Apologizing for the crosshairs map would have been an acknowledgment of guilt. Even if it was tasteless, even implying that it was responsible for the massacre would open Palin up to civil and possibly criminal charges. I personally wouldn't have used the term "blood libel" due to its connection to anti-Semetism, but its meaning of "accusation of murder against an innocent party" was justified.
Here
is an interesting article concerning the controversy by Rabbi Boteach.
I think the reason why we keep talking about this is, despite it being clear politics had nothing to do with this, it was EXACTLY the first thing that came to mind when this happened.
It was clearly on our minds, but this brought it out.
Sadly our society is reactionary, and we always need disaster to happen before we actually DO something (Katrina anyone?)
Palin should want civil and criminal charges. It's a great PR opportunity (if someone's dumb enough to do it) since she'd be pretty much sure to win. That would make her look like an actual victim, as opposed to a whiner.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.^ Actually no she shouldn't. Pressing charges on her now over this shooting is tantamount to Thoughtcrime. I don't care how bad the tragedy was, you don't charge people like that.
Besides, who said the charges would be in a court of law? There are plenty of people willing to do the legwork in the court of public opinion, given the slightest opportunity to do so.
Hell, Rep. Giffords had just rolled into the ER when the drumbeat about "Palin is responsible" started pounding on the talking head circuit. One site I saw (forget where, offhand, but I think NY Daily News) had a poll where like 60% or so of those who took the poll were saying she was at least partly responsible for the shooting, within a day of the actual event.
It's a lot harder to get found "not guilty" in the court of public opinion, especially when the "judges" are biased as all get-out. Appealing a guilty "verdict" there is even more difficult, particularly when facing Hanging Judges in a Kangaroo Court (figuratively speaking).
All your safe space are belong to TrumpTom, I agree fully that it's a retardedly stupid idea to charge Palin with something-but it would be to her benefit, because she would win, and make it look like the government is out to get her and stupid (which, if it tried to charge her with anything, it would be). That's the point Ultrayellow was getting at.
Sometimes, injustice towards one's self is in one's best interest.
Exactly. Basically, Dems had a nifty bullseye map, and Republicans, to make it more Republicany, decided to use Crosshairs, thinking that hey-it was okay when the Dems did it, but not realizing that, you know, maybe crosshairs are a little more controversial than bullseyes?
I mean, ultimately, we should just tell politicians to tone it down a notch. The argument isn't that they're responsible for violence-it's that violent rhetoric is corrosive in the first place.
Except you're forgetting the targeting map the Democrats did earlier.
Then you have one key issue you two are forgetting. Slamming both sides equally for their rhetoric is all fine and good provided you heap it out evenly. With all the accusations and political attacks levied at the right, nobody is going to take you serious on slamming both sides' rhetoric anymore without first leveling the field by slamming the left just as equally.
Politics has a lot of tit-for-tat. Launch a blitzkrieg of political attacks at somebody who didn't deserve it over something non-political and you cannot in good faith assume fairness in the immediate future in return.
That's the whole problem right now in light of Giffords being shot. Paul Krugman and the leftists immediately went after the right and there has been no comeuppance for their types as part of telling both sides to knock it off. If that does not happen soon, you cannot possibly expect fair dialogue and a lack of partisanship in the future.
Tom, pay attention: the Dems targeting map was bullseyes. The Republicans targeting map was Crosshairs. And even then, the map thing really is one of the lighter examples of violent rhetoric and, AGAIN, everyone HERE at least has explicitly come out against the democrats earlier violent rhetoric as well-though with the corollary of pointing out that it's never really been from political candidates for office.
Basically your argument boils down to "Well, the democrats are the same" when the reality is, no-they're not.
edited 17th Jan '11 3:42:49 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Yes, because a back and forth of "Yes!" "NO!" is really intelligent.
Name one Democratic candidate for office who has implied directly that we need to kill the opposition?
Note that I'm not saying Democrats don't occasionally toss around Hitler Ate Sugar with regards to Bush and the like (Go go Kucinich!) but that's not the same thing as calls to physical violence.
edited 17th Jan '11 4:42:51 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Oh for crying out loud, haven't we already figured this out?
Fact: Violent political rhetoric happens on both sides of the aisle.
Fact: It's equally inexcusable on either side of the aisle, and anyone who engages in it should be shunned and ostracized. They should be the laughingstocks of politics.
Fact: The right's rhetoric is both more numerous and more widely accepted than the lefts. This isn't an excuse for anyone, however, and it's not actually all that important.
Couldn't we just stick to ignoring any nutter who spouts this violent gibberish, rather than using "the other guy did it too!" as an excuse to justify it on our side? Who does it more or less shouldn't be an issue, nobody who does it should be elected/have a widely watched TV show. Stop watching these violent hatemongers, and stop voting for them.
edited 17th Jan '11 5:41:35 PM by deathjavu
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.The thing is, one side will only stop using this political weapon if the other side stops first. But neither side has any guarrantee that the other side will abide by any agreement. It's why disarming combatants in civil wars is really hard to do without taking sides, and since politics is war by other means...
^ Conversely if you link to Daily Kos or Move On.org to link violent political rhetoric to the right you will be asked to do it over.

I don't hold Palin responsible for the shooting at all, but like I said in the "blood libel" thread, I'm infuriated that instead of just acknowledging her "crosshairs map" was tasteless in retrospect, she's used this tragedy as an excuse to portray herself as a victim YET AGAIN when a half dozen people are dead.