Don't let anyone tell you that the right didn't mean you should shoot your congressperson. Something struck a nerve here, that much is obvious, and it seems to me the only logical conclusion is that they were deliberately trying to inflame their base (duh -- that's what the right has been doing for a generation or more) regardless of consequences. If a Democrat gets wasted, well, that's one for our side.
They're the victims here, you see. Here's more from Edroso on that syndrome:
After Saturday's shootings in Arizona -- which left Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords badly wounded and six people dead -- rightbloggers were swift to condemn... any possible criticism of themselves.
You can understand their defensiveness. Back during the 2010 campaign, Sarah Palin had endorsed Tea Party challengers to Giffords and others with little gun-sight images and the cry, "Don't Retreat -- Reload!" Giffords had noticed ("When people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action..."); so did the local sheriff.
Oops. You might expect rightbloggers to be pouring oil on troubled waters right now, eschewing violence, promoting civility, etc.
You might expect that -- if you didn't know them. If you do, you will have guessed that they responded in their traditional manner: With rage at the great injustice they had suffered.
This is not just a function of the teabaggers and their handlers. We've seen this for years among the anti-gay hate groups -- if gays and lesbians are granted any rights, then the rights of anti-gay Christianists are being violated.
The overarching irony here is that they are allowed to avoid any consequences for anything they do. It's not just their own defensiveness that's part of that, but that the media allows it by never questioning their statements, and in the case of Fox, immediately going full-bore into attacks on those who dare to question them. It's not just the Palins and Becks I'm talking about, either -- when's the last time you saw a talk show host challenge Tony Perkins or Maggie Gallagher over obvious lies? (A footnote: just think about the reactions of FRC and its allies on being designated as anti-gay hate groups by the SPLC: in no case did they respond on the actual basis for the listing. Instead, they attacked the SPLC as "leftist" and claimed they were being listed because of their opposition to same-sex marriage, which SPLC specifically noted was not a reason for the designation.) And do you really believe that any moderator on any television program is going to hold Sarah Palin's feet to the fire? (Not that she'd be caught dead -- pardon the expression -- on such a program, at least not one that was honest.)
And so, now that the inflammatory, inciteful, violent rhetoric has claimed more victims, it's everyone else's fault. (As an aside, here's a very handy timeline/list of the sorts of things this rhetoric is feeding.)
Of course.
And if, by some weird chance, you hadn't quite registered on the blatancy of this, this says it all:
No comments:
Post a Comment