Why Doesn't the Republican Party Repudiate or Admonish Palin?

[coalition_unwilling]

OK, so let me make sure I have it straight.

Sarah Palin maintains a website that 'targets' various Dem officials by putting the image of a telescopic gunsight over each of the districts.

One of those Dem officials is subsequently attacked and severely wounded by a gunman who kills 6 people during a shooting rampage.

And no Republican, not one, of any national stature has yet publicly repudiated, rebuked or admonished Sarah Palin in any meaningful way for her website's incitement of its viewers to violence?

Here's what I'm tryng to get my mind around:

I understand that various Reupblicans have condemned the attack on Giffords. But why is the Republican Party or its national leaders not publicly admonishing or repudiating Palin for inciting people to violence?

The silence on Palin is positively deafening and I cannot help wondering if the Republican Party, by its deafening silence, is now insinuating that political violence is acceptable.

When I said that I thought this might mark the start of Civil War v2.0, my wife responded that I was being needlessly alarmist and using inflammatory rhetoric to frame yesterday's events. I sure hope my wife is correct. I guess I'm trying to figure out what yesterday means and portends. As in, how bad could this get?

[Zoeisright]

1. Because they truly believe anyone who disagrees with them should be shot.

I hear it from my fucking nuts right wing family all the time. Violence is the only thing they understand, since their brains are so primitive.

[coalition_unwilling]

2. Does this mean that every Dem is now considered a legitimate 'target'

by them? If so, then that smells and feels like a civil war (low grade) to me.

[madrchsod]

3. they would like to but they can`t

the leadership of the republican party has a big problem. the far rightwing is to dangerous for them to ignore. they would like them to go away till the next election cycle.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. These are scary times in which we live. The thing that bothers me

is that most people would look at Palin's map and recognize the use of metaphorical or rhetorical language and imagery (admittedly over-heated). However, there is a segment of the population out there that has trouble distinguishing the literal from the figurative. Didn't it once cross Palin's mind that someone out there among her followers might take her map literally rather than figuratively? Even if it was not Loughner (sp?), who may have been responding to his own inner demons, that website's imprecations could set off someone else.

[Mariana]

46. I'm sure it did cross Palin's mind that that might happen.

I'm sure it crossed her mind when she was using all that inflammatory language against then-Senator Obama during the campaign, too. She didn't give a shit is all. She didn't then, and she doesn't now.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. If the lottery odds were 1/20, I would play.

Palin OWNS this tragedy.

Not so sure about a civil war, but heres hoping she sees the ramifications of her rhetoric.

[bettyellen]

5. they want her voters

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. In all fairness

the Republican Party establishment post-2008 DOES seem to be trying to find some way to get rid of her, mostly b/c they know that she's a "trainwreck" and they're afraid of her winning the nomination in 2012 and throwing the election to President Obama (in a landslide no less), but it's going to be difficult b/c they have to maintain the support of the teabaggers, Palin's primary constituency, at the same time. The inevitable civil war between the teabaggers and the "Republican establishment" cannot come soon enough.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Are the Palinistas so far gone that a Republican of some national

stature, like Chuck Hegel, cannot condemn Palin in the strongest language without the Republican Party losing the Palinista base?

On edit: are the Republicans so far gone that they refuse to condemn Palin and what she represents out of fear of losing her supporters?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Almost without a doubt

There are almost no "moderates" left and even staunch longtime conservative (but still rational) Republicans like Richard Lugar (of my home state) are facing the prospect of a Tea Party primary candidates in upcoming elections. So, they have to move even further to the right to appease the teabaggers or face the (very real) possibility of losing a primary. At some point, the Republican Party is either going to be overrun and overtaken by the teabaggers or the "moderate" establishment Republicans will have to find some way to neutralize them and pull the party back from the abyss. I'm honestly conflicted about which I would rather have happen. OTOH if the teabaggers take control of the party, the moderates, independents, and "moderate" Republicans will probably flee to the Democrats and, hopefully, help us win back some of our numbers in Congress. The major problem with this scenario is that there are plenty of places, particularly in the South that WILL elect teabaggers to all levels of government and their designs for government, public services, etc. is frightening IMHO. OTOH while it might be nice to have the "grown up" Republicans back in charge of their party and the teabaggers exiled to the fringe, it will prolong the life and viability of Republicanism. Between now and 2012 will be the big test to see if the Republican Party can walk the fine line between maintaining their political viability by keeping moderates and independents in their corner at the same time avoiding antagonizing the teabaggers. I don't envy the person trying to run for POTUS on the Republican ticket in 2012 because they will have this very fine line to straddle both in the primary and in the GE.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. In the same way that JFK neutralized the religion issue and Obama

finessed the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio, I would think that a Republican of national stature like Hegel or Lugar could stomp on Palin and, in so doing, grab the mantle of 'gravitas' that confers national legitimacy. I keep wondering why Romney isn't all over this like a fly on rice.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. I could see Hagel and/or Lugar saying something

Maybe somebody like Colin Powell could say something. He's been one of the few people to criticize Limbaugh and get away with it. Maybe Mitch Daniels might say something. I don't particularly like him but he's been one of the few Republicans whom has dared suggested taking social issues off the table. I wouldn't really expect Romney or any of the other potential prospective Republican candidates for POTUS in 2012 to say anything because they'll need the support of the teabaggers, at least in the primary.

[IntravenousDemilo]

36. "Like a fly on rice"...

A similar term would be "like white on a turd". :)

[sadbear]

7. That would mean they'd have to repudiate or admonish themselves

[coalition_unwilling]

11. They should repudiate and admonish themselves for unleashing

forces that led to the death, among others, of a 9-year-old girl who had just been elected to her school's student council. I have been crying about this off and on all day today and just feel this absolute crushing despair right now.

I will never be able to have another civil conversation with any self-identified Republican. Because while I am talking with him or her, the image of that little girl will stay burned into my brain and I'll end up spitting in the Republican's face. Good thing i live in Los Angeles, I guess.

[Historic NY]

8. They haven't manned up yet.

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. But haven't you heard? Those aren't crosshairs, but surveyors' marks.

That's the new meme now, you betcha!

[coalition_unwilling]

14. Surveyors use plain circles, not circles with crosshairs in them from a telescopic

gunsight, I think, based on what I know of surveying (which admittedly is not much).

[IntravenousDemilo]

35. Hey, I'm just repeating what I read earlier this evening from some RW posters elsewhere.

Sounded rather pathetic to me, like they're grasping at straws.

[Kurovski]

12. It appears that they tacitly approve of all that. (nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

15. If that means that every Dem is now a legitimate target in their

eyes, isn't that just another way of saying that we're in a civil war?

[Amonester]

21. not yet...

what civil war would be like is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x155232

not there yet

just on the way (if nothing serious is done in time)

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Thank you for that link. I had seen it earlier but lost track of it.

I shudder to think of what a full-fledged civil war would be like. Version 1.0 was horrible enough.

[Amonester]

32. Bookmarked. Let's 'send vibes' version 2.0 never comes.

Hate speech, and sick rhetoric should be made illegal on ALL public tribunes.

Unfortunately, the 1st Amendment would be cited at every turn against such 'urgently needed' amendment...

And the senseless violence will continue.

TPTB R happy the 'focus' is 'shifting' away...

[Kurovski]

30. No. I don't agree.

Just a lot of civilly irresponsible people. The courts are created for that. The prisons created for others.

[Duer 157099]

13. I think you mean refudiate n/t

[jillan]

16. You took the words right out of my mouth!

[rhett o rick]

24. That's a good word to get out of your mouth. nm

[pokerfan]

26. beat me to it

Peaceful Republicans, please refudiate Sarah Palin!

[Voice for Peace]

18. if she were to tone it down, what would she have?

not much.. I believe her popularity is directly related to the feeling people get from the incendiary talk. it's a sexual thing.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Oh, she's far beyond the pale. What I'm asking about is why the

Republican Establishment is not admonishing and rebuking her in the strongest language possible. Do they really think a country (or a Republican Party) where Palin and what she represents plays a prominent role is one worth having?

On edit: I agree with your analysis about Palin's appeal being primarily sexual. There's some sort of atavistic primitive thing going on that I cannot quite get my mind around. I have trouble listening to her for more than about 5 seconds as her run-on sentences leave me bewildered - can't figure out what she's really trying to say most of the time b/c her grammar and syntax is so tortured.

[somone]

19. They need the turnout on Election Day

[PurityOfEssence]

23. It would be an admission of responsibility

It's much the same kind of logic that has attorneys counseling employers to never send flowers to an employee in the hospital after an accident on the job.

Well, plus, of course, that they don't feel any guilt, and are happy to see people upset so they can cry foul.

[cynatnite]

28. Because they're afraid...

Until Palin's followers fall away, repubs will pander out of fear of losing their jobs and losing donation money. That's all they care about.

[deacon]

29. Because so many of them are guilty of the same thing. n/t

[nc4bo]

41. +1. There are far too many RWers guilty of this, not just Palin.

And any Republican that remains silent also shares responsibility and guilt.

In fact, I haven't heard one Repuke condemn this horrible behavior.

Not one.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. That is the fact that has me VERY worried. I'm not so vain or

arrogant as to assume that Dems have a monopoly on virtue. Because the hate on the right is so manifest, so in-your-face, I simply cannot understand why Republicans who are decent are not speaking out.

I actually spoke with an acquaintance about this earlier today and he reminded me that some Republicans did try to speak out before November 2010 and were punished in the elctions, and so my friend thinks the decent Republicans are now staying silent out of fear themselves.

It is very worrisome.

Edited for clarity

[Skittles]

31. they LOVES them their fame whore

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. Because their strategy is based upon pushing the Overton Window to the right by exploiting extremist

..... and base rhetoric.


That is the only way to get their voters to vote against their own economic interests.


They will only throw someone under the bus if forced to, by overwhelming public opinion.... but their experience for a number of years is that if they double down while accusing the left of their own sins, the corporate media will NOT call them out on it, and they can generally either ride it out, or turn it to their own vile profit.


So, is there more than a 20% chance that they will repudiate Palin in the near future? (I don't know.)

[coalition_unwilling]

37. Eesh, thanks for reminding me again why I'm a loyal Democrat. At

the risk of appearing lazy (but really being pressed for time), what is the "Overton Window"?

[chollybocker]

44. If I may...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window (Not the Beck novella).

This is important because the right wing has learned to espouse this phemonemon, and use it effectively, while progressive pols have yet to attempt any "push" back of the pendulum. And the 'great unwashed' become its tool, and victim.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. Thanks for the link and the info. Closest analogue I can think of in

American history is (maybe) the debate about slavery in the 19th century, where abolitionists were pretty much viewed as fringe types by the mainstream even as late as 1859. But abolition as an idea became more mainstream as the Civil War continued and became policy by war's end.

[spanone]

38. they want her admirers votes...a vote is a vote is a vote

[Quezacoatl]

39. Miranda rights

I know how Palin feels about miranda rights for terrorists so I'm sure she has been outspoken about it in this case too. Where is the link to her comments? After all it seems like Loughner isn't talking.

Also I'm sure if they used Palin approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" they could get him to "confess" that Palin is his inspiration.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Same reason why they don't "refudiate" Rush Limbaugh.

They make lots of money for Republicans and get voters to the polls.

They will never through their bread and butter under the bus.

[Skidmore]

42. And alienate their base?