Wow. You’d think the RW would stop using shooting metaphors, especially in reference to their own.
The title of an article at the Canadian Free Press from yesterday (Jan 10): “Moronic Left Uses Tuscon Massacre As Excuse to ‘Gun’ for Sarah Palin”.
I think the word “gun” is in quotes to make a jab at the ridiculousness of the Left’s critique of Palin’s cross hair/targeting ad that listed Giffords by name. But I don’t understand why you would write this underneath this: “WARNING: The extreme rhetoric now flooding the air waves from the Left pose a real and present danger to Sarah Palin” (that is at the end, too, right before he suggests that the left is literally going to get Palin assassinated). I guess this is all satire. I guess?
I bet that you don’t need me to tell you that the article doesn’t actually present any of this “extreme rhetoric” as evidence and, of course, no one on the left has called for anyone to gun down Sarah Palin. But he makes it seem like the left has called for violence against her:
Citing her “targeting” of Democrats for defeat in the 2010 elections as proof of a violence-based agenda, dingbats on the Left appear determined to see that Sarah Palin pays for her conservative philosophy.
Indeed, the hateful, but childish, rhetoric against this patriotic conservative has the potential to drive some unhinged nut ball over the edge and into a “revenge” act to atone for Palin’s alleged part in the Jared Loughner killing spree.
Despite the fact that he provides no evidence of anyone wishing bodily harm or death on Sarah Palin, he is charging that violent rhetoric can lead someone do something violent. So, does language cause people to do harm or not? Yes, if the language is directed at Sarah Palin. And no, if directed at democrats or liberals. Or something.
Also, this is just categorically untrue:
Of course, the fact is that Sarah Palin has never remotely suggested that violence should be used against any political opponent, a truth that applies equally to Messrs. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.
Having a map with cross hairs (you know, the thing you look through when you are hunting and try to kill things) on the districts of specific people who you name and then telling your followers to refer to that graphic and to “RELOAD”… well, that does remotely suggest violence. How does it not? I don’t think for a moment Sarah Palin actually wanted people killed but I do believe she acted incredibly irresponsibly when she used that language and released that image. So, please stop lying about that.
And please, for the love of all public officials and all loudmouthed radio talk show hosts and pundits, stop using the language of guns and shooting to talk about someone whose POLICIES and IDEOLOGIES you don’t like. It’s that fucking simple. The First Amendment gives you that right. Now have some fucking responsibility and stop doing it.