OMG! Are we still on this distraction?
j-mac
Shocking isn't it?
I think Sarah Palin was right but also wrong.
I admit, like many others I, too jumped to conclusions when news of this tragic shooting spree first aired. I believed the gunman, Jared Loughner, was some Right-Wing radical nutjob who either had read or heard so much of the anti-American/anti-patriotic/anti-Obama rhetoric that spewed from the Right against the Left and that he ultimately took his anger and frustrations out on the only "direct link to government" he knew of, Congresswoman Gifford, as a representation of the very government he apparently mistrusted. To date, there is no evidence that Jared Loughner was a Republic. In fact, an accounting by one of Loughner's closes friends stated recently that Loughner was an Independent. However, his political association doesn't rule out the fact that he was angry with government for whatever reason and saw Congresswoman Gifford as a direct representation to government (which as a Congresswoman, she is. Still, you never know what lurks within the mind of a mad man.)
Essentially, what we don't know is exactly why he shot Congresswoman Gifford along with several other innocent people. Word is Loughner asked Gifford a question presumably at a meeting or gathering of some sort the Congresswoman was hosting in 2007, but she didn't answer him. I don't know if that was because she didn't hear him or because she didn't believe his inquiry was relevent. Regardless of why she didn't answer him, Loughner obvious took it personal. All we know for sure is this man was mentally disturbed and took his anger out on the one "face of government" he knew - Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford - and innocent people died or were seriously injured as a result of his anger.
With the president signing this unwanted and “transformative” government takeover of our health care system today with promises impossible to keep, let’s not get discouraged. Don’t get demoralized. Get organized! (Palin, 2010, ¶1)
We’re going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We’re going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies. Maybe when they join the millions of unemployed, they’ll understand why Americans wanted them to focus on job creation and an invigorated private sector. Come November, we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they’ve been printing money (Palin, 2010, ¶2).
We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring – from Arkansas’s 2nd district, Indiana’s 8th district, and Tennessee’s 6th district – but we’ll be working to make sure that those who replace them are Commonsense Conservatives. The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. They are: Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1), Harry E. Mitchell (AZ-5), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), John Salazar (CO-3), Betsy Markey (CO-4). Allen Boyd (FL-2), Suzanne M. Kosmas (FL-24), Baron P. Hill (IN-9), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), Charlie Wilson (OH-6), John Boccieri (OH-16), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Christopher Carney (PA-10), John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC-5), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Alan B. Mollohan (WV-1), and Nick J. Rahall II (WV-3) (Palin, 2010, ¶3).
We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight (Palin, 2010, ¶4).
Stand tall, America. Real change is coming (Palin, 2010, ¶5)!
- Sarah Palin
So, I understand where she was coming from with her "don't retreat, reload" comment. However, targetting the offices of the various political figures who voted for ObamaCare (of which Congresswoman Gifford was among them) using any resemblance of actual "targets" and using the kind of language she used was irresponsible. Moreover, using the words "blood libel" in defense of her actions (her "
tweet") where a fellow politician who happened to be a Jew and was the primary target of a shooting spree is equally irresponsible. The undertone of her "don't retreat, reload" comment may not have been to insight people who disagree with the President's agenda to take up arms against him or members of the Democrat party, but adding the crosshairs image certainly didn't dispell that notion. Again, did Sarah know that Gifford was a Jew? I believe she did. Why else would she use that exact wording?
Putting it all in it's proper context, I can understand why so many people are upset with her. However, she was right in defending her political ideology, but she was wrong for using the words and phrases she espoused. Words do have meaning even if that meaning is vailed in political-speak. She had to know deep down that as long as the political divide remained such a hot bed of differing viewpoints, sooner or later somebody may misconstrue her comments and take matters into their own hands. She may not be responsible for his actions, but I don't think she can deny the possibility that her words may have been a catalyst to death and mayhem. Why else would she take the site down otherwise?
Again, we don't know with absolute certainty what caused Loughner to go on his shooting spree, but we do know he was angry with the government about something and targetted Congresswoman Gifford as a result. While it is wrong to say that Sarah Palin and the rest of the Republican/Conservative were hoping that such a tragic event would unfold, I do believe they wanted the American people to "get angry as hell and not take it anymore," whatever "it" is. Unfortunately, the Right wasn't counting on that anger spewing away from the voting box and into the streets - not like this anyway.
I'm glad Sarah Palin took the website with the "targets" down. Hopefully, all politicians including Sarah Palin will think twice before posting such images and language again, language and imagtry that can easily be misconstrued not as a call to political action, but rather as a call to take matters into one's own hands violently.
