In the immediate aftermath of the shootings in Tucson this past Saturday, before any evidence had been uncovered as to what made Jared Loughner do what he did, and when it was still unclear as to whether or not incendiary political rhetoric played any part, Republicans rushed to microphones everywhere to try and distance themselves from any culpability with the "both sides do it" defense.
A few opinions of others on this false equivalent and then some of my own. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:
George Packer in The New Yorker:
To use my own Gulf Coast analogy, the "both sides do it' defense is like saying a passing summer thunderstorm equates with a hurricane because both involve rain and wind.
No, both sides don't do it, not in anything near equal proportions. I don't recall an Obama rally where people were carrying signs which read "We Came Unarmed--This Time." Nor one where mentions of "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" were prevalent. Show me the Democratic candidate who spoke about "Second Amendment remedies" and the need to "take out" their opponent in the same sentence. Show me the Democratic congressman who yelled out "you lie" during any one of President Bush's State of the Union speeches. I must have missed it.
Show me the counterpart of Rush Limbaugh, who keeps amping up his despicable rhetoric on a daily, if not hourly, basis with statements like the one he made yesterday:
Then there was Bill O'Reilly's rant against the "far-left loons" at the New York Times and MSNBC. I know this, Mr. O'Reilly. I hear more criticism of President Obama and Democrats in the combined two hours of Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show in any one night than I do of Republicans in two years worth of Beck and Hannity. I heard Keith Olbermann apologize on Monday for remarks he made in the past that might have been misconstrued. I have yet to hear one word of regret for "Tiller the baby killer" from you, Billy boy.
"Far-left loons" at the New York Times? I take it you haven't read much of what Krugman has had to say about President Obama's economic policies. Take a look at some of the "far-left" blogs like Firedoglake, or Huffington Post, or Crooks and Liars, or any number of others, and see what they have to say about Democrats. Now go to Red State, or Gateway Pundit, or Breitbart, and tell me how much criticism you see of anything conservative. Now who's fair and balanced again?
Both sides do it? Sell it somewhere else. I ain't buying.
A few opinions of others on this false equivalent and then some of my own. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"[I]f they're looking for a coherent defense, "both sides" isn't going to cut it. In Democratic circles, liberal extremists can't get any establishment attention at all. Members of Congress won't return their phone calls or even be seen in public with them. On the right, however, there's practically nothing a right-wing extremist can say or do to be exiled from polite company.*
There's a clear and impermeable line between the progressive mainstream and the left fringe. The line between the Republican Party/conservative movement and the far-right fringe barely exists. Whereas Dems kept the fringe at arm's length, Republicans embrace the fringe with both arms.
Both sides have nutjobs; only one side thinks their nutjobs are sane."
Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:
"The right and the left both have intemperate voices. But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as leading lights, embraced by the leadership. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America. Who are the folks on the left with equivalent popularity and influence?"
George Packer in The New Yorker:
"Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side's activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings.
Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can't stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous."
To use my own Gulf Coast analogy, the "both sides do it' defense is like saying a passing summer thunderstorm equates with a hurricane because both involve rain and wind.
No, both sides don't do it, not in anything near equal proportions. I don't recall an Obama rally where people were carrying signs which read "We Came Unarmed--This Time." Nor one where mentions of "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" were prevalent. Show me the Democratic candidate who spoke about "Second Amendment remedies" and the need to "take out" their opponent in the same sentence. Show me the Democratic congressman who yelled out "you lie" during any one of President Bush's State of the Union speeches. I must have missed it.
Show me the counterpart of Rush Limbaugh, who keeps amping up his despicable rhetoric on a daily, if not hourly, basis with statements like the one he made yesterday:
"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country...he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."
Then there was Bill O'Reilly's rant against the "far-left loons" at the New York Times and MSNBC. I know this, Mr. O'Reilly. I hear more criticism of President Obama and Democrats in the combined two hours of Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show in any one night than I do of Republicans in two years worth of Beck and Hannity. I heard Keith Olbermann apologize on Monday for remarks he made in the past that might have been misconstrued. I have yet to hear one word of regret for "Tiller the baby killer" from you, Billy boy.
"Far-left loons" at the New York Times? I take it you haven't read much of what Krugman has had to say about President Obama's economic policies. Take a look at some of the "far-left" blogs like Firedoglake, or Huffington Post, or Crooks and Liars, or any number of others, and see what they have to say about Democrats. Now go to Red State, or Gateway Pundit, or Breitbart, and tell me how much criticism you see of anything conservative. Now who's fair and balanced again?
Both sides do it? Sell it somewhere else. I ain't buying.
I'm not a great historian, but I played one in the classroom for a decade. May have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express too. Seems to me when you are looking at political philosophies, one of the two major archtypes naturally gravitates towards such things.
Even extreme leftists are not usually prone to thinking in those terms. Subversive? Sure. Nutty as hell? Absolutely. Yet, violent rhetoric doesn't seem to be it. Of course, I could be way off base.
True, my apologies to rocks everywhere for the unfair comparison.
Des, you're insulting rocks.
Did she really? Why does that not surprise me?
"pundints".
I bet she says "nucular" also.
ROFLMAO!
BTW, I read that article on HuffPo about her not being "intellectually capable" also. You think people are starting to be aware that the lady's not the sharpest tool in the shed?
Ok, I've heard Palin's "blood libel" audio clip enough times now to clearly discern that the idiot said "pundints"!
I presume to ensure that we all know that she can differentiate from the "pundon'ts"?
Thanks. There are some benefits to insomnia. One is lots of time to scour the interwebs in the wee small hours of the morning.
I am sure you get tired of my compliments. But this MAY be the best piece you have written yet.
I don't know where and how you come up with all these quotes. You must read A LOT of stuff. But,I thank you for saving ME all that time and effort.
I don't know what else to say. When you're correct, you're correct.
..
Shortstuff, goes without saying you hit the nail on the head about 99.9% of the time too.
You wrote: "I am astounded by the furious backpedalling of the rightwing. 'We didn't do it!Those were surveyors' symbols!' "...Waah waah waah. I've never seen such a group of whiny t-babies amping up their performances again."
It's downright disgusting. Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave.
Lastly, I agree, this MAY be the end of any chance we can all "enjoy" a "Palin for President" campaign. I say enjoy because, the way the GOP attacks their OWN in a political primary, especially for POTUS, makes father guppies eating their own young look like a picnic for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. That just mighta been something for "America's Funniest Home Videos."
James Clyburn’s got it right:
"You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137411-clyburn-palin-intellectually-not-to-be-able-to-understand-whats-going-on-here
Translation: She’s dumb as a box of rocks.
I think this puts the nail in the coffin for Palin. Two years from now, she'll be just a fond *cough* memory. If you were an investor in the Sarah Palin brand, well this is 2008, and the market is about to go from 13,000 to 6,000.
But..this is JUST what the elites of the Republican party want. (not Tea party nation)
If you haven't noticed, the Corporate wing of the party has unified around taking her down, starting with Barbara Bush saying she should stay up in Alaska. This, in my opinion is because Palin is too much of a loose canon for them. What she represents is too unpredictable for them. The tea party COULD turn on the corporate wing of the party, and the Republican elite are afraid of that if she would run, and God forbid, become president. You never know...the teaparty gang might see how outrageous wealth discrepancy has become in this Country, and THAT is where the Corportist wing of the republican party LIVES....
So...the fact that Palin is a loose canon, AND put the crosshairs on that map, AND is now using rhetoric that's going to increase the tensions with the Jewish people, means that it's time to get remove Palin from your stock portfolio NOW. She's going to sink faster than the Titanic.
You read it here first, maybe...I certainly haven't read this anywhere else.
See you all next week, I've got stuff I have got to do!
And right on cue with another ridiculous false equivalent, after nearly a week of silence you would think that Sarah Palin would have a well thought out and reasoned response? And why would ANYONE expect that? The same shrill regurgitated nonsensical crap of what Des highlighted above. But she can't even stop there. She has to put on her own unmistakable clueless histrionic stamp.
It was a "blood libel" against her. Oooooookay. Did you even bother to Google that term before throwing out that totally inappropriate and inaccurate firebomb Sarah?
"The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for Passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish."
Only YOU can insult the Jewish victim of the violence in the process of "absolving" yourself of your nastiness and culpability.
Way. To. Go. Sarah.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp
Brought to you by the same "genius" who coined the term "refudiate", claimed it was ok to make up words, and then backtracked and claimed it was merely a "typo",...and she actually meant to say "redudiate". You represent your side well Sarah.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/refudiate-was-a-typo-political-revisionism-2010/
Exactly Shortstuff..Well said.
I seriously wanted to throw something at the TV this morning, when on GMA they showed a clip of Sarah Simpleminded McFacebook prattling that "there were ads with gunsights displayed, from both sides of the aisle."
No Sarah Stupid, there were not. Only you had the ad like that. That is another lie. Just once, Sarah, have the moral fiber to stand up and say "you know what, I was wrong. What I did was irresponsible and thoughtless. And I will pledge to hold myself and my staff to higher standards."
But I'm not holding my breath for that dumb bitch to do anything requiring ethics or common sense. She couldn't do it even it you wrote it on both of her hands.
I am astounded by the furious backpedalling of the rightwing. "We didn't do it!" "Those were surveyors' symbols!" "Your side did it too!" Waah waah waah. I've never seen such a group of whiny t-babies amping up their performances again.
I think the GOP/rightwing blowhards need to grow the f*** up. Adults accept responsibility for their mistakes. Children whine and try to deflect blame.
Well said Des.
And I really liked the nutjob/sane analogy of Steve Benen.
I think another fitting analogy is the leftist activism of the 60's and rightist activism of today. In the 60's activists fought against war and mayhem. Today activists fight for it. Philosophically there is a HUGE difference. The right fosters authoritarianism. It's the stuff of which they are made and I'm willing to argue the point!