International Cat Speculators Since 2006


Let’s review.

  1. On Saturday (US Time, it was Sunday here) a shooter killed 6 people and injured 13 others. A us congresswoman (Gabrielle Giffords) was the target, and she was shot in the head but survived.
  2. Immediately, media and pundits on the left realized an opportunity to smear, and claimed that the Tea Party’s rhetoric created the political climate for the shooting. Many went further and claimed that the shooter himself was a tea part supporter simply because he was anti-government.
  3. It quickly became clear that the shooter was not a Tea Party member, but held many views consistent with the left and was in fact simply an a-political nutcase. In spite of full knowledge of this, the local sheriff made several not-so-subtle speeches implicating the right in the shooting.
  4. Sarah Palin was quickly discovered to have had the congresswoman’s district on a map of targeted races for the middterm elections, using a target icon which to the uninitiated looks a lot like a gunsight.
  5. Palin immediately came under a torrent of criticism for her non-existent “part” in the shooting. In the MSM, she has been attacked even by people who acknowledge that she had nothing to do with the shooting. Death threats against her are at an all time high. Hundreds if not thousands of users on twitter have called for her death in violent terms. Remember, this hate is from people who’s thesis is that Palin’s words inspired violence.
  6. After 4 days of silence, (and heavy criticism for it) Palin issued a video. She expressed horror with the shootings and sympathy with the victims. She spent a small amount of time pointing out that people had used the tragedy as an excuse to manufacture a blood libel against her.
  7. Liberals responded to the video. As is strangely common with critics of Palin, there was criticism of completely noncontroversial details, such as her use of a teleprompter*. Some chose to express their contempt for Palin by suggesting she didn’t even know what “blood libel” meant. Some falsely claimed that “blood libel” was a term that hadn’t been used outside of the holocaust. However, most simply pretended that the tidal wave of hatred had not even existed and attacked her with the claim that she was “making the tragedy about herself”.

As one twat sarcastically put it:

And the dishonesty continues.

Not only is not a single word breathed here about the left’s demagoguery, but lest you doubt who they have in mind when they refer to “voices” that demonize, revisit their editorial from the day after the shooting. That’s not the end of the dishonesty, either: As of this morning, in quoting Obama’s now famous passage about whether a lack of civility was responsible for the shootings, the editorial actually omitted the part where he emphatically said “it did not” — the narrative-killing moment. Follow the link above and you’ll see that they’ve now very quietly inserted it into the text, after Verum Serum caught the omission and started calling attention to it. If their defense is that they were working off his prepared remarks, which didn’t include the “it did not” ad lib, well, so was I, but there was enough buzz about that line afterwards that I managed to flag it in time for our post. What’s the Paper of Record’s excuse?

I have a confession. Last night, I cracked a little bit.

I’ve been witnessing this torrent, this tidal wave of hatred against Sarah Palin and I clicked on yet another liberal twitter feed. For once, there were no suggestsion she should die, none of the viciousness that has become normal over the last few days. No, this fellow simply made a snide remark about Palin thinking the shooting was about her.

So get this straight. A political shooting occurs. A non-political nutcase is identified as the culprit. But an entire political movement decides to smear their opponent as somehow “part of the problem”.

Then a member of that movement derides said opponent for a short part of her reply to the shooting where she addressed this libel.

It suddenly occurred to me what I was looking at. Evil.

Hey, we get it. You don’t like conservatives. You don’t like Palin. But leaving aside the irony of creating a tidal wave of hatred against the tea party because you think they’re hateful, you simply can’t then turn around and sniff that her hair is wet because you threw water on her.

(Meanwhile, some on the left has taken a break from calling for the deaths of all conservatives to create and promote a site exposing that one person has made a case to have Julian Assauge hunted down. Seriously. One name. )

After a couple more tweets I turned the computer off. I’d had enough. I wasn’t stupid enough to make the same fundamental mistake that the left had been making for 4 days by letting myself get so angry that I contributed to the hate I was condemning.

But I got to thinking.

The Tea Party is not going to go away. It’s existence is due to the fact other conservatives have capitulated to liberal intrusions into what is supposed to be a conservative state. The Tea Party know full well what liberals never go away, and the only way to defeat them politically is to be just as unwilling to back down.

Because if there’s one thing we know from the last few days, it’s that liberals will not back down. They didn’t back down when people suggested no one should jump to conclusions. They didn’t back down when it was shown the shooter was not a Tea Party member. They didn’t back down when it was revealed that Palin’s map was perfectly unremarkable. They didn’t back down when people started pointing out their tweets were far more hateful and violent than anything Palin has ever said. And they didn’t back down when they were challenged on the Blood Libel they had created from thin air.

In fact, every time decent people would have stopped and backed off, they’ve gone one up (or rather, down).

I have a few thoughts about where this will end up. That this will damage Palin is laughable. A double dose of the hatred that made her popular in the first place is hardly going to have the opposite effect.

But all that is another post.

* Remember the fuss where she wrote 3 words on her hands, and this was supposed to be the same as Obama’s inability to give even the shortest speech without his teleprompter? Or the massive list of “scandals” during the election most of which had the controversy level of “she drives a red car”.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Arizona, and Palin – The Story So Far and where from here" (4)

  1. Snap. The behavior of mainstream liberal/progressive organisations is helping solidify for me the moral bankruptcy we face. We cannot even debate the facts, because they refuse to acknowledge them.

    • True, and I’ve noticed that as a key part of most cons/lib debates.

      Refusal to fact facts over the financial state of the country in 1990 is one of the reasons that I became conservative. Libs just simply refused to address the fact we had no money.

  2. Amen to that. The sheer hypocrisy continues to astound me. Excellent post!

Comments are closed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: