- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,015
- Reaction score
- 19,479
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The NYT Editors printed an editorial regarding the shootings at the Republican baseball practice in an attempt to *in theory* comment on the need for an end to violence and vitriol in politics. It was a noble goal, but in the process they used a long since debunked accusation against Sarah Palin as a way of making a "both sides do it" argument:
If this is the best the Editorial staff can muster at the NYT how the hell can we expect better from their staff writers?
You don't end vitriolic politics by wrongly accusing a politician of inciting an assassination.
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
If this is the best the Editorial staff can muster at the NYT how the hell can we expect better from their staff writers?
You don't end vitriolic politics by wrongly accusing a politician of inciting an assassination.