Alan Grayson claims Sarah Palin ‘instigated’ Tucson massacre

[kpete]

Alan Grayson claims Sarah Palin ‘instigated’ Tucson massacre

By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, January 20th, 2011 -- 8:42 am


Alan Grayson claims Sarah Palin instigated Tucson massacreProgressive firebrand and former Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) recently declared that he held Sarah Palin responsible for stoking a dangerous political climate that led to the tragic shootings of twenty people in Arizona.

"There has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats," Grayson said Wednesday in an email to supporters. "Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it."

The shooting rampage, which killed six and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and others, sparked off a debate in which Palin and other conservative figures were denounced for ostensibly poisoning the national dialogue with dog-whistles to violence.

"Palin has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn't exist. What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: 'We can't stand for this.' We have to stand against it," Grayson said.

the rest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/grayson-palin-instigated-tucson-massacre/

[cali]

1. yeah, that's helpful.

[whathehell]

2. I like Grayson, but that does seem to be a bit of an overstatement. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Firebrands thrive on hyperbole

[BlueDemKev]

4. That's overdoing it

While I believe that the heated right-wing rhetoric did play a major role in causing the Tucson massacre, it was an INDIRECT cause of the tragedy. I admire Grayson's passion but he has gone too far by saying that Palin personally instigated the shooting. :thumbsdown:

[JDPriestly]

21. You had better believe that if someone crazy person on the left

shot someone, Palin would be probably accuse Grayson not just of instigating the crime but of assisting in it in some way.

Don't be so knee-jerk submissive to these crazy right-wingers.

Politicians have to preach nonviolence all the time. It is part of their job. That goes for both sides. Palin's imagery and rhetoric are frequently violent. That excites the imaginations of crazy folks who are just waiting for someone to give them a signal to carry out their basest instincts.

Palin needs to tell her supporters that she does not support violence in any form. Then she can complain if people blame her for killings like Loughners.

[karynnj]

30. Absolutely true - and it would be wrong for her to do - and it's wrong for him too

We all need to tone down the rhetoric - and I think that the country actually might want that now.

[sabrina 1]

36. No THEY need to tone down the hate-filled rhetoric,

Rep. Giffords, Judge Roll and Sheriff Dupnik along with Rep. Grijalva all received death threats and both Representatives had their offices shot at, BEFORE this tragedy.

I could make a list once again, of the Democrats who have been murdered and threatened by the followers of these people, Palin, Beck et al but it's already been done here several times.

So please do not say 'we' when speaking about this kind of behavior. Gaby Giffords was very concerned about the threats she was receiving and said so on several occasions. Rep. Grivalja had to close his office after it was shot at and many Reps had to stop holding Town Hall Meetings because of the hateful, dangerous atmosphere created by Tea partiers.

There simply is NO 'we' involved here.

The fact that this tragedy may not have been instigated by them, is sheer luck for them. But when most people initially heard about it, the first reaction was 'it's finally happened' and the reason for that is because it HAS happened before.

[badtoworse]

5. It's not selling and he's making the Left look stupid - nt

[kestrel91316]

12. I disagree. But thank you for your concern (and your little friend's too).

[Tippy]

6. Read some of the comments found this one that said it all

"they don't cause the violence, they just create an atmosphere in which it is inevitable"

[Lint Head]

7. The truth hurts some times. We are letting the

right wing get away with instigating murder. False propaganda repeated over and over and over becomes the truth. Why do people pretend it's not happening. Is it because we know someone or have a family member believing the propaganda and don't want to hurt their feelings. Well, the people being killed, threatened and wounded are having their feelings hurt too.

[karynnj]

31. No - it's because in this case it is not true

There are MANY negative bad things that are happening due to over heated partisan rhetoric. Why choose one where it is far more likely to NOT have been the cause than to be the cause.

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. He's accurate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instigate

in·sti·gate
   /ˈɪnstɪˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
1.
to cause by incitement; foment: to instigate a quarrel.
2.
to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course: to instigate the people to revolt.
Use instigate in a Sentence
See images of instigate
Search instigate on the Web
Origin:
1535–45; < L instīgātus ptp. of instīgāre to goad on, impel, equiv. to in- in-2 + -stīg- goad, prick (akin to stigma, stick2 ) + -ātus -ate1

—Related forms
in·sti·gat·ing·ly, adverb
in·sti·ga·tive, adjective
in·sti·ga·tor, in·sti·gant  /ˈɪnstɪgənt/ Show Spelled Show IPA, noun
un·in·sti·gat·ed, adjective
un·in·sti·ga·tive, adjective

—Synonyms
1. arouse, provoke. 2. induce, stimulate, encourage, push; initiate, start.

[JDPriestly]

22. Thanks, Cronus Protagonist. Good discussions start with

good definitions that everyone can agree to.

[karynnj]

32. Gee the rest of us know English too

and that proves nothing.

http://www.ctpost.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=535670&width=628&height=471

[Cronus Protagonist]

37. Except you

My mother always said, "You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." You could have read the definitions of "instigate" and chosen one that is the correct meaning as intended, but you choose not to. That's your prerogative, but it's not correct.

P.S. Why are you defending "lock and load" Palin anyway? Are you in the right place?

[karynnj]

38. I am not defending Palin or her rhetoric - and your comment is alertable

I DID read the definitions - and still think that though there may be some who will be moved to violence by her words, this was not the case in Tuscon.

I think it HELPS Palin that people make the charge that her words led to Tuscon. That charge is easily knocked down - and is then used by her and the right to dispute the real harm done by her and the RW talk show people. This is a strawman that they would create - if it were not created for them.

[Johonny]

39. sort of

I agree with the first part. Clearly she instigated violent threats against democrats. Its been well reported death threats to Obama went way up after her terrorist comments about him. Gabby was also a victim of it (once again well reported she had a large number death threats against her), but was her ultimate shooting caused by it? That's still way up in the air. The statement he made was partially true, but probably went too far in its claims. Which is pretty much how Alan Grayson operates.

[ipaint]

9. How quickly people forget Palin and McCain's thinly veiled KKK rallies.

The current compassionate conservative version. Of course her and her ilk instigated it.

[Vattel]

10. Bull shit!

Grayson did not assert that Sarah Palin instigated the Tucson massacre. What he said was that she "has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn't exist." The "it" here does not refer to the massacre because obviously he is not claiming that Palin tried to deny that the massacre exists. I suspect Grayson was referring to rightwing political violence in general.

[wiggs]

16. Exactly right and very important point to make. nt

[Dappleganger]

28. THANK YOU, someone with reading comprehension!

Sometimes I have to just shake my head at this forum.

[Obamanaut]

11. The guy who chose to purchase weapons and chose to shoot people

with those weapons is responsible.

Not Sarah Palin, not the weapons manufacturer, not the taxi driver who drove him to the rally, not even any of his family members. The guy who made the decision to shoot folks is responsible.

[JDPriestly]

23. But why did he choose Giffords?

Why didn't he choose some right-wing politician?

Because only the right-wing uses violent imagery and rhetoric in their campaigns. That's why. It was a symbiosis. Palin likes people with a slight tendency toward physical violence because that's the way she is. And Loughner liked politicians like Palin who made him feel that what he wanted to do, kill people, was OK because that is what he was.

[Obamanaut]

26. Only ONE person pulled the trigger. Only one. He is responsible. nt

[JDPriestly]

34. From a technical, legal point of view, there was no actionable conspiracy.

Therefore there was no criminal responsibility or guilt.

But from a moral and social point of view, from the standpoint of ethics and religion, based on fundamental rules about how we live together without hurting each other, all who are influential, especially people like Palin or Glenn Beck or religious leaders or teachers, are responsible when someone whom they have influenced or might have influenced commits a violent act.

We are our brothers' keepers. Each of us must think about the potential effect that our words and actions and the images we use might have on someone like Loughner.

Palin's reactions to the criticism is, in my opinion, either immature or evidence that deep down inside she feels tremendous responsibility for what happened. Her reaction is the typical rationalization that a person resorts to when they feel guilt but can't bear to admit it.

First reaction: I didn't do it. It wasn't me.

Second reaction: You or somebody else made me do it.

Then comes: And besides he or she deserved it.

Or: Besides he or she started it.

Do what Jesus tells you to do: Visit people in prison. There was always some anonymous, unidentified person at the scene of the crime who must have been the actual perpetrator. Or their wife caused them to become so angry. Or their boss deserved to lose the money that was stolen because he didn't pay a hoped for bonus. There is always some defense.

Palin's conduct is quite familiar to me. She is showing the confusion of a person who sees herself as incredibly righteous and incapable of doing anything wrong -- but who has just been caught red-handed.

Think back on situations in which you caught someone in a lie or doing something wrong. How did they react? And then watch Palin.

[kestrel91316]

13. Stochastic terrorism at its best. She gets to claim HER hands are clean.

[cbdo2007]

14. Unless you think it was a botched mugging attempt - then of course she is partially responsible for

it.

She gets the tea partiers and the crazies all worked up. Then she puts gun sights on peoples maps.

Anyone who thinks the shooting of Rep Giffords is a coincidence and that it was some botched mugging attempt or something is an idiot.

[wiggs]

15. Sorry, wrong spot, ignore. nt

[yodermon]

17. MISLEADING HEADLINE. Here is the context of the quote that RawStory is misconstruing:

As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist.

The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is the phrase "a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats."


This is from the Email I got from Grayson; I will edit this post to link to a web-based source.

link on edit: http://www.truth-out.org/alan-grayson-gabby-was-right-palin-is-wrong66979

[Dappleganger]

29. +10000 for clarity.

[global1]

18. She And Beck Were Accessories To The Murders And Woundings In Tucson......

Palin with her crosshairs targeting and Beck with his saying 'shoot them in the head'. With assists by the vitriolic rhetoric of the likes of Rush, Hannity, Malkin, Savage, et.al.; and the signs and ramblings and show of guns at political rallys of the Teabaggers; and support by the Repugs in Congress that didn't try to calm the situation.

Coincidence - I think not.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. It seems that people other than those on the right use violent imagry...

Imagine living in this guy's neighborhood. Does this target advocate violence? Is it wrong to have his address all over the internet?

[global1]

35. I Don't Condone Any Violent Imagery Whether It Comes From The Right.....

the left of the middle.

[qb]

19. I'm with Grayson. Inflammatory speech has consequences. Speech that incites murder is not protected.

[robcon]

20. Grayson will say anything.

He's not a reliable, honest person, IMO.

[Lucian]

24. So where exactly is he wrong in this?

I agree with him.

[Johonny]

40. probably the word choice terrible victim

which leaves people familiar with the story to think he implies the shooting, and not the violent death threats she received before being shot. Bringing up the person that got shot was probably not the best example, because terrible victim generally brings the actual shooting to mind and not the violent atmosphere around her before the shooting. If he was going to use her he clearly need to be more specific. Did she then become a terrible victim because of the death threats that followed Palin's comments, or because she ultimately got shot. Most people conclude getting shot was more terrible and think that's the ultimate result he's implying. If people think he's talking about the shooting, then I have no problem with them drawing that conclusion because it means they at least pay attention to the news. Hard to think of a person that went hearing about her being a terrible victim doesn't think first of the shooting.

[karynnj]

27. That was so a week ago - before the facts were known

It is idiotic for someone who is a former elected official to make this kind of comment - one that Hannity and all will love and use to say that the Democrats are lying and blaming St Sarah.

I hope his 15 minutes is up quickly.

[onenote]

33. why, as someone who protested in the 60s and 70s, this kind of "instigated" talk makes me nervous

During the late 60s and 70s I protested the war. I participated in rallies and marches. I carried signs. While I tried to avoid engaging in some of the more heated rhetoric about the "pigs" and about what would happen when the revolution came, others were not as reticient. The vocabulary of the time included some pretty harsh imagery. And while the vast majority of those participating did not mean for those words to be taken literally, and that they often were simply an experession of frustration by a disenfranchised group of people (remember, 18 year olds didn't get the vote until 1971), there were those who did carry out violent acts and in a couple of instances people were hurt or even killed.

I didn't support the violence. I don't think the rhetoric in which I or others engaged, even where extreme, instigated or incited those violent attacks. And as a result, I take a very cautious view of what can be considered true incitement or instigation of criminal behavior.

[Major Hogwash]

41. Is Grayson running for office again?

Does anyone know?