Keep Being Douchebags, Howard Fineman & Paul Krugman (KingShamus)

By now, most people have heard about the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona that left six people dead and wounded eighteen others, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords.  This pointless act of violence by a deranged young man should be denounced by every right-thinking person.  Unfortunately, some of our allegedly right-thinking media commentators are trying way too hard to make their ridiculous political points.

First up, here's Howard Fineman, calling on Obama to use the Tuscon shooting for his own purposes.

Now comes Tucson. The deaths there are not about politics, ideology or party. From what we know, Jared Loughman's acts were those of a madman divorced from reality, let alone from public debate.

But that doesn't make Tucson politically meaningless. The president need not, and should not, speak of ideas or programs or parties. What he can speak about, and what perhaps he will speak about, is civility.

Arizona has become a ferociously divided and dangerous place, in which our indispensable need to argue--arguing is, after all, who we are as a people--seems at times to veer into an abyss.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords--"centrist" Democrat, survivor in a district with more Republicans than Democrats and more independent voters than either--has prospered in Congress by crossing lines and doing so with a sense of earnestness and good will.

Like her, the president has been attacked harshly of late from both sides: by progressives who regard him as a sellout, by Tea Partiers who regard him as a power-mad socialist usurper.

He and Giffords think of themselves as fellow travelers on a middle path of civility and compromise in a dangerous world. The president will likely argue that, implicitly if not explicitly.

Fate works in strange ways. This event is the first on the watch of Obama's new chief of staff, and a deal-making, turn-the-heat-down approach to politics is what Bill Daley is all about.

As was the case with Clinton, Obama may be able to remind voters of what they like best about him: his sensible demeanor. Amid the din and ferocity of our political culture, he respectfully keeps his voice down, his emotions in check and his mind open.

That is the pitch, at least. The trick is to make it without seeming to be trying to make it. He will, after all, be speaking at a funeral.

Jeeeeeeeebus.

There is so much fail here, it almost overwhelms reason.

First, Fineman strains mightily against observable reality to draw a connection between Giffords, an actual moderate, and Barack 'I Won'Obama, a hard left statist who has to be dragged kicking and screaming to split the difference with Republicans.  In fact, there is no comparison between the Representative and the President besides the fact that they're both Democrats.  Quick tip for Fineman: When you call your partisan opponents hostage-takers, you're reaching across the aisle with a sharp left hook to the jaw.  If there is a mood of partisan rancor in Arizona--or America--Obama hasn't done anything to alleviate it and done much to perpetuate it.

Even worse is Fineman's fetishization of 'civility'.  Note that liberals only care about civility when they're the one's catching a good old-fashioned passionate ass-whooping at the ballot box.  The 2010 midterm elections are still a giant source of pain for Democrats and their media enablers.  Now that conservatives have a tiny chance to enact some small-government ideas, the professional Left wants Republicans to 'tone down' all this 'hot rhetoric'.  In Fineman's five brain cell math, the GOP's insistence on dismantling Obama's health care reform bill = Tucson shooting.

Here's another problem.  Homeboy wants America to have more 'civil' political debates.  Forget for a moment that for Fineman, a well-mannered conversation means the Democrat Party gets it's way on every issue forever.  The bigger issue here is that Fineman wants Barack Obama to score political points at what sort of event?  Oh yeah, a funeral.  You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a scenario more impolite than somebody throwing partisan bon mots over the body of a nine year old child.

Wait, did I say 'impolite'?  What I meant to say is 'vulgar and nauseating'.

But hey, maybe Howard Fineman is right.  After all, the Paul Wellstone funeral was a rousing success.

Next up, here's Paul Krugman.  He's a New York Times columnist and a massive douchetool, but I repeat myself.  Watch as this Nobel Prize winner completely beclowns himself.

A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in the head; another dozen were also shot.

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

...You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

This is what it sounds like when liberals wet the bed.

Let's break this down.  Krugman wants us to believe that elements of the conservative movement created a climate of hate that led to this shooting.  A cursory glance at the artifacts left behind by the shooter proves Krugman wrong.  Take a look the alleged murderer's Youtube page.  Here are his favorite books.

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Funny.  I don't see Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh mentioned in there.  Try as I might, I can't find any Tea Party pamphlets or conservative manifestos either.  Why, it's almost as if Paul Krugman is using his own political template for what he thinks the American conservative movement is and projecting that distorted image onto the Tucson shooter. 

Again, Krugman is arguing that his right-wing bogeymen pushed the attacker to violence.  If that were the case, there should be something, even a minute scrap of evidence that suggests that the shooter was influenced by conservatives.  In fact, the shooter's most beloved tomes seem far less like a Tea Partier's book club assignment and far more like a slightly off-kilter high school sophomore's summer reading list.

If we want to really pick through the books and find a pattern, you'd be hard-pressed to find any real partisan trend.  "Animal Farm", "Fahrenheit 451" and "Brave New World" are well-regarded works of fiction loved by members of the Right, Left and apolitical.  If "The Odyssey", "Gulliver's Travels" or "The Old Man and The Sea" are right-wing calls to arms, they're the most well-disguised revolutionary tracts ever.  "We The Living" was written by Ayn Rand, so in some bizarre left-wing fever dream, this could be evidence of the shooter's right-wingery.  But then what are we supposed to make of "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf"? These are the holy texts of international and national socialism and not exactly beloved political tracts within the conservative movement.

Contrary to Paul Krugman's bullshit on stilts masquerading as sober analysis, there is no coherent political philosophy to be found in the shooter's favorite books.  But surely for Krugman to tar the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh axis as inciting violence, there must be something going on in the shooter's intellectual life.  Perhaps the attacker's Youtube videos showed Krugman the indications he needed to make his accusations.

 

Nope.  Nothing here.

Maybe this video?

 

Once more, we find nothing in the attacker's personal statements that indicate that he had any intellectual connection to the Tea Party, conservatives or Sarah Palin. That begs the question: From what part of the political spectrum did the shooter come from?  If you answered "Insane Street In The Nutbar Development Right Smack Dab In the Middle of Crazyville", give yourself a gold star.  You just did better at examining the motivations of the Tucson gunman than an overpaid undersmart New York Times hack.

Howard Fineman and Paul Krugman:  Kindly go to the back of the short bus, sit down and shut the hell up.  Your services are no longer required.  For anything.  Ever.

UPDATE:  RE-Violent political rhetoric. 

Paul Krugman had a pathetic crying jag over Sarah Palin's 'infamous' targeting of vulnerable Democrat representatives for the 2010 midterms.  If that picture...which I had never seen until today...is so inflammatory, what about the DailyKos?  Jim Treacher finds this little gem.

 

"[Gabrielle Giffords] is dead to me."

BoyBlue posted this diary on January 6th, 2011.  By Paul Krugman's dainty standards, this is eliminationist rhetoric that contributes to a climate of violence.  But since this angry missive came from the a left-wing site, I guess this doesn't count.  It's just sober political talk, right Paul?

What's even cooler is that Markos Moulitsas took down the post.  Yup.  It's gone down the memory hole.  If it was done out of a sense of class or fear of political blowback is anybody's guess.

The Giffords shooting has already turned into a left-wing cluster bang.  The problem is that it's only going to get worse.

UPDATE II:  Of course, more elements of the progressive movement have chimed in blaming conservatives for the shooting.  One problem:  It's not right-wingers publicly calling for violence.

 

Hey Eugene Robinson, Joshua Marshall, and Keith Olbermann:  Your propaganda cartoonist, your socialist-apologizing little pissant artist, your tantrum-throwing scribbler is the one that is saying that America needs violent revolution to fix it.  It's not the Right that's saying this stuff.  It's Ted Rall, respected member of the statist movement, that's proposing a violent overthrow.  Then you have the nerve to use some maniac with no political motivation beyond his own insanity as a tool to try to make your patent lies about conservatives stick.

The fact that this leftist narrative coalesced so quickly tells us a few things about liberals.  They're liars.  Ironically, for a political movement that breaks it's arm patting themselves on the back for being geniuses, the left revels in group-think.  Worse, there is absolutely no tactic too low for them.  The only thing they care about is if the strategy works to wound their enemies.

UPDATE III:  Eugene Robinson says that the Right has a monopoly on violent political rhetoric.  Check out this link [WARNING: Not Safe For Work] and you tell me-Is Eugene Robinson senile or is he just conveniently lying about the eight years of liberal demonstrations during the Bush presidency when Robinson talks about the Right's supposed lead-pipe lock on inflamatory partisan rhetoric?

Face facts.  Many elements of the Left spent the Dubya years using the most vile, disgusting, hate-filled language against America, Israel, the American conservative movement and others that progressives deemed as enemies of their movement.  MSNBC, The New York Times and many other left-of-center media organs did nothing to condemn this broiling leftist rage.  In fact, many of them stoked the fires of partisan hate while pretending to be sane comentators.  Eugene Robinson and others in the 'respectable' liberal camp want us to forget all that vitriol--again, emanating solely from the Left--and focus on a single political graphic used by Sarah Palin as evidence that the Right is the only part of US political life that employs violent rhetoric.

Amazing.

Thanks to Political Math, who found the Lefty Hall of Shame link (NSFW) and posted it on his twitter feed.

Comments

[John Smith]

The recent event is just the latest in a two year long sequence of violent acts carried about by crazed mass murderers pumped up on Right wing incitement. These acts include but not limited to:

-the assassination of George Tiller (Scott Roeder)
-the mass murder at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville (Jim David Adkisson)
-the shooting at the Holocaust Museum (James W. von Brunn)
-the standoff shootings in Pittsburgh. (Richard "Pop" Poplawski)
-the Northern CA highway shooter targeting the Tides foundation and the ACLU. (Byron Williams)
-Man Who Flew Plane into IRS Building(Joseph Stack)

In almost each case the mass murderer/attempted mass murderer made some statement about liberals/ gun rights or was proven to be steeped in the rhetoric of right wing "intellectuals" such as Glen Beck, Bernard Goldberg, etc.

In the case of this latest mass murderer the text in his videos are ideas originated from Right wing nut job David Wynn Miller and the paranoid Right wing Sovereign Citizens movement.

As far as your point that liberals do it too re: "My CongressWoman voted against Nancy Pelosi and is now Dead to me" (SIC). You are being willfully ignorant. That statement means that the "Congress Woman" in question is considerd an outcast. This not putting cross hairs over a politician or talking about 2nd amendment "remedies" or inviting your followers to shoot a assault weapon with you as you run for political office. Liberals don't brandish assault rifles and hand guns at Sarah Pallin rallies as a number of Right wingers did at Obama speeches.

Now lets just say you are right -that the poster on DailyKos was using violent rhetoric. The same poster almost immediately wrote a huge diary yesterday titled "My Apologies to This Site, The Victims, and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/9/934674/-My-Apologies-to-This-Site,-The-Victims,-and-Rep.-Gabrielle-Giffords
Has any Right winger done anything remotely like this? No.
No contrition from any of you.The most we get from the Right is "both sides do it too!" which is just their/your way of not taking personal responsibility.
The fact remains the overwhelming volume of violent rhetoric over the last several years comes from the Right in this country and there has been a sequence of politically motivated mass murders inspired by this rhetoric during the last two years. These are acts or Right wing terrorism/mass murder and is fundamentally no different than what happened at Fort Hood. The Right like to blame Islam because the terrorist was a Muslim in the case of each of these mass murderers they either stated they intentions were rooted in their Right wing ideology of a close relative made the connection.

[KingShamus]

I'm sorry John. I couldn't hear you making a cogent point in that comment. There were far too many exaggerations and lies in your little statement, homie.

It's pretty obvious you're just throwing out random lefty troll-bait talking points. Come back when you're actually ready to think beyond your pre-planned note cards.

[MTheads]

Wow, John's evidence reads like a Stalin show trial transcript. Now if only he and his ilk could get the rest of us under their thumbs and complete the scenario...

[John Smith]

Which of my points were not cogent:

1) That the recent mass murder is the latest episode in a two year long sequence of Right wing terrorist acts which are well documented?

2) That violent political rhetoric in the US comes almost exclusively from the Right and has been an element in many of those incidents of Right wing terrorism/mass murder that has happened during the last two years.

3) That the one very thin example of violent Left wing political rhetoric you cited is a juvenile attempt to hide behind the old saw that "liberals do it too!" and is frankly an indication of how silly you are.

Everything else in the post is documented proof supporting my points. If you want to point out exactly which things I wrote was a lie or an exaggeration feel free to make me look stupid which should be quite easy to do if your claim is true. Arguing on the merits is not something the average Right winger is used to. Otherwise your response to my initial comment is simply an obvious childlike inability to own up to clear facts, to being demonstrably wrong and an inability to take personal responsibility for the criminal incitement and fetishism of violence that is the current state of Right wing culture in the US.

[Ben]

Roeder and Adkisson could certainly be considered "conservative"; they thought of themselves as conservative and agreed with some of the core conservative platform issues.

Byron Williams is less obvious; he seems much more of a Glen Beck stalker than anything like a conservative. I personally can't stand Beck and Savage, but a lot of conservatives do listen to their programs.

Poplawski was a white supremacist; that appears to be the only ideology he clung to, not conservatism.

Brunn was a white supremacist, an anti-semite and a 9/11 truther who hated neo-cons and specifically both Presidents Bush. (Of course, disliking George Bush's politics and policies doesn't negate your conservative qualities, in fact it may enhance them in some cases...)

Stack was opposed to Federal Taxation, certainly a popular conservative topic, but also despised George Bush and John McCain (see notes above). He also disliked capitalism, organized religion, and supported socialized medicine.

Three and three. You could call that a tie.

Or you could call it "pointless B.S."

Or I would if a segment of the American population wasn't trying incessantly to equate "dangerous, probably sick law-breaking nut" with "conservative".

[John Smith]

All the incidents I cited are documented facts. Stalin's show trials were based on state coercion of individuals not facts. If actual facts to you are Stalinist then you need help.

[Ben]

No, almost everything you cite is an *opinion*, not a fact. And most of the facts you quote, other than the actual events, are wrong.

First of all, citing what you believe to be someone's political alignment is an opinion. What you write concerning who they were influenced by/were "steeped in the rhetoric of" is subjective opinion. The only exception is Williams, who unequivocally stated that he was doing what he thought Glen Beck wanted. He was apparently *wrong*, but the point stands.

All of the men you listed must be characterized by their known traits in order to subjectively apply a political category. By most acknowledged standards, three of these men would generally be considered conservative and three would be considered liberal. But it's still all based on opinions. If you wanna debate whether the three men I characterized as liberal were in fact conservative, be me guest. I think you're wrong, and we can debate it. BUT IT'S STILL ALL OPINION AND CONSENSUS.

The bottom line, to me, is; why are you so driven to characterize politically-motivated assassinations as a product of "conservative" ideology?

[DaveO]

When a person's moral compass lacks a magnetic north, anything and everything becomes true and correct. There is a distinct lack of integrity in presenting the argument that the conservative ideas and pundits spurred the accused murderer to act; while rejecting the influence of Islam in Major Hassan Nidal's massacre at Fort Hood last year.

Blaming conservatives is a script. The script gets trotted out each time there is a massacre, atrocity, or some other sparkly-lights crime. An example is the selective list presented by the so-called "John Smith." above. Each is presented as a murderous right-winger/TEA Partier whose slavish adoration of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or whomever is the causal factor for murder.

Folks, people murder for three reasons: love, lust, or lucre. One of the members of the list murdered for love of the unborn, and the young women medically damaged by the abortion procedure. Other murdered in the lust for revenge against generalized enemies.

The three reasons don't recognise party affiliation, loyaly to our great Nation, or any of the reasons being given by the script. Murder is very equal in its opportunity.

What is insane are the responses to each incident. In each of the cases John Smith presents, each of the murderers is presented as a vicious right-winger, and yet in each case one notes the right wing condemns the violence and the perpetrators; but the left wing exults in the blood libel.

The responses indicate which direction to which the moral compass points. Condemnation of murder, and refusal to exploit it for political purpose means one is very solid. Spinning for the next lie, the next blood libel means no moral magnetic north. Those are the ones who will believe and do anything, including murder.

[John Smith]

Major Hassan Nidal was a nut who was inspired to murder by the online rantings of a violent American Al Qaeda enthusiast who is based in the Middle East. Most Right wing pundits who have spoken to this believe this as do I. By the same token so were the Right wing terrorist who I listed. What is truly chilling is that you claim that "in each case one notes the right wing condemns the violence and the perpetrators". Who exactly are you referring too? As far as the recent act of Right wing terrorism is concerned the only person who been even remotely contrite about their contribution is, surprisingly Roger Ailes. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc have all been doubling down. In fact a CBS poll came out today that proves that 28% of Republicans feel that violence directed at the US government is justified. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028218-503544.html

Just like Rush, Beck and the rest you somehow spin acts of Right wing mass murder as an act of Right wing victimization. According to your bizarre logic by me pointing out that Right rhetorical incitement behind these act I am one who might be apt to murder. OK....
This is so typical of how you people always dodge responsibility.

[John Smith]

I obviously disagree with most of everything you wrote but I will give you credit for, at this point, arguing on the merits like an adult. Baldi should have put you in charge of this site instead of the silly person who is now.
That said you use the term conservative while I use the term Right wing. Just to clarify for you; David Brooks and Rush Limbaugh both call themselves conservative while Rush Limbaugh is clearly the more Right wing of the two. American conservatism is being overrun by extreme Right wing nihilist rhetoric. Right wingers like Ruch,Beck. Palin and Goldberg are mainstreaming this extreme and violent rhetoric into American culture which was evident in many of the Republican/Tea Party political ads during the recent election. Besides directly inciting crazy and mentally weak, violent Right wing rhetoric has created an ambient sense of violence which has infused much of American culture.
This was explicit during the town hall meetings and the Obama speeches in which Right wingers brought hand guns and military style assault weapons. Or the countless Right wing political adverts that had some type of violent reference to the government or political opponent. (E.g. “If ballots don’t work bullets will”-Allan West.),
-Roeder and Adkisson were avowed Right wingers and made statements supporting this.
-Williams mother spoke to the media about how he had been obsessed with and influenced by Glenn Beck. Beck ranted specifically about the Tides foundation and the ACLU in the period leading up to Williams Right wing mass murder spree.
-I will grant you Stack is politically all over the map however his act of terrorism has made him a hero of certain Right wing anti-government types
- Poplawski and Brun were steeped in the popular Right wing manufactured incitement dujuor at that time which was “Obama was going to take the guns away”. For many on the Right this myth accompanied the sudden post Bush era concern for government tyranny and American concentration camps that supposedly were being set up for “Real Americans”. Yes Beck, etc said this daily.
For some reason you think the fact that Poplawski and Brun were White Supremacist negates their relationship to the Right wing. White supremacy is commonly understood to be of the extreme Right. Furthermore I specifically stated that these Right wing mass murders were responding to Right wing incitement. Whether or not one is a registered Republican does not exclude the crazy or mentally weak from being infected by Right wing incitement. As much as Right winger GWB trashed this country the US Left did not go commit acts of politically motivated mass murder. Dumb violent crap like “Don’t retreat, reload” (Sarah Palin) does not come from the US Left. Democrats don’t carry assault rifles to political events.
But lets just say you were right that just 3 out of six examples on my (incomplete) list of Right wing mass murder were legit. It is not a matter of “Three and three. You could call that a tie.” as you wrote. No those are three acts of Right wing terrorism which resulted in the murder of many people. To get back to my earlier point I don’t associate nut and crazy with conservative politics. But I associate Right wing terrorism with Right wing rhetoric which has virtually destroyed reasonable conservatism.

[Ben]

Thank you for the kind words; you may not feel the same after some of what I'm about to write.

Well, as you said, obviously we do disagree on a lot here.

1) And this is probably the biggest one, no White Supremacy is NOT commonly understood to be at the extreme right. The left likes to characterize it that way, but historically and even NOW white supremacist ideology is found across the political spectrum. The fact that many KKK members consider themselves to be conservative doesn't characterize the right as racist any more than that fact that most American MS13 (a group based on Latin-American pride that specifically targets, separately, blacks and whites as racial enemies) members consider themselves to be liberal characterize the left as racist. You wanna talk racism, we'll talk racism, but none of this "everyone knows the right is racist" bull.

2) Regarding who is an extremest and who is not; and who is violent and who is not. I am a huge supporter of those you characterize as "extreme" and consider most of the people you specifically named to be mainstream conservatives. I consider David Brooks to be a liberal Republican. G. W. Bush is a moderate as is John McCain. When you say Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, et al are taking over, it's music to my ears. I think gun ownership is a wonderful thing and I think even more people should own guns and learn how to safely operate them. And I think not a single crime we're talking about, including Loughner's, would have been prevented by any kind of gun control. I think that is self-evident...after all, killing people is illegal. I do not believe that the mere presence of a gun at a political rally is inherently violent. And I don't think there is any difference at all between the "violent rhetoric" on the right and the "violent rhetoric" on the left. Maybe you do; you've listed several examples that I presume you consider extreme and violent, whereas you wouldn't consider threats against Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush or Christians in general, to be violent; maybe they're justified? Or maybe they're all metaphorical? Or maybe you need a list? http://bit.ly/hAlk7a or two? http://bit.ly/g12ZWK or three? http://bit.ly/erHMTw or four? http://bit.ly/i9UjFR or five? http://bit.ly/ePzt9J Of course, all of those examples are hosted on right-wing sites...I guess they're all taken out of context, faked or misunderstood.

3) And as far as violence against the government, I seem to remember this leftist organization called Weather Underground, and a racist organization called The Black Panthers. Does that mean there are groups of conservatives out there, armed and preparing for an assault on the government? Well, duh. There are and have been. There are some groups on the left who do exactly the same.

Generally speaking, I would agree that someone at a political rally with a gun in an open or concealed carry state is probably a conservative or libertarian. However, there is absolutely no evidence that someone who uses a gun to commit mass murder, political or otherwise, is more likely to be conservative or liberal. You want to know why conservatives aren't owning up to Loughner's ideology? LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. If he was anything, he was a leftist!!! But MORE THAN THAT, he was UNHINGED.

4) Apparently, by "steeped in" you mean, "someone was talking about it at the time, which obviously MUST have influenced them." Here's some info on Brunn: http://exm.nr/hGb905 I don't see how you can pull anything out of his beliefs that would characterize him as a conservative. As for Poplawski, the only politically-linked facts known about him as that he listened to Glen Beck (although apparently not very closely), was active on a white-supremacist website, and thought President Obama was going to institute a gun ban. I already discussed how I feel about white supremacy and racism in regards to political beliefs; by the same token I don't think listening to Glen Beck makes you a conservative.

But hey, let's make it a game. We'll start counting. I'll give you Poplawski, maybe he considered himself a libertarian or something like that. I'll raise you; say, Jeff Weise. His views were fairly well documented. How about Muhammad and Malvo? They were black men targeting whites; they were "steeped in" rhetoric about how white conservatives keep blacks poor and helpless; ergo, politically motivated liberal mass-murderers. This is fun!

No, it's not effin' fun. It's sick. The only thing any of these people had in common was that they all "broke". Some of them had been broken for a while, some broke suddenly. Some of them could be characterized as conservative, and some could be characterized as liberal. There is no evidence that any of them were motivated by a particular speaker or what he said. Beyond that, there is no difference between what the left says publicly and what the right says publicly.

The difference is, in my opinion, that you don't like what the right says, and want them to shut up. As I mentioned above, I AM the person you're afraid is taking over the country. I don't consider myself extreme, but then, I guess I don't know really what an "extreme" conservative is. A racist? I bet we can agree on that. White Supremacist? Yeah, that's bad. Anti-Semite, misogynist, religious zealot. All of those things would make a bad conservative.

They'd make a bad liberal, too.

[CG]

Responsibility? How can you even begin to prove that "Right Wingers" have any responsibility for the actions of a deranged few? First things first I guess: shall I define "deranged" for you?

More people than ever now see the falsehoods the Left always produces in moments like these. Their fear is palpable and I'm enjoying watching them destroy themselves. Thank you John Smith for producing yet another example of the liberal abandonment of logic.

[Danny DeMichele Entrepreneur]

The president need not, and should not, speak of ideas or programs or parties.