted by: 4jkb4ia | January 19, 2011 6:59 AM | Report abuse

ners1507 or jimbobkalina1, now Beck has "blood on his hands" even when there was no blood shed? Are you guys listening to what you're saying? Speaking of "law of averages" what's to prevent a closet liberal from shooting up a bunch of people and claiming that Beck made him do it?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 19, 2011 7:01 AM | Report abuse

[Greg *quibbles*: "Again, it's wrong to blame anyone for the shooting. But..."]

...but, But BUT! Greg DEMANDED to know last week: "Which side is more to blame?"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/which_side_is_more_to_blame.html

*quibble*: A distinction without a difference.

We all know that Leftists know the answer already, Greg.

The Zeitgeist shooter is a creature of the Left. Own him.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 19, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Leftists want us to focus on (alleged) "right-wing" extremism rather than the Zeitgeist shooters discipleship with Obama mentor, Bill Ayers.

When can honest folks expect Greg to "engage" in examining "the broader question" of the role of President Obama, the Extremist-in-Chief.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/did-barack-obama-cause-the-shootings-yesterday-in-tucson

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

If Leftists really want to consider the atmosphere of violent language, they should start at the White House.

AZ Zeitgeist Shooter is Leftist-terrorist Bill Ayers disciple
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=249429#ixzz1AfFPHymn

"Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in Saturday's Arizona shooting, attended a high school that is part of a network in which teachers are trained and provided resources by a liberal group founded by Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and funded by President Obama..."

I eagerly await Greg’s strong denunciation of Obama’s violent rhetoric.

Own him, Leftists. He's all yours.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 19, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"Leftists want us to focus on (alleged) "right-wing" extremism rather than the Zeitgeist shooters discipleship with Obama mentor, Bill Ayers."


Careful, you'll pull some serious muscles with such an elaborate stretch.....

Posted by: steve-2304 | January 19, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Between the Palin rallies on the East Coast where the chants of "Kill Him" and "Kill Them" were heard and recorded, Jesse Kellys' picture of himself with a shaven head, tank top and an M16 which was on his website in the fund raising section and the Sarahpac "Targets" pic...neither the media nor a growing number of Americans are wrong to look to the Tea Party in regards this tragic event.

Posted by: rrowleyarizona | January 19, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company