Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:31 PM ET, 01/10/2011

The Tucson tragedy: freedom from violent rhetoric and imagery

By Jonathan Capehart

So far, there's no connection between alleged murderer Jared Lee Loughner and the extremes of the Tea Party movement. But that's beside the point now, if you ask me. The horrific violence in Tucson saw Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) go from being in the crosshairs of opponents metaphorically to literally being gunned down on Saturday. As a result, we are now finally engaging in a long overdue conversation about the violent rhetoric and imagery polluting national political discourse.

Since the news broke, I've been uncomfortable with the knee-jerk vitriol from some on the left before knowing the alleged murderer's name or his background. But I have been angered by those on the right who are desperate to make a Loughner a lone nut job cut off from the society around him. I just don't think that's possible. The political environment in Arizona had become so toxic that even Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik proclaimed, "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital."

In this third "Inside Voice" anthology I reprise the blog posts that raised alarms about the anger and scariness of our times. Not everyone on the right was silent. My colleagues Kathleen Parker and Michael Gerson were among the very few voices to call on Republican leaders to tamp down the rhetoric. Their lone voices needed to be joined by a choir. If it's possible for any good to come out of the Tucson tragedy let it be that the choir finally formed.

After her health-care vote last March, Giffords's seat was targeted by Sarah Palin's political action committee. On MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," the Arizona congresswoman decried the overheated rhetoric. "When people do that," Giffords warned then, "they've got to realize there are consequence­s to that action."

PRELUDE: McCain's chilling dance with the dark side (Oct. 10, 2008)
The first signs of the coming anger were exhibited during the 2008 presidential campaign. By practically branding Barack Obama as un-American or anti-American, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), elicited an ugliness at their rallies in Oct. 2008 "that is justifiably raising alarms that some nut job is going to act on the Republican ticket's cynical campaigning."

CHAPTER ONE: A Scary Tea Party (Feb. 16, 2010)
"There are legitimate concerns being expressed by many in the Tea Party movement. But the GOP should not let its quest for returning to the majority stop them from forcefully condemning the radical forces taking hold on its right flank."

CHAPTER TWO: The Republicans continue to 'cultivate rage' (March 22, 2010)
Anger comes to Capitol Hill during the health-care vote. Democratic members of Congress are pelted with saliva, the N-word and the F-word. "This is dangerous stuff that Republican leaders must -- MUST -- snuff out sooner rather than later....Those who play up rather than tamp down or constructively channel that rage will be complicit in the ugly and violent denouement."

CHAPTER THREE: Republicans on the 'firing line' (March 25, 2010)
The atmosphere around the Capitol and the country is toxic as violence and threats against lawmakers reach a fever pitch after the health-care law is voted on and signed by Obama. In this mix comes Palin's "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" tweet and her infamous (even then) map of crosshair-targeted districts. Rather than tamp down the extreme voices on their right flank, too many Republican leaders seemed "content to sow the seeds of anger and mistrust with wink-and-nod rhetoric that serves to foment the violent impulses they say they condemn."

CHAPTER FOUR: How soon we forget (March 29, 2010)
In the wake of the health-care vote, New York Times columnist Frank Rich takes us back to the beginning of the populist anger. "The first signs were the shrieks of 'traitor' and 'off with his head' at Palin rallies as Obama's election became more likely in October 2008," he wrote. "Do you remember the atmosphere then?" I asked. "It crackled with fear."

Sadly, the atmosphere crackles with fear once more. Our leaders broadly defined need to free the body politic of that fear by changing the tone in Washington and on the airwaves.

By Jonathan Capehart  | January 10, 2011; 3:31 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reconciliation in the school reform war
Next: Angry words about angry words -- is the Giffords debate helping?

Comments

If you are wondering whether the Tea Party types and Republicans will even consider acting in a responsible manner, you are mistaken. The hate radio folks are full bore in circling their wagons and attacking Sheriff Dubpnik. Limbaugh is blaming the Democratic Party. These people thrive on hatred and their delusional belief that they are victims; they will never change. The Republicans? They will render non-apology apologies, speak tribute on CSPN to Congresswoman Giffords, and decide behind the scenes how best to take advantage of this tragedy and keep the crazies voting Republican.

Posted by: UncommonCommoner | January 10, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

send a generation of young americans into the horrors of COMBAT...

these is now the wars of the anti-war left...

and I am now officially independent,
this hate rhetoric from you racist alarmists would make charlie manson
proud....

bring the troops home, and spend some of that money you are giving to goldman sacs
to the recovery of our troops...

Posted by: simonsays1 | January 10, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

the HATE talk from the left is endorsed by the national media.

Posted by: simonsays1 | January 10, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Leftists have wanted either Bush or Cheney dead for the last 10 years. Leftists can say anything. If they are criticized, they yell about freedom of speech. The media rarely has anything to say about leftist hate speech.

Below are some posts from WaPo and one from an article in which the left wants Bush or Cheney to die. There are multiple posts and articles that advocate their death. These are only just a few examples. The leftists are hypocrites:

fslearjet wrote:
I am astonished that this man has survived the number of heart attacks that he has received. My question would be are follows: 1)What is keeping this man alive is it Kryptonite? 2)Isn't the devil ready for this man? 3)Why wasn't this man ever investigated for the immoral and criminal acts that he has knowingly engaged in and had knowledge and consent on? I guess in a moral/mortal human being any individual who had a medical condition like this man would have been dead years ago? 7/15/2010 8:31:15 AM

Parsley1 wrote:
Please God......Make your creation to give Cheney a liberal heart happen. If they put him at the front of the list he's gotta take what they offer. If he doesn't he'll look.....dead.....because he will be if he doesn't take that liberal heart! I see major fundraising in Cheney's extension of life for Obama 2012! Please God?
7/15/2010 6:39:06 AM

B-rod wrote:
I KNEW I should have thrust the wooden stake harder into his heart, that would have killed him for sure. It's all my fault! I should have tried harder to killed that g@ddamn vampire!

Larsonlk wrote:
I didn't bring up any facts in any post, I couldn't care less about what you or any one else believes to be fact. I just think he's a real American Dick and I am tire of seeing his mug show up in the news and I am looking forward to the day when his sorry rear end is history.

Walton1us wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that he is recovering. I hope that he is in a lot of pain. He sure inflicted a lot of pain and suffering on innocent people for his own heartless goals.

Here is the full quote and the context from The Australian newspaper:

“Nobel peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday, lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.

Campaigning on the rights of young people at the Earth Dialogues forum, being held in Brisbane, Ms Williams spoke passionately about the deaths of innocent children during wartime, particularly in the Middle East, and lambasted Mr Bush.

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/24/nobel-peace-laureate-i-wo_n_25717.html


Posted by: Dodgers1 | January 10, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

There is no proof...let me say again, NO PROOF, that right wing "hate speech" encouraged this nut job to do what he did.

As a matter of fact, I understand he had developed a fondness for reading "The Communist Manifesto", not exactly known as light reading for any God-fearing conservative.

So, let's nip this nonsense in the bud, and see it for what it really is: an excuse for liberals to try to institute the Fairness Doctrine. Again.

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

It seems rather hypocritical, Mr. Capehart, for you to complain about left-wing vitriol when you're a regular commentator on MSNBC.

I recognize that there's no moral equivalency between the mere political stridency of the far left and the incitements to violence coming from the far right, but frankly, I can hardly even watch MSNBC any more.

If you're so uncomfortable with the vitriol, when are you going to turn down that check?

Posted by: Itzajob | January 10, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"Since the news broke, I've been uncomfortable with the knee-jerk vitriol from some on the left"

And I've been uncomfortable with the hate -America rehtoric coming out of the Red-left for 40 years..."Hey hey LBJ," "Peace Now," "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot," "Criminal," "Nazi," "Palin B***h," well, you know it better than I

Oh Mr. Capehart, I've been uncomfortable with your racist, victim-now, hate white Americans, rhetoric for the last 10 years. You going to change?

Posted by: wjc1va | January 10, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"Since the news broke, I've been uncomfortable with the knee-jerk vitriol from some on the left"

And I've been uncomfortable with the hate -America rhetoric coming out of the Red-left for 40 years..."Hey hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today," "Peace Now," "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot," "Criminal," "Nazi," "draft dodger," "Palin B*t*h," well, you know it better than I

Oh and Mr. Capehart, I've been uncomfortable with your racist, victimhood, hate white Americans, rhetoric for the last 10 years. You going to change?

Posted by: wjc1va | January 10, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Notice that Capeheart is encouraging us to take the high road while he essentially tries to charge Republicans with mass murder.

This isn't exactly the proper time to exploit a tragedy. It's one thing to legitimately disagree with one's political opponents but it's another matter altogether when people like Capeheart actively try to ruin careers with their vapid rhetoric.

The Post has an inordinate number of columnists who have taken the low road in this case. I can't help but wonder if this going to boost sales, or simply expose the Post's "journalists" as the bunch of charlatans that they are.

Posted by: diehardlib | January 10, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

yep, we should bad all potentially violent images and speech.

because freedom from speech, is more important than freedom of it.

spoken like a true dictator. I am ashamed that people have the guts to write this type of craziness.

Posted by: docwhocuts | January 10, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

As these comments show, it is not the tone of the conversation that is the problem but the ignorance and the inability of self reflexion of right wingers...So sad...

Posted by: jungleeagle | January 10, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

As these comments show, it is not the tone of the conversation that is the problem but the ignorance and the inability of self reflexion of right wingers...So sad...

Posted by: jungleeagle | January 10, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

let the book burnings begin.

anything about revolution, or uprising... burn it

anything about govt overthrow... burn it

anything about racism... burn it

anything cartoons about zealots bombing innocent people.... banned....

oh.... the author suggests that we cave into extremists...
oh.... the book burners/speech silencers from the past have all been evil dictators.

oh.... that banning speech thing sounds dangerous.

Posted by: docwhocuts | January 10, 2011 9:18 PM | Report abuse

"but the ignorance and the inability of self reflexion of right wingers.."

Uh Mr. Beria...or Mr. Dzerjinsky, take a look at what you just said...go back to your godless-head daily kos and look what you put out everday...and quit the holier than thou (not that you believe in God) and tell me you are a bigot, a red liar, a propagandist, a hate monger, and that you wouldn't love to shut me up and put me in a concentration camp. That's what Reds do you know.

Posted by: wjc1va | January 10, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Yah, n' like, "freedom from violent rhetoric" is like, bAD, n' stUFF. Freedom of speech is not like, really needED, you know? We should all just get together and um, like, think like um, you know, like robots who just do what they're tOLD, you know? Yah, cuz thats cool, n' stuff. I'm sure after we get rid of the "right wingers" the oligarchy will want to keep the "left wing" around, yah? Sure.

Posted by: shred11 | January 10, 2011 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Notice that Capeheart is encouraging us to take the high road while he essentially tries to charge Republicans with mass murder....No age gap is too wide if you both feel so right.We don't care about the social "norm" but chemistry. Many couples with age gap work out fine and get alone splendidly. We celebrate the age gap love and May-December romance. Check out AgeGapLove.com if you are interested in ageless relationships..

Posted by: sasago | January 11, 2011 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Jon, many would have us believe that there were no precursors to the despicable behavior we saw in Arizona. The sheriff who has lived there all of his life has watched the state become the hallmark for intolerance and bigotry.

Posted by: topryder1 | January 11, 2011 5:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm unaware of incidents where violent political rhetoric caused a mentally ill person to commit violence against a politician.

Truman was almost killed by Puerto Rican natinonalists, but they were sane. Oswald was violent long before the ads about Kennedy and treason appeared in Dallas newspapers. Sam Byck was mentally ill when he tried to fly a jet into the Nixon White House, but he was angry at the Small Business Administration.

Squeeky Fromme was a member of the Manson Family long before she tried to kill President Ford. Sara Jane Moore, who also tried to kill Ford, was sane. Hinckley shot Reagan, but Hinckley was insane and obsessed with a movie star. However, the connection between the film "Taxi Driver" and Reagan was almost non-existant.

Bremer shot Wallace because Wallace was a segregationist. Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK because RFK wanted to sell jets to Israel. MLK, Jr. was killed by a white supremacist. None was motivated by violent rhetoric in the media.

I cannot think of a single instance where violent political rhetoric caused a mentally ill person to harm a politician. The mentally ill are so disabled that they can't be swayed by rhetoric. Often, the insane can't even be persuaded to come in out of the freezing cold. The criminally-minded however can be influenced by media -- like the local area bank robbery gang in 2004 that fashioned themselves after the 1995 film, "Heat." But they were criminals, not mentally ill people.

We're now learning that Jared Loughner's odd behavior was well known to many for a long time, as was his dislike for Rep. Giffords.

Can anyone else recall an instance where a mentally ill person was swayed to action by violent political rhetoric?

Posted by: blasmaic | January 11, 2011 6:11 AM | Report abuse

But the "KILL BUSH" imagery and rhetoric was OK?

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

What a pathetic, hypocritical mouthpiece you are, Capehart.

Posted by: grunk | January 11, 2011 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Capehart...you're so predictable. Have you nothing original to say? "So far...blah blah blah". So that's his defense, Palin made me do it? Go back to sleep, please.

Posted by: wadeb123 | January 11, 2011 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Instead of taking a moment to come together as a nation over this, the left immediately blamed the right, which brings a predictable response and the discourse gets worse. The left needs to remember how it reacted with violent metaphors (if they were metaphors) to Bush. See this chilling reminder: http://nagarjunaa.blogspot.com/2010/04/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests.html
I hope the right will see the Olberman's of the world for what they are - partisan hacks - and let it go. We can still come together over this.

Posted by: longbow1 | January 11, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse

I really do enjoy these columns of the last few days. Ezra Klein must have restarted his listserv, sending out a template for all the journolisters to use when putting together their media materpieces. Here's the template:

a) First, establish you understand that there is no evidence linking the shooter to Conservatives, Republicans, etc. Work in the word "extreme" as you can to link that concept with conservatives and Republicans. Make sure you also get Tea Party in the discussion early.

b) Once you have established that you haven't seen any evidence linking these groups, OR their "rhetoric" to the shooter, go ahead and provide anecdotes that clearly leave the reader believing that these examples MUST have caused something to happen. Be clever. Your enemies are much more well informed than they were in the old, pre internet, pre cable days.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | January 11, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Heh, the facts are "beside the point."

Get this garbage off my newspaper screen.

.

Posted by: ZZim | January 11, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you Capehart.

Shame on Milbank for piling on.

Today, David Brooks, New York Times writes:

“These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave.”

“They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky.”

“They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness. “

Posted by: pvilso24 | January 11, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Capehart begins his tiresome post:
"So far, there's no connection between alleged murderer Jared Lee Loughner and the extremes of the Tea Party movement."

And *so far*, there is no connection between the alleged killer and Jonathan Capehart.

Posted by: spamsux1 | January 11, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"Since the news broke, I've been uncomfortable with the knee-jerk vitriol from some on the left before knowing the alleged murderer's name or his background."

Is this really what made you uncomfortable, or are you just jealous that they beat you to the punch? If you really are being honest, then how does this square with the condition you cite: "knowing the alleged murderer's name or his background". That is, if you really regarded comments on the part of left-wing pundits as inappropriate because they rushed to judgement before all the evidence was in, then what is it about the evidence seen thus far that makes it appropriate for you to do exactly the same thing? Because this would be a good place to mention such facts. The most reasonable explanation for this little detour is a cowardly evasion designed to give the appearance of moderation and evenhandedness, without making any substantive step towards such qualities.

"But I have been angered by those on the right who are desperate to make a Loughner a lone nut job cut off from the society around him."

Then go to it -if this is such an unreasonable position, then let us know why. Let's see, we already know that he was kicked out of a community college for inappropriate actions, an action that seems to have been motivated by the belief that he was a danger to those around him. In what way does he not match the profile of a lone nutjob? Was it seeing the calm, sane looking post-attack photo of the killer that caused you to question his isolation and insanity? Could he hold down a job? Did he have a girlfriend? A close network of friends and family?

"The political environment in Arizona had become so toxic that even Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik proclaimed, "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital."

This might be a good place to establish a standard for toxicity that was measured by some of standard other than political positions that you disagree with. I'm being facetious of course, you obviously aren't capable of anything more than name calling, slander and disingenuous posturing.

Posted by: jbrenner1 | January 11, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

An Open Letter to ArizonaAttorney General Horne,

As the Attorney General of Arizona, will your office be pursuing charges of incitement to violence or reckless endangerment against Sarah Palin for targeting Rep. Giffords with a gun site on a map to her office? "Incitement to violence" can legitimately apply to actual encouragement of violence against specific innocent parties by a speaker or writer. Rep. Giffords expressed her dismay and concern because of Palin's “rifle-sight” map, which was available on Palin's Facebook profile until her staff pulled the content shortly after the tragedy occurred. Rep. Giffords spoke about how she felt threatened after publication of Palin's gun sight map. At the time Giffords reacted to the map in an interview on a cable news program."When people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action," And, in fact, as you know Rep. Giffords office was vandalized a week later. The fact that Palin's staff removed the map from her facebook page after the shooting shows that Palin realized the effect that her recklessness contributed this tragedy.
When Palin decided to recklessly publish such a map, she is not absolved when a person follows through on what was suggested by the rifle-site map and her frequent preference for using shooting terms in her speeches. As a public figure she has influence over many individuals, so the bar for her actions should be much higher than for someone who is not in the spotlight. Palin does not get to say or infer anything she wants and when a tragedy occurs contend that this is the action of a deranged individual. Her words have the power to especially influence those who are unbalanced and make them think that their actions, no matter how heinous, can be considered patriotic.
In conclusion, as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Arizona, it should be your duty to demonstrate to the rest of the country that Ms. Palin's reckless behavior contributed to encouraging such an attack on Rep. Gifford. It is not Palin's free speech right to incite violence. In fact, these charges should have been pursued at the time the rifle-site map was published.

Posted by: JudgeRoyBean | January 11, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

The constitution does not list freedom from violent rhetoric and imagery. By the time a child is seven he/she has watched thousands of hours of violent cartoons and thousands of murder victims on regularly scheduled TV programing.

By the the time the child is a teenager, many have played violent video games for hundreds of hours. We are a violent and militaristic society that invades and occupies other nations whenever we feel like it.

Our doctors prescribe dangerous medications to control children like Prozac, Ritalin and Accutane that often cause violence and sucicidal ideation.

When Cohen, Milbank, Robinson and Capehart tone down their polarizing political rhetoric - maybe the rest of us will, too.

Posted by: alance | January 11, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I feel that we have reached a dangerous avenue with the violence we see in our society today. First I am a gun owner and strongly believe in being able to own firearms freely. One thing that I have been concerned a bout is the violence children are brought up dealing with. We have many violent movies and games that do not depict the true consequences of pointing a gun at someone. In the cartoons the person is comically depicted with soot and dirt and clothes in dissarray, but still they live. Actors violently killed in movies show up the next day well and unharmed. After years of this input I don't think the reality of violent acts and what they cause is there. It is too shrouded in make-believe.
The mud slinging and name calling in politics has had me turned off for years. We all know there is more than one way to see any issue and why if someone sees things differently than you do are they wrong. I would like to see parties work closer together ie. each party elects their leader then the two or three leaders get together and make it work. We are all on the same floating ball in space or in the same fish bowl we need to come together before killing someone for thinking differently becomes the norm.

Posted by: ecomgirl | January 11, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I feel that we have reached a dangerous avenue with the violence we see in our society today. First I am a gun owner and strongly believe in being able to own firearms freely. One thing that I have been concerned a bout is the violence children are brought up dealing with. We have many violent movies and games that do not depict the true consequences of pointing a gun at someone. In the cartoons the person is comically depicted with soot and dirt and clothes in dissarray, but still they live. Actors violently killed in movies show up the next day well and unharmed. After years of this input I don't think the reality of violent acts and what they cause is there. It is too shrouded in make-believe.
The mud slinging and name calling in politics has had me turned off for years. We all know there is more than one way to see any issue and why if someone sees things differently than you do are they wrong. I would like to see parties work closer together ie. each party elects their leader then the two or three leaders get together and make it work. We are all on the same floating ball in space or in the same fish bowl we need to come together before killing someone for thinking differently becomes the norm.

Posted by: ecomgirl | January 11, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Leftists and Democrats want us to focus on the (alleged) "right-wing extremism" rather than the Leftist shooters discipleship with Obama mentor, Bill Ayers. Maybe they should start with condemning 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.

BREAKING: AZ 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 the MSM’s strong denunciation of Obama’s violent rhetoric.

Own him, Leftists. He's all yours.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 11, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Black GOP chairman resigns due to terrorist threats from Tea Party:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AqMYTq70

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | January 12, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

NewsBusters| WashPost Offers Al Sharpton a Peacemaker Op-Ed: 'Passion Without Poison'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/13/washpost-offers-al-sharpton-peacemaker-op-ed-passion-without-poison

Posted by: StewartIII | January 13, 2011 11:24 AM | Report abuse

NewsBusters| WashPost Offers Al Sharpton a Peacemaker Op-Ed: 'Passion Without Poison'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/13/washpost-offers-al-sharpton-peacemaker-op-ed-passion-without-poison

Posted by: StewartIII | January 13, 2011 11:27 AM | 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