Clyburn: Incendiary political talk has come home to roost

[Turborama]

Source: McClatchy Via Miami Herlad

WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim Clyburn said Sunday that tea party favorite Sharron Angle's endorsement of "Second Amendment remedies" in her losing Nevada campaign against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid contributed to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Clyburn, the House assistant Democratic leader, said of Giffords' alleged assailant, Jared Lee Loughner: "It seems like this gentleman was not satisfied with the way the election came out. "There's no way you cannot make that connection (with Angle's rhetoric) unless you want to be stupid."

Angle, a tea party favorite, was the surprise Republican Senate primary victor in Nevada last year.

During the general election campaign, capped by Reid's narrow defeat of Angle on Nov. 2, she repeatedly condoned Americans preparing for "Second Amendment remedies" and urged supporters to "take out Harry Reid."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/09/2008158/clyburn-incendiary-political-talk.html

---

Add Angle to this list: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x151533

[valerief]

1. "…unless you want to be stupid."

:rofl:

[roguevalley]

19. don't forget bachman. she wants all of minnesota to arm and

shoot. then there's good hair perry who wants armed violence and the beat goes on ...

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rfranklin]

22. Seem to be hearing a lot of stupid this morning...

Heard the deniers on NPR and the BBC, and the newspeople are following right behind.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AspenRose]

23. +1

TRUTH.

It's DISGUSTING the lengths these people go to denying the obvious!

[Zoeisright]

2. Well, there sure is a lot of deliberate stupidity in this country.

Witness the House of Representatives turning repuke, just two years after they destroyed the country.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[efhmc]

3. Reid is not a minority leader. He is the Majority leader.

[Turborama]

4. Good catch! I totally missed that one.

I'm going to bend LBN rules and fix that for them.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. I wish you wouldn't have fixed it.

It's an illuminating "mistake."

[Turborama]

31. It's still there on their site, and I've made a screenshot for posterity... ;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. My point is that bolding the text would have been better than editing it.

No big whoop.

[Turborama]

49. Oh well

I think the screenshot I made for you is better.

As you say, no big whoop.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. He acts like a Minority Leader

Caving to the Republicans with their 40-vote majority.

Oooooh, filibuster, scary!

:hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. +1000

[No Elephants]

50. 40 Republican Senators is so 2010. They have more now.

And, it was the Senate rules in combination with the Blue Dogs and DINOs that tied Harry's hands.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

5. they'll scapegoat Sharron Angle to protect Sarah Palin

disgusting

[Turborama]

6. Who's they?

How about both of them being equally culpable?

[LynneSin]

21. They should be but Sarah does more for the party than Angle does

If anything, Angle is someone the republican party would hope disappears since she is not capable of winning a statewide race nor does she bring anything to the party table. Rumor has it that Angle wants to run against Ensign and I'm sure the republican party would prefer their own candidate on the ticket to run against Ensign then some lunatic like Angle. (Ensign is a sitting duck for the republican party with his history).

Palin isn't really capable of winning races but she's the ringleader of these nutjobs and those nutjobs all vote republican. Palin brings voters to the table and the republicans would rather protect her (but make her unelectable for prez) and throw angle to the Wolves. Bonus would be if they could find a way to implicate O'Donnell in all of this too.

[Joyce78]

7. I Agree With You.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

8. again. has come home to roost -- again. nt

[defendandprotect]

15. . . . as the right wing has made prolific use of the GOPs/NRA ...

recall the many "pro-gun" fanatics who came to kill Clinton when gun control laws

were being discussed in America -- and rightfully so -- Americans want gun control.

We can have gun control or we can have wanton killings -- and politica assassinations.

[sam sarrha]

9. We just told em to shoot her, not put a target on her face.. oh..well, ..maybe we did that too..

:shrug: :blush:

[rbrnmw]

10. Jim Clyburn Thank You..............

[divine_truine]

11. the network msm quick to assume the shooter in Tucson massacre 'acted alone!?'...WTF?

Whether he operated alone or not is a side issue! The network propaganda machine has worked tirelessly in fomenting an environment in which incidents such as the Tucson massacre have been on the rise since the election of pres. Obama! Our pathetic 24 hour news culture is in part INDIRECTLY responsible for giving unlimited airtime to likes of palin (don't retreat, reload!) & Sharon angle (exercise 2nd amendment remedies if the midterm elections do not bear fruit for the teabaggers) et al. & all for their cheap-ass ratings!

Watching fux & friends and morning schmuck (msnbc) analysis of saturnday's incident in Tucson is pretty vomitus.

[melm00se]

12. oh the irony

While Clyburn said Sunday that political rhetoric has become more irresponsible...

"...unless you want to be stupid."

[No Elephants]

51. You're implying that calling someone stupid is similar to encouraging people to gun down elected

Officials? Really?

[melm00se]

56. really? (as I don my asbestos underwear)

encouraging to gun down elected officials? other than picking crosshairs and some open for ideologically interpreted rhetoric I have heard nothing of the sort nor has law enforcement.

if using "target" graphics were wrong and illegal Will Marshall and the DLC would have been dragged away in chains for this:



on point to the shooting: there is ZERO evidence that this nutjob acting at the behest or under the influence of rightwing (or leftwing for that matter) rhetoric

zero
zip
nada

show me clear cut evidence that this was more than a lone nutjob with disturbed brain chemistry and I'll change my tune but so far, other than ideologically and agenda driven speculation and a lot of FUD, I have seen none.

(and before you start cutting and pasting quotes, ask yourself, in an open and honest way: are those quotes fact driven or purely speculative).

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberal N proud]

13. Since corporations are people now, lets charge FOX news as an accomplice

They have been an avenue of hate and lies for far too long and the likes of Beck, Bachman and Palin have been allowed to spread their own brands of hate on the network unfettered.

Take them down.

[defendandprotect]

14. Agree... but how did we miss it when "pro-life" murderers began killing doctors ....

decades ago?

Since time began, right wing propaganda of violence has been in play and has been

effective -- from the Vatican's anti-Jewish propaganda -- 100 years of it which

followed the release of Jews from the Vatican Ghettos after 1,100 years -- to the

"Hammer of Witches" which brought the "witch burnings"? Female subordination is

still a topic for Christian propaganda -- though if such thoughts were expressed

vs African Americans now or Jews they shock and be quickly stopped.

How long did we tolerate the preaching of anti-homosexual right wing "Christian"

propaganda from pulpits in America? How much violence did that trigger by deluded

followers who not feel on their knees before the message but sought to use their

hatred to destroy homosexuals?

What was the very basis of the propaganda verus Africans enslaved here but the Bible

and Vatican Bulls?


Still today, the Christian propaganda against "heretics" -- "pagans" -- native

people all over the world can be heard. And violence against non-Christians still

a threat.


This is not at all anything new -- it has been going on for thousands and thousands of

years!!

[creon]

16. yes, it has

Words are deeds; and, have consequences.

One cannot indulge in inflammatory rhetoric and, then, deny the consequences.

[Raschel]

29. Watch Pontius Palin try to wash her hands.

[creon]

57. too late

She should have thought of that before she started talking trash.

[WestSeattle2]

18. I was wondering why Angle seemed to be getting a pass in all

of this. Her words were no less incendiary than Palin's words and graphics.

[Can of Whoop-ass]

20. Time to

reinstate the huge fines levied on radio & TV irresponbibilty that existed before Shrubby McChimp.
No more FCC partisanship.
Limbaugh's childish portayal of "Libruls" >BAP< $100,000 fine. "Hitlary" Clintoon >slap< %1,000,000.
"FemiNazi" >punch< $5,000,000 fine! Don't like it? Move to Somalia, Rush. They'll love you

[BWCL]

24. wow

good reading!!

[judesedit]

25. I told you all to wake up and research "The Dumbing Down of America" . "They" have been working

tirelessly toward this end for decades now. It is just beginning to show its ugly head. Just type it into your search engine and you will have a mighty awakening. The corporations, domestic and foreign, and wealthy personal dollars just bought the last election thanks to SCOTUS. There's no way sane, reasonable people would vote in favor of the same people who got us into this mess. Say hello to super-fascist Amerika. Unless WE stop the madness!

[gibby2433]

26. Careful what you wish for...

because this is the result. Now the Right is scrambling to paint this psycho a "far-left wacko." Funny, I thought "liberal loons" were in favor of the government being a vast, controlling-every-aspect-of-our-lives monstrosity. How does an anti-government conspiracy theorist fit into that category? Dunno, but just watch 'em try.

[thisMike]

27. We are not all the same…

Saturday's shooting made me realize a major difference between conservatives and progressives.

On Saturday the conservatives supported the shooter's rights and the progressives wanted him dead, on Sunday the conservatives wanted him dead and the progressives supported his rights.

[Imajika]

28. Nonsense...

Where is the evidence that anything Angle, Palin or anyone else said contributed to this. There is zero evidence of it. Nada, nothing, zilch.

"Clyburn, the House assistant Democratic leader, said of Giffords' alleged assailant, Jared Lee Loughner: 'It seems like this gentleman was not satisfied with the way the election came out. 'There's no way you cannot make that connection (with Angle's rhetoric) unless you want to be stupid.'"

Oh really? What if it just turns out Jared was personally infatuated with her? How does he know Loughner had even heard of or cared one iota about Sharon Angle.

There is no reason, at this time, to believe ANYONE's political rhetoric had even the slightest thing to do with it.

Next we will be hearing violent video games contributed, or violent movies, or hip hop. A whole host of reasons will likely emerge, depending on Loughner's motivations, for why free speech needs to be curtailed. And, quite frankly, the calls for just that can be seen right here at DU.

This whole angle of attack is foolish and will be turned around on us at the first opportunity.

No, I won't be watching my political rhetoric...EVER. I think Sarah Palin is a buffoon and I am not not going to be more careful what I say. I consider many conservatives/Republicans to be enemies and a danger to the Republic and I am going to continue to say so and will not EVER be more careful about how I criticize them. And I will not be told to "tone down" the partisanship. And by demanding the Tea Party, Republicans or anyone else curtail what they say will eventually lead to demands that WE "watch what we say". That wasn't acceptable under the Bush administration and it isn't acceptable now. Make no mistake, most congresspersons do NOT like to be heckled or criticized at events by the Tea Party, Code Pink, Act Up, etc, etc - and that means BOTH sides. Once they become incumbents it suits their interests to demand we all "tamp down the partisan rhetoric" because they know the loudest, angriest people in their districts/states are the ones most active in unseating them. You watch, the establishment on both the left and right will find a way to agree with this "dialing back the rhetoric" as a way of shutting up opposition to them. The establishment Republicans and Democrats are like that, and their cheerleaders in the media support them as they are part of that establishment.

The reaction to this assassination attempts have been largely appalling. Trying to blame the political opposition with NO evidence at all that ties Loughner to them is not only a foul thing to do, it will almost certainly backfire.

If it turns out Loughner acted for bizarre reasons that had nothing whatever to do with politics, Palin is going to end up getting a bunch of sympathetic media claiming that the left and media had demonized her and were biased. But more importantly, I don't like the way this whole thing is going and haven't from moment one. Imagine some nutball who at one time was associated with the anti-war movement or environmental movement completely loses it and tries to kill some Republican, you just know the calls for us to "dial back the rhetoric" and "watch what we say" will be out in force. No, I am not going to go along with that. A movement or political party is not to be blamed for some clearly insane crackpot completely losing his mind and committing a horrible crime.

If the facts show that Loughner was really a member of an actual right wing group such as the Tea Party and was acting based on what they were telling him, then we should most definitely use that information to shame and perhaps even prosecute said group if they'd broken any laws, but with no such evidence we are effectively just using this assassination attempt as a way to tar our political opponents to win a few media cycles - and it will come back to bite us in the ass.

[newspeak]

33. what I want to see is balance

if you have some blowhard on TV spouting crap, then have someone who is on the other side of the issue (and not some wimp). On the Today Show this morning they were trying to peddle that both sides do it. However, MSM gives more access to one side over the other. I'll admit, this guy has some serious mental issues; however, the UU church shooting, the pro-choice doctor and the Colorado DJ are still fresh in my mind. Pushing violent rhetoric may have consequences, and some in the media do just that. Then when something happens, they want to attribute the action to both sides or downplay their involvement.

On the Today Show, she mentioned that on one of the "liberal" blogs that someone said about Gabrielle "that she is dead to me" because she voted against Pelosi. To me, that's like a parent saying to a daughter/son after doing something wrong, that they will no longer support them or see them as a son/daughter. However, that was their "both sides do it" meme. Yes, we can get upset; however, I haven't seen any rhetoric on this board calling for physically harming someone.

[newspeak]

34. also, I'd like to add Coulter's public comments

when Little Boots was president. About killing all of the liberals, except one. When the MSM gives access to people who hint at harming others, or actually pay them to spout their hate commentary with no strong rebuttal, what does that say about what our media is espousing?

[Spoonman]

39. There is no "lilly white" side in politics

I haven't seen any rhetoric on this board calling for physically harming someone

I would consider ANYONE on this board with a Che' Guevara avatar, or sig line to be openly advocating violence as a means to achieve a political goal.

You will find HUNDREDS of people on this board that openly advocate support for him and his ideologies.

"I'm here in Cuba's hills, alive and thirsting for blood." - Che' Guevara

"I really like killing." - Che' Guevara

"If in doubt, kill him." - Che' Guevara

"This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." - Che' Guevara

[No Elephants]

52. Holy false equivalency, Batman !!1111!!

[Spoonman]

37. FINALLY

Hypothetically -let’s say Loughner was extremly left leaning in his political beliefs, and did this because Gifford was too moderate for him.

How will DU react when the right starts placing the blame on President Obama for his “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” comment?

[thisMike]

40. Meanwhile in the real world…

Progressives tend to use humor, irony, and metaphor when they debate the issues of the day. When the President says "bring a gun" progressives don't show up brandishing weapons, they show up with funnier, more ironic, and more imaginative ideas. Sure, when conservatives hear "second amendment remedies" some of them show up in short sleeves, but most go out and grab their guns.

[Spoonman]

42. In the real world,

There are progressives like Daniel Andreas San Diego.

You fail. (Unless bombs are "funny")

[thisMike]

43. I am shamed…

I once invited Dan over for a barbecue. I made cheeseburgers. He blew up my car. The joke was on him, it was a Rabbit.

What the hell are you talking about! Do you think this guy is in any way representative of progressives in this country? The internets are full of examples today of right-wing Senators, Congressman, Presidential candidates, 24/7 "news" channel hosts spewing hatred and inciting violence and you counter with an animal rights vegan. Ouch!

[Spoonman]

44. You should be ashamed,

for your failure to follow the discussion and it's relevant points.

First, it's internet, not plural internets.
And yes, the INTERNET is full of examples of extremist from both sides of the political aisle.

The INTERNET is also full of examples of ALL Senators, Congressman and Presidents spewing hatred and inciting violence.

The vast majority of the world would agree that the animal rights/vegan crowd is a progressive group.
Daniel Andreas San Diego is the poster child for the violent aspect of that "progressive" group, and he's out there blowing shit up!

You again fail, by not recognizing that there are NO "lilly white" groups in politics, including progressives.
EVERYONE has skeletons in their closet, but only the hypocrites point fingers!!!!!

The "ouch" you proclaimed is the pin prick of your own hypocrisy.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[thisMike]

46. Thanks For The Welcome

You are mistaken on the internets thing. I have it on the highest authority that the correct usage is:
i n t e r n e t s.
also
"The human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

and I did find some mean quotes from progressives:

I think George W. Bush has a warm, engaging personality. But, you know, the presidency is more than just a popularity contest. So next time you see him poke him in the eye for me.
-Al Gore

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom. Just don't come begging around my door or I'll poke you in the eye.
-Jimmy Carter

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. The only thing you have to fear is me getting up out of this wheel chair and poking you in the eye.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Imajika]

41. We both know what would happen...

If Loughner turned out to have extreme left views and shot Giffords for being a DINO or some other reason, most on DU would just point out that he was completely crazy and be furious at the media and the right for trying to pin him on progressives. We'd be talking about how dangerous it is that we are being told to "cool down the rhetoric". There would be absolute outrage here at the mere suggestion that we should "tone down the partisanship" so as not to inspire other assassins.

This is a dangerous path people are taking. As vile as it is, there is no real evidence that most vitriol on the new right has led to some epidemic of political violence. Calling on them to "watch what they say" will eventually backfire and be turned on us. You can be sure that at some point there will be some environmental extremist who acts out, or an anti-war activist who kills a right wing warmonger truly believing he is doing the world a favor, etc, etc. It will happen.

If Loughner was truly motivated or pushed to violence by the tea party or any other right wing organization they should be absolutely held to account, but there is, as of yet, no evidence that this is the case - and I seriously doubt there will be. Declaring that Sarah Palin's stupid target list is responsible without a single shred of evidence is beyond idiotic and it is sad to see so many people here rush to embrace this type of thinking. As loathsome as Palin is, there is no evidence Loughner gave a damn about anything Palin or her PAC had to say.

I will not be watching what I say, dialing back the rhetoric, toning down my criticisms, etc. If we start demanding the right do this, it is only a matter of time before it will be demanded of us. There is simply no evidence we are becoming a more violent society, there is no epidemic of political assassinations - basically, there is no reason to fundamentally alter political discourse because some mentally deranged guy killed a bunch of people. Politics is a nasty game, always has been and always will be. It is not more violent now than it has been at any time in the past. While the shootings are horribly sad, the "tone of the debate" likely had no more to do with this assassination than violent video games, violent movies, hip hop, etc, etc.

[No Elephants]

53. Wrong.

[No Elephants]

54. Four comments:

1/ Taken completely out of context and therefore misleading.


Obama made the comment in the context of warning donors that the general election campaign against McCain could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said. A supporter yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”

“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

(Obviously, Obama was warning Obama's supporters that McCain's general election campaign against Obama could get ugly, and Obama was promising to give back as good as he got, but I don't expect straight reporting from wsj.)

2/ What part of "IFthey bring a knife to the fight" do you not understand? Self defense is different from urging assassination.

3/ Google "metaphor." Hint: When people who have been insulted say they will "fight fire with fire," they are not really referring to two actual physical fires, so you can safely skip dialing 911. Obama's metaphor is not remotely comparable to something like "If we lose at the ballot box, use bullets."

4/ You've posted one RW talking point-false equivalency after another. Step away from Morning Joe or whichever Deceiver you're taking to heart.

.

[progressivebydesign]

35. Even if the shooter didn't have a Palin poster on his wall....

...does that make violent rhetoric and imagery okay?? That's the thing that is upsetting me about the MSM and the GOP Apologists. So, they're harping on the info that suggests he's unstable, and that he's probably a libertarian, so THAT makes everything that Palin, Beck, Angle, et al, do okay??? If anything the shooting has brought to light and created a COLLECTION of violent language and threats that the MSM and good Americans have been ignoring.

Giffords had been threatened and harassed repeatedly since the "right" began targeting her with such violent language. Even if that guy had never heard of Palin or seen her map, does that make all that other stuff okay?

My cousin, whom I have not seen for decades, was angry with my family for posting something on Facebook asking the right to repudiate the violent rhetoric, etc. He, like the MSM and the mouthpieces, are focusing on the shooter's mental condition, thereby sidestepping the issue. They refuse to acknowledge that their violent talk has exponentially increased attacks, planned attacks, threats, and disintegration of public discourse, in America. They refuse to acknowledge that Fox "News" and others are making billions on the language of death and hate. They want us all to say "oh, that guy was mentally ill, so please Mr. Beck and Ms. Palin, carry on with your violent talk!!"

Truth is anyone who can kill another person is mentally ill in some way, if they're no

[kestrel91316]

36. Understatement of the frickin' century.

[Romulox]

38. Without EVIDENCE for these claims, this seems like a sick sort of "making hay" to me. nt

[slackmaster]

45. It's both funny and sad to see so many ridiculous knee-jerk reactions from all sides

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1

[Turborama]

48. It's just sad to see so many apologists for reich wing incitement of violence on DU

Personally, I'm going with what progressivebydesign said so well upthread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4690582&mesg_id=4691016

And what sheriff Dupnik has been saying.

for example: "I think the tone of rhetoric that's occurred in this country over the past couple of years affects trouble personalities," he told TODAY.

Quote used in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40997616/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

[No Elephants]

55. +1

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.