From the UK Daily Mail, “America’s elite hijack a massacre to take revenge of Sarah Palin:”
History shows how dangerous it is to try to second-guess the motives of political assassins.
John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, not because he hated Right-wingers.
Likewise, Lynette Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford because she revered the cult killer Charles Manson.
But those lessons from history won’t stop some Democrats exploiting the shooting of a nine-year-old girl and five others at the weekend with precisely the sort of foam-flecked over-reaction for which they love to condemn their opponents on the Right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shooting-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html#ixzz1Aq64ytkB
From Reason.com, “The Extreme Rhetoric about Extreme Rhetoric:”
But this debate about the “tone” of American politics is ideologically unidirectional, designed not to elevate debate but to vilify a political enemy. The call for calm—with its frequent invocations of Tea Party “fascism”—is stupid partisan politics dressed up as incoherent moral politics.
From the Huffington Post, Rev Jesse Jackson weighs in on “Hate Speech in Arizona:”
In Arizona, the kindling was there. The economy has been hit hard by the financial collapse, with employment opportunities for young people particularly limited. With families losing jobs or homes, fear and depression are inevitable. Add to this a venomous, racially charged debate on immigration and health care reform, as well as some of the worst gun-control laws in the country.
And a good one from David Harsanyi at RealClearPolitics, “A Phony Climate of Hate:”
The always-civil Jacob Weisberg of Slate was more forceful in this regard, claiming that “at the core of the far right’s culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government.”
Which, as you know, should not be confused with those heady times liberals claimed that George W. Bush was “not my president” or that we needed a “regime change at home.” That kind of talk strengthened the legitimacy of government. Just as the “far right” — and I will assume this consists of anyone not named David Frum — could probably make the case that demanding government honor its constitutional limits is a demand for legitimacy.
We can argue about those things, I know. We can cobble together stupid remarks by radio talk show hosts or union activists or members of Congress and smear half the country. We can play tit for tat with tea party banners and anti-war bumper stickers and dig up some figurative rhetoric that sounds over-the-top retroactively and blow it out of proportion.