Howard Kurtz: Sarah Palin Could Have Struck A More Inclusive, Moderate Tone Merely By Confessing To The Left's Charges Against Her & Admitting She Was An Accomplice To Mass-Murder

This is why, for quality political insights, you don't come to a blog like mine. For this level of analysis, you need to read Howard Kurtz, star opinion columnist for The Washington Post The Daily Beast.

The Loughner Left:

Blood libel, for those who are not familiar, describes a false accusation that minorities—usually Jews—murder children to use their blood in religious rituals, and has been a historical theme in the persecution of the Jewish people.

Had Palin scoured a thesaurus, she could not have come up with a more inflammatory phrase.

As someone who has argued that linking her rhetoric to the hateful violence of Jared Loughner is unfair, I can imagine that the former governor was angry about how liberal detractors dragged her into this story. But after days of silence, she had a chance to speak to the country in a calmer, more inclusive way. She could have said that all of us, including her, needed to avoid excessively harsh or military-style language, without retreating one inch from her strongly held beliefs.

Instead she went the blood libel route.

Which would be an admission that she had something to do with this. Which she didn't.

Let me clue Howard Kurtz in: I am one of those who agrees, generally, that actually inciting language is dangerous, and should be restrained. I do in fact believe there are enough Category 3 types that we should have worries about this, and do our best, to the extent we can, to at least make sure such people do not get the erroneous impression that acts of violence would be applauded by any political cohort.

Here's why I'm not having that debate now -- because right now it is being used to create a false link to Palin, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, and me, and so no, I'm not interested in calmly, and in a mature fashion, discussing the ways in which I may, or may not be, an accomplice to mass murder.

That is what the Laughner Left demands as proof of "moderation."

Am I concerned about this issue, incitement? Indeed. And I'm no Johnny Come Lately on the issue, either, Howie-- I cared about it eight years ago when people were writing books about the assassination of George W. Bush (the book was on the Pro side of the issue) and, oh, what else? Movies about the assassination of George W. Bush (the movie was also, get this, on the Pro- side).

See, after screaming bloody murder about the Florida Democratic Party putting out a flyer suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld should be executed for war crimes, I noticed that no one in the media or on the left -- including Howard Kurtz -- was at all interested in taking up my crusade against incitement towards political violence.

But how things changed on January 11, 2009! Oh my! Now that we had a president in office we didn't want killed, oh dearie, how this became all that anyone cold talk about!

Now that be that as it may, I am still willing to talk about the issue-- because, unlike Howard Kurtz and the left, I don't want a president of either party assassinated. Unlike Kurtz and the left, I am not selective in my anti-assassination position. I am anti- all political assassinations. (Well, in America. I have a different opinion with respect to, say, Iran, but that's a completely different issue.)

So I am willing to discuss this, and say that yes, some incitement which urges, or seems to urge, violence against public figures is not just bad but pretty awful and un-American.

And I'm willing to do that now, as I was eight years ago, when it wasn't a very interesting topic for Howard Kurtz because, well, if Bush got killed, and so it goes.

But I'm not willing to discuss this now. Why not now? Because now the left isn't trying to have a discussion about inciting language -- if they were that concerned, they could have patrolled their own during the Bush Administration -- they're just interested in piling up political points and turning a massacre to their political advantage.

And by even indulging in this discussion, now, I tacitly agree with the left's charge that, oh yeah, by constantly saying incitement to political violence by anyone, right left or No Labels, is wrong, no matter who does it and no matter who is the target of it, I actually had a hand in the shootings in Tucson, because, well, I'm right-wing, which is Latin for "presumed guilty."

So no, I decline your generous offer to accept the blame you've laid at my feet, and I support Sarah Palin in similarly declining your selfless offer to profit by her demise.

And oddly enough-- even as Howard Kurtz offers to admit on Palin's behalf that she talked in violent code that resulted in murder -- I notice that not a single figure on the left is willing to do likewise.

I have not heard a single figure on the left say something like, "Honestly, I sort of said some things about Bush that were close to urging murder, and I regret that."

And I have not heard a single person in the media say, "Yeah, I guess if I have a problem with the 'Obama=Socialist' posters and think they're incitements to murder, maybe I should have said something about the 'Bush=Fascist" signs or 'Bush is a KILLER' signs; maybe they were incitements to violence, too. And maybe I gave them a pass because they're on the left, like me. And I shouldn't have done that."

Why is it that Sarah Palin -- or anyone on the right -- is demanded to come forward and confess their own guilt whereas not a single person on the left is? Oh, Howard Kurtz will permit Sarah Palin to say that it's not just her to blame, there might be some unnamed others who share in the blame, who might or might not be Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh; but why is it that not a single liberal has come forth and made a similar personal confession?

If this is so easy, as Kurtz alleges, why can't Kurtz himself do it?

Here you go Howard-- here's all you have to say:

"During the Bush Administration I was forwarded a lot of links by people on the right pointing out incendiary and dangerously provocative images and language used by the left to disparage Bush, thereby increasing the chances that some violence would be done to him. I ignored this, partly because of my unfounded conceit that no one on the left is violent, but mostly because it is in my own best political interests to overlook the excesses of my own side."

If this is so easy to admit, where the FUCK is Howard Kurtz's admission?

...

With her defiant video, Palin continued—no, escalated—her war with the press, which plays so well with her strongest supporters (despite a recent thaw in which she actually granted a few interviews to the lamestream media). She continued her us-versus-them approach to political discourse. She punched back at critics rather than trying to fashion a unifying message.

She "escalated" her war with the press? The press is calling her a murderess.

Is it possible to "escalate" a war with the press when they're calling you a murderer?

Oh, and by the way: You know all that toxic, martial language that Howard Kurtz wants Sarah Palin to apologize for?

"War with the press"? War?, Howard?

Isn't it funny that Kurtz can use this language without apology but, if Sarah Palin says "targeting," he needs her to apologize on national television for her part in a mass murder.

You Know When We Could Have Had A Nice Discussion About This? When James Lee took hostages and shot people at the Discovery Channel. I know early in that day, the left was eager to discuss hateful messages and the coarsening of the public dialogue, but when he turned out to be a left-wing loon who took Al Gore's statements about the literal destruction of the Earth if we don't ACT NOW to be genuine instead of nonsense hyperbole, the left suddenly didn't want to have that discussion anymore.

In fact, Media Matters For America was very sensible on this point... the moment we learned he was on the fanatical fascist environmental left:

But now, when we have a right-wing shooter, now we have to talk about this, huh?

Oh wait, did I say "right wing"? Oh that's right, I forgot for a moment, so overwhelmed was I by media insinuation -- of course Loughner is not right wing, doesn't watch right-wing TV, doesn't listen to right-wing radio, doesn't read right-wing blogs.

In fact he's an atheist Truther, more concerned about mind control by government grammar Men in Black than in any political debate, but oh yeah, let's pretend he's right wing, because you guys are down on your chips and really need some luck and you think we should play along because you're desperate.

I don't mean to be curt but, Fuck Yourself.

posted by Ace at 02:45 PM

| Access Comments