Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:15 PM ET, 01/10/2011

On second thought, maybe it's not Palin's fault

By Jennifer Rubin

Paul Krugman is still spewing his anti-conservative venom and spinning a tale that conservative rhetoric caused the Arizona slaughter. All that is missing are any facts to support his rant.

But meanwhile, more responsible outlets are fessing up: there really isn't any political angle here. The shooter was a nut. A.P. reports:

[Two friends of Loughner] spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they wanted to avoid the publicity surrounding the case. To them, the question was classic Jared: confrontational, nonsensical and obsessed with how words create reality.

The friends' comments paint a picture bolstered by other former classmates and Loughner's own Internet postings: that of a social outcast with nihilistic, almost indecipherable beliefs steeped in mistrust and paranoia.

Meanwhile over at Salon, Steve Kornacki admits he jumped to the conclusion that conservative rhetoric was at the nub of the problem. But unlike Krugman, he is persuaded by the facts. He implores his readers not to "make this something it isn't." After reciting the litany of signs that Jared Loughner was unstable (e.g. his fixation on grammar, his "left-wing" description offered by a classmate, his reading list) Kornacki acknowledges that Loughner is "just basically crazy." He suggests the left is hurting its cause by "trying just a little too hard to make [Palin] the villain." Are you listening, Paul Krugman?

Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard explains how reporters and pundits have tried to connect the incident to conservative campaign rhetoric, despite the lack of evidence. He writes:

The resulting stories are often incoherent with reporters and commentators acknowledging that Loughner did not appear to have been driven primarily by politics but nonetheless offering vague indictments of political rhetoric on the right. So rather than actual reporting we have lots of "simmering" and "swirling" in "a climate of hatred and fear" or "today's inflamed political environment."

It's hard to escape the conclusion that this sort of insinuation is motivated by partisanship. Krugman, who infamously suggested Senator Joe Lieberman be hanged in effigy, can't pass up the chance to smear his critics and opponents on the right. But there is also at work here the desperate desire to explain the inexplicable. It's horrible enough to take in the carnage; it is even scarier to imagine that there are crazy people out there who will do irrational, awful things. So much easier to say "guns are to blame" or "political rhetoric" is to blame than to accept we are not in complete control of our environment.

As Stephen put it, sometimes a "tragedy is just a tragedy." It's about time media figures leveled with the public about that regrettable fact.

By Jennifer Rubin  | January 10, 2011; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  Arizona shooting  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Which 2012 GOP contender will lead on national security?
Next: A civil rights official disgraces himself

Comments

Krugman and his ilk climbed out on a limb and are either too stupid or ideologically driven to know to stop sawing. Ironically, the actions of a disturbed individual reveals (once again) a nest of verminous disturbed ideologues.

Posted by: DocC1 | January 10, 2011 12:35 PM | Report abuse

If the Tea Party is guilty of this crime, then John Lennon murdered Sharon Tate.

Posted by: TheMSMControlsUs | January 10, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Krugman is right; you are not. GOP: you created this toxic environment; you own it. Now fix it!

Posted by: jfmorkan | January 10, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"He suggests the left is hurting its cause by "trying just a little too hard to make [Palin] the villain." "

oh, so she's not the villian because this guy is a left-winger who is obsessed with grammar?

Just how many people in the Tea Party and in Alaska as a whole wouldn't be "social outcasts" in Arizona?

Let's put it this way, if the guy is such a nutjob why would he shoot this woman? Does he have problems with her grammar? Did he just pull her name out of the CIA factbook on American politicians? There has to be a ine between the dots. Why assume that just because he's a "nutjob" that the political rhetoric had nothing to do with it?

It's clear that so many in the media are afraid to look like they are leaping to judgment that they are afraid to make the obvious leaps. He didn't just wander past this woman one day with a gun and decide "hey I'm going to kill someone" and open fire. His reasons may have been twisted, but he still had reasons.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 10, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"It's hard to escape the conclusion that this sort of insinuation is motivated by partisanship. "

...no more than it is to say that your defense is motivated by partisanship.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 10, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Yes, and violent Rap lyrics don't increase violence either. How is life floating on De-nile? It has been proven over and over again that music lyrics or media normalizing or glorifying violence increases violence in their audience, a lot of Rap music for instance. The mentally unstable are the canaries in the coal mine because have trouble understanding how to take rhetoric.

It is not a question of direct causation, you are being intentionally obtuse with brittle logic. It is the climate being created: what ideas are 'normal.' I understand this disturbed young man was mad at the government for controlling grammar, heated by "Don't tread on me."

Using cross-hairs in political advertising and other allusions to violent action, “Armed and dangerous,” “Second Amendment solution," "lock and load" unquestionably contributed to the violence. Oklahoma City, the shootings of "liberals" at the Unitarian church, of those police officers being shot answering a disturbance killed by a young man mad at the what he thought "the government was about to do". Even the recent shooting at the Florida school board had some disjointed connection to government control.

We have cartoonish inadequate males carrying around unloaded rifles in Arizona when Obama visits; nincompoops accusing Barney Frank of being a Nazi for supporting health care, "Minute Men" "Patriots" strutting around with side arms to 'guard our borders.' Then there are the almost crazy bilious radio rants blaming traffic jams and the rain on the liberals who need a good whack upside the head.

You are suggesting with a straight face that this kind of rhetoric does not contribute to this kind of violence?

The wonderful thing about the USA is that we don't resolve differences at the end of a gun barrel, we do it at the ballot box, and there is the patriotic obligation to limit to our inter-tribal nastiness to that. Maybe now the right-wing nuttery will become civilized, maybe they get it and maybe they will realize that they had better condemn this rhetoric for their own sakes too, violence can go in both directions and that is a monster they don't want to awaken. TONE IT DOWN, sports rhetoric work well as a limit.

Posted by: Hokum | January 10, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

A political CIVIL WAR is underway in the U.S., and, predictably, the war is claiming sentient human lives.

But a truce will never be reached because, as we all know, America is a "Christian Nation."

Posted by: slipuvalad | January 10, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

As Chris Rock said, "Whatever happened to crazy?"

Posted by: grabowcp | January 10, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I tend to agree that Palin and the Tea Party are not necessarily culpable in this. And that some on the left have jumped to conclusions. But then why can't Palin & the Tea Party just say "We're shocked and grieving like everyone else. Let's wait until more facts come out. We are all humbled by this tragedy. Full stop." Instead, they go immediately on the defensive and start calling this guy a leftist or a liberal with no basis in fact. Honestly, that hurts their credibility more than they realize.

Posted by: willows1 | January 10, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"Let's put it this way, if the guy is such a nutjob why would he shoot this woman?"

It's pretty well established now that his beef with her dates back around 2007 when he didn't like the answer she gave to some question he posed at a town hall forum about the US government and grammar. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit more before spouting off.

Posted by: grabowcp | January 10, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"But then why can't Palin & the Tea Party just say "We're shocked and grieving like everyone else. Let's wait until more facts come out. We are all humbled by this tragedy. Full stop."'

Eh, Palin did post a message to this effect on her facebook page.

Posted by: grabowcp | January 10, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

No one should use this moment to push partisan advantage and yes the shooter is clearly a disturbed man whose thinking mirrors neither side's line but the simple truth is that when politicians, parties and the media turn up the heat in the arena that the likelihood of these types of incidents increases.
The radical right has used heated, vitriolic rhetoric with increasing frequency and intensity since 2008. The tolerance for the birthers, the over the top comparisons of Mr. Obama as a dangerous Socialist or worse, the increasing references to violence - "second amendment remedies" all create an atmosphere that turns legitimate political discourse and disagreement into a life or death struggle.
The radical left of the 60's fell prey to the same rhetorical intensity, they were wrong then just as the Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys and others are wrong today in the intensity of their disagreement.
We do not live in revolutionary times and those who would make these fundamental political disagreements into life or death struggles have lost perspective. Those who deny the state of our political discourse, who deny their part in raising temperatures and roiling anger, who seek only to find or protect partisan advantage in this moment must know that their denials are empty.

Posted by: markijamison | January 10, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Here's a thought... let's say your apologistic screed for Palin holds water. Still is it a good idea to put targets on maps, tell wobbly brained people to "reload" and/or jabber about "2nd amendment remedies"?

Posted by: CardFan | January 10, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"But meanwhile, more responsible outlets are fessing up: there really isn't any political angle here. The shooter was a nut."

...sorry, the fact that the shooter was a nut does not absolve them of responsibility for what they have said any more than the fact that the weapon used was a gun and not their own words does. You put a can of gasoline next to a fireplace and then light a fire, don't say that you aren't responsible when the gasoline explodes.

You can't be a politician and talk about a strong defense and pose as tough on crime and look at our health-care costs and be aware of all the shootings that have happened in this country and go to Tea Party meetings where people are carrying AK-47s and then act as if your inflammatory speech has no effect on the borderline unhinged in this country.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 10, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What is your critique of Drudge's website today?

Posted by: pfro1228 | January 10, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

grabowcp - But then her spokesperson went on to say that they weren't pointing fingers at Al Gore when that person shot up the Discovery Channel a few years ago. And a Tea Party honcho said that Loughner was a leftist. Again, they just can't leave well enough alone. It's all about whipping up the base. And I don't include Loughner in their base.

Posted by: willows1 | January 10, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

After reading your article, I read Krugman's. It was, by no means, an "anti-conservative venomous rant". It was a critique on how conservatives have allowed increasingly violent and extreme language to take over their discourse.

Your post is a great illustration of what he is talking about.

Posted by: bknott19 | January 10, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, and violent Rap lyrics don't increase violence either."

LOL or crack.
Certainly not coke and pot :)

Well at least they wouldn't if they were LEGAL :)

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 10, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the shooter was a nut. A right-wing nut. Show me where a left-of-center political figure suggested a "hit list" of a right-of-center politician, and an attempt was made to follow up. If you have to go back 40 years to the Weathermen and the Black Panthers, all that proves is that your side is intellectually, as well as morally, bankrupt. And by the way, I thought you people thought the Washington Post was part of the "liberal media." Guess someone forgot to tell Jennifer Rubin. And George Will. And Charles Krauthammer. And William Kristol. And James Glassman. And Michael Gerson.

Posted by: UncleMike | January 10, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting question. Everyone seems to agree that the guy was a nut job - but was he legally culpable for his actions? Or will he simply be stuffed into a mental facility without ever actually being punished for what he did?

I think that more and more these days, the word "tragedy" is used to imply a case where something terrible has happened but no one is to blame, as though some cosmic roll of the dice is the reason it happened.

It seems almost impossible to come to any conclusion other than that Jared made a conscious decision to murder Gabrielle Gifford, and a whole lot of other people in the process. It wasn't a random outburst of violence; he'd known her since 2007, he bought the gun over a month ago, and he purchased a high capacity clip for the gun - not standard issue for a Glock.

It's difficult to surmise that he couldn't discern right from wrong. He might have acted crazy; he may have BEEN crazy - but he knew what he was doing. Should or should not he be treated as responsible for his actions, and held to the attendant punishment that comes with them if he is convicted? (And there can be no other alternative to conviction other than legal insanity; there's no question he pulled the trigger and the shootings were wholely unjustified).

Posted by: rockin982 | January 10, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting question. Everyone seems to agree that the guy was a nut job - but was he legally culpable for his actions? Or will he simply be stuffed into a mental facility without ever actually being punished for what he did?

I think that more and more these days, the word "tragedy" is used to imply a case where something terrible has happened but no one is to blame, as though some cosmic roll of the dice is the reason it happened.

It seems almost impossible to come to any conclusion other than that Jared made a conscious decision to murder Gabrielle Gifford, and a whole lot of other people in the process. It wasn't a random outburst of violence; he'd known her since 2007, he bought the gun over a month ago, and he purchased a high capacity clip for the gun - not standard issue for a Glock.

It's difficult to surmise that he couldn't discern right from wrong. He might have acted crazy; he may have BEEN crazy - but he knew what he was doing. Should or should not he be treated as responsible for his actions, and held to the attendant punishment that comes with them if he is convicted? (And there can be no other alternative to conviction other than legal insanity; there's no question he pulled the trigger and the shootings were wholely unjustified).

Posted by: rockin982 | January 10, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I have read a lot of baseless hatred in many of the posts here, all from the Left and all plainly intended to villify their Conservative opponents and even blame some of them for the causing this obviously deranged individual to carry out the Tucson mass murder. This while those from Conservatives are largely sympathetic to the victims of this Loughner murder rather than seeking to blame anyone.
It seems pretty obvious that it is largely the liberal political Left which is using the inflammatory, violent, and over the top rhetoric.

Posted by: kenhe | January 10, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Kornacki and other Leftists are only concerned that this disturbed young man's disturbance was blatantly and fully from the Left. Defense is inappropriate. Proper blame fixing is absolutely called for. Like Lieberman, Giffords is an apostate from Liberal/Left orthodoxy. She is for Life, a Mortal Sin for the Leftoids, and is in favor of border security, not a venial sin either. Of course this noodle is at root responsible for his own actions, or NOT responsible due to infirmity (more likely) but this hideous crime is absolutely and obviously inspired by the Kossacks and DemUnderground vermin who have done so much to harm this nation, to the very concept of Americanism and YOU personally.

Posted by: megapotamus | January 10, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey, conservabamas!

Ever heard of "personal responsibility?"

Put up or shut up.

Posted by: bs2004 | January 10, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party inspired rhetoric with violent implications, like Sarah Palin's "targets", using gun cross hairs do nothing but encourage violence like this. Maybe the shooter was deranged, yet he was a Republican, and encouraged to "do what it takes" to remove anyone voting to favor the Health Care Reform. Finger pointing should also be at "Right Wing think tanks", some funded by the interests of Insurance companies, that are now restricted in how far they can profile before offering policies.

...And to blame it on pot smoking? Give me a break!!! Most all pot smokers are among the most peaceful people around, and many Republicans ALSO smoke pot!!! What about alcohol, responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths every year, for God's sake.

Posted by: HealingNews | January 10, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The sad truth about Krugman is that a long time ago he used to be a respectable economist.

I remember reading one of his books from way back when and being startled by an odd attack without any backing by logic or facts on a Republican. Such oddness has escalated over the years becoming his routine manner of discourse leading me to suspect that he's unfortunately become very mentally ill.

Posted by: Otiose1 | January 10, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Bring back the (elevator, office, grocery store) MUZAK! Everything's gone downhill since it left.

Feelings...whoahoah (sic) feelings...

Posted by: aardunza | January 10, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The Left just keeps doubling down. Amazing--and awesome.

Posted by: adam62 | January 10, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Malkin has collected some of the Left's greatest hits:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

Posted by: adam62 | January 10, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Funny how these very accusations by the media (like Krugman, et al) are exactly what they claim to decry.
Stating that Palin (or Beck, etc.) are basically responsible for murder and mayhem is a real reason for somebody to hate them, and perhaps take action on that hate.
So Krugman/NBC/CBS etc are saying "these right wingers are murdering people by saying that left wingers are hurting people.."
If that is so, then how much more a target is a murderer than an Obamacare opponent?
WAKE UP!

Posted by: johnL1 | January 10, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

At this point the argument is not if but whether Sarah Palin is in any way responsible for the criminal behavior of the accused. The answer is that she could be. The accused has not been found to be a "lunatic" by a court of law. Lunacy is a general term for all forms of insanity. Some forms of insanity might be relevant but not all.

Sarah Palin through the imagery she presented was attempting to persuade the public that the victim was an enemy of those who supported her and the cause she said she represented. She has had thousands of followers. Although she might have intended the picture to be metaphoric it is common knowledge that many persons, including Sarah Palin, interpret such messages literally. No evidence has been presented that the accused was unaware of her message whatever its intent.

Posted by: outridercastle | January 10, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the paradox of decrying others as extremists who are causing violence is that the standards you use to hold them responsible (creating a "toxic atmosphere") applies to your own accusations as well.

Posted by: adam62 | January 10, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

It's a terrible indictment of the right wing when they demonstrate, repeatedly, that they just don't get it. The "lamestream media" that Palin denounces springs to her defense and condemns liberals for berating her for her part in the massacre.

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT PALIN!
It is about the horribly vicious, angry, bombastic, hostile, atmosphere surrounding the right for the past two years. Bachman, Angle, Limbaugh, Beck, Faux News and, yes, Her Screechiness.

She's the poster-child because she's probably the most narcissistic of the bunch, but it is not about ONE right-wing lunatic. It's about ALL right-wing lunatics.

Of course, the lunatics just don't get it.

Posted by: DamnedLiberal | January 10, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Krugman's assumptions and reactions are truly unprofessional. Frankly, what he has become is embarassing. Really despicable.

I'll never read him again.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | January 10, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT PALIN!
It is about the horribly vicious, angry, bombastic, hostile, atmosphere surrounding the right for the past two years. Bachman, Angle, Limbaugh, Beck, Faux News and, yes, Her Screechiness."

Maybe "it" is about all this, but then "it" is some phantasm in your own mind and has nothing to do with the shootings in AZ.

Posted by: adam62 | January 10, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Public figures should be civil and cautious in their actions, comments, and other expressions. There are people with sociopathic tendencies in all political realms. John Hinckley, Jr., was not motivated to advance a political position. He was motivated by a target. I was offended by Sarah Palin listing people as targets and using riflescope crosshairs. Do not insult anyone by calling those cross hairs as "cross hairs" from a surveyor scope. It was legal, but unethical. I would be equally offended if the same technique were used by a liberal, a moderate, or any other political persona. Giffords was included on the map in which a crosshairs symbol was used by Palin’s Political Action Committee. Palin introduced it to her Twitter followers with the unfortunate message, “Don’t retreat, instead- RELOAD.” When I saw that about a year ago, I said, “If any of these people get shot Palin will have blood on her hands.” Sarah, go wash your hands!

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

"Paul Krugman is still spewing his anti-conservative venom and spinning a tale that conservative rhetoric caused the Arizona slaughter. All that is missing are any facts to support his rant."

Did you even bother to read Krugman's assessment of the political atmosphere at all? It was both respectful and intelligently written, with enough examples to make his point.

It seems to me like you are the one who is is spilling the venom without providing evidence in the form of the rant. Just because you say that someone does not provide evidence, or is engaging in a venomous rant, does not mean it is true. I hope those reading this article will see right through your false claims.

I agree wholeheartedly with bknott19.

Posted by: JephD | January 10, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Jeph, I did read Krugman. He was out within hours of the shooting accusing conservative rhetoric of being the culprit. There was nothing responsible or respectful. To get to his conclusion, he had to ignore a number of examples of left-wing rhethoric. How about Kos posting a similar map, with a target on Giffords as well? Or the Kos poster who said that Giffords was "dead to him" just days before the shooting? There are a number of similar examples. Further, there is no evidence that this loon was inspired by anything on either the right or left. His beef with Giffords dates back to 2007- well before the Tea Party. And lynnlm, I'll be waiting to hear your outrage with Kos, complete with admonishment to go wash his hands as well.

Posted by: hawks596 | January 10, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

It seems plausible to me that Palin contributed to making confused and sick people more confused and sicker by saying "don't retreat --- reload". But in a sense, that doesn't actually matter. What is true for sure is that to the American voters, having said "Don't retreat --- reload" will now not look great at all when Sarah Palin tries to run for office in the future. People can say "It wasn't her fault" until they are blue in the face. The more they say it, the more often will other people cite Sarah Palin: "Don't retreat --- reload". That, together with the pictures from Arizona, is just not very good PR for Palin, no way around it.

Posted by: cb57 | January 10, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

"Krugman is right; you are not. GOP: you created this toxic environment; you own it. Now fix it!

Posted by: jfmorkan"


Actually, Krugman is wrong All of the time. He has lost his load and is skimming on the backs of the Progressives that he loves.


It is killing him that all of his advice to Obama is just not working out. Obama did what Krugman said he should do and it didn't amount to anything when it came to saving our economy.

So Krugman has gone all out on the Liberals/Progressives vs Conservatives wing and left economics behind because he lost his winning hand.

Krugman is now nuts...

No one can believe in him. So he jumped off the cliff on this tragedy. What a shame this man is. I live in NJ and am ashamed for my state that he is employed here. I hope Princeton and the NYT will cut this man off now.

Krugman is a waste of space and should not be paid for his columns.

Posted by: letscheck | January 11, 2011 3:50 AM | Report abuse

"Why was it so hard to kick Loughner out of Pima Community College?", 10_01-2011:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280704/

From article: What about students who persistently disrupt classes but are simply jerks—or nonviolent nutcases?

Why didn't Arizona's Pima Community College (PCC) have policies directing its staffers/police on specific- CONSTRUCTIVE- steps to be taken when dealing with someone who is exhibiting signs of serious mental illness and who is, apparently as a result of mental illness, disrupting class(es) or other college processes?

PCC staffers and police ought to have, at the least:

1) been trained/instructed in how to discern whether persons that they are in contact with are suffering from a major mental illness or similar-symptom problem such as drug-induced mania or psychosis;

2) had state or federal laws in place supporting them that would have enabled PCC staffers/police to proactively contact a local (State) health authority's 'mental health department' or similar public service structure about the problemmed person who is exhibiting mental illness-caused disruptive conduct.

The local (State) health authority's 'mental health department', if it existed, should have had as part of its mandate an obligation to proactively work with other state and locally funded services- such as college staffers, police and the like- to engage persons that are reported to them as exhibiting serious mental illnesses.

Also, the local (State) health authority's 'mental health department', if it existed, should have the right, if necessary, to bill the state/local/federal govt for what would be in effect- providing services to persons who had not requested such services and who may be adverse to accepting such...

__________________
Mr. Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Posted by: mrrodericklouis | January 11, 2011 6:04 AM | Report abuse

"We are not in complete control of our environment."

Wow. Neither scarier nor truer words have ever been written. Those of any political stripe should heed this.

Posted by: INTJ | January 11, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

willows1 ~ so you people started right off the bat accusing Conservatives of fomenting this assassination and then when the Conservatives responded with "hey, this puke is a Lefty" you think that's going just too far.

You demanded evidence.

How about this, in American history virtually all of your terrorist attacks, bomb throwings, mass killings and assassinations have been undertaken by Leftwingers.

The exceptions to that observation are so few as to be laughable if brought up in polite company.

The fact is you Leftwingers are abominably dangeorus, and about 99.9999% of the time if we jump to the conclusion that the killer is a Leftwinger WE WILL BE RIGHT.

That's probably why you always try that "jump out trick" of yours of hearing of a shooting and blaming an "atmosphere of violence fostered by the right".

You are simply trying to stay a step ahead of the truth.

OR ~ alternative, YOU ALREADY KNOW the malefactor is ONE OF YOUR OWN and rather than let the law take its course you begin laying the groundwork for a light sentence.

In fact, the Sheriff down there in Pima actually did that very thing ~ by arguing that the evidence is elsewhere (in Alaska, or Phoenix, or Washington) he sought to disestablish the fact that one of his own people did the job right there in his jurisdiction.

I hope he goes to prison. What a foul person ~ him, and Paul Krugman, and Rep. Slaughter and a host of others on the left.

You can't just lie about people with no evidence you know.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 11, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Every time the New York Slimes or other media lay into Governor Sarah Palin, I add $100,000 dollars to the amount I will raise for her campaign in 2012. Keep it up!!

Posted by: sandbear | January 12, 2011 3:37 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company