But here are a few others that are "must-reads." They all testify to the liberal mainstream media making a glaring error in not only trying to blame conservatives for the shootings ("Don't ever let a crisis go without making political hay from it.") but in thinking the American public would be so stupid, so insensitive to buy their spin.
* Mona Charen's "Contemptible Opportunists in Giffords Shooting Obscure Actual Problem."
It doesn't require actual violence for the left in America to malign the right as bloodthirsty. So fertile are their imaginations -- or so flexible their ethical constraints -- that even the most orderly and irenic gathering can be twisted into something sinister. Throughout the spring and summer of 2009, as peaceful tea party protesters, clutching their copies of the Constitution, demonstrated against what they regarded as government overreach, the left erupted with bug-eyed warnings that the movement was inciting violence and extremism.
Actual violence isn't necessary for the left's campaign to slander the right, but it is useful. Former President Clinton, with the help of the left-leaning press, cynically pinned responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing on "talk radio." Because conservative talk shows expressed hostility to big government, he argued, they were creating a "climate of hate" that inspired Timothy McVeigh...
Last year, liberal politicians and commentators urged the nation to refrain from jumping to conclusions when Maj. Nidal Hasan, shouting "Allahu Akbar," gunned down 45 fellow soldiers (killing 13). But when it suits their preferred narrative, liberals jump most eagerly, and it must be said, contemptibly, to conclusions.
When an obviously deranged killer (of no coherent political persuasion) gunned down a dozen people over the weekend in Tucson, Ariz., liberals in the press permitted no space for civility or decency. The temptation metaphorically to dip their hands in the blood of Gabrielle Giffords was overpowering. Even as the victims were being rushed to the hospital, commentators from The New York Times, CNN, and other outlets were suggesting that conservative, anti-government attitudes were responsible for the bloodshed. Sarah Palin came in for extra licks...
* Though the MSM considers David Brooks a conservative, he isn't very much a conservative at all. Yet even Brooks was bothered by the unprofessional, deliberately feckless and comprehensive press coverage of Jared Loughner's motives. The following excerpt is from Brooks' op/ed column in the New York Times.
...Other themes from Loughner’s life fit the rampage-killer profile. He saw himself in world historical terms. He appeared to have a poor sense of his own illness (part of a condition known as anosognosia). He had increasingly frequent run-ins with the police. In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.
Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin.
Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.
These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness...
* Judi McLeod, "Truth Escapes Dems’ Ready-Made Coffin," Canada Free Press.
...Democrats are learning the hard way that Rahm Emanuel’s famous pronouncement, “Never let a crisis go to waste” does not include getting away with blaming the mass murder of a deranged killer on the Tea Party and Talk Radio.
It will not be tolerated by the masses who recognize straight off that there is no decency in exploiting the deaths of six innocents and the wounding of 14 others, including a representative of the US House of Congress.
That the ugly finger of blame was pointing before the bereaved could even bury their dead and while Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was fighting for her life in an Arizona hospital, is a national disgrace...
* Veteran reporter Bernard Goldberg commented to Bill O'Reilly regarding the media’s coverage of the Tucson massacre: “In all my years as a working journalist I’ve never seen such shallow, thoughtless, agenda-driven drivel as I have in the past 36 hours — and it’s all masquerading as serious analysis and commentary. This is as bad as anything they’ve ever done.”
* Peter Wehner, "The Cynicism and Intellectual Corruption of the Left," Commentary Magazine.
Wehner refers in the except below to New Yorker Magazine writer George Parker who insisted that the real meaning of Jared Loughner's murderous rampage was (in Parker's convoluted, progressive worldview) the "violent static" coming from critics of big government. Parker said, "The massacre in Tucson is, in a sense, irrelevant to the important point.”
Wehner writes,
Think about the formulation for a moment: “The massacre in Tucson is, in a sense, irrelevant to the important point.” The important point isn’t the dead or the wounded; it’s Fox News, Sarah Palin, and conservative talk radio. Blaming conservatives, you see, is the storyline Packer, the New York Times, and scores of other liberal commentators have settled on. They have decided on their narrative; inconvenient facts — also known as reality — cannot get in the way of their crusade.
This is all very postmodern, a simplistic version of deconstructionism. What is on display is a cast of mind in which facts and reality are secondary to storylines and narratives. The aim is not truth; it is to advance The Cause. It is also about cynical exploitation. As one veteran Democratic operative told Politico, the Obama White House needs to “deftly pin this on the tea partiers” just as “the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people” in 1995.
It is all quite sick, really. Not a few liberals are attempting to use a human tragedy to advance an ideological agenda. They are using dead and broken bodies as political pawns. The blood was still flowing from the gunshot wounds of slain and wounded people in Tucson as liberals began an extraordinary and instantaneous smear campaign. It will end up making our political discourse even more angry and toxic.
I was naïve enough to be surprised at what has unfolded in the last 48 hours. The cynicism and intellectual corruption on the left is deeper than I imagined.
* And finally this gem from John Hayward, "The Arizona Clouseau: The inadequate sheriff of Pima County," Human Events
The strangest figure to emerge from the Tucson shooting story is Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. He’s been all over the airwaves, pushing a highly politicized agenda, and talking out of the opposite side of the body from the one that’s supposed to generate speech...
He called Rush Limbaugh “irresponsible” because he “angers people against government, angers them against elected officials.” I’ve written before that one of the reasons the “Climate of Hate” narrative is detonating in the Left’s face is how creepy their spokesmen are. Middle America is not enjoying the spectacle of a law enforcement officer pontificating about the kinds of free speech he’d like to suppress, in order to allow the glorious Party of Government to get on with the important business of improving our lives.
The comically offhanded nature of Dupnik’s political speculations make it clear he never expected them to be challenged. On Saturday afternoon, he clearly thought he was about to become a media and political superstar. Instead, he became a laughingstock...
There are good reasons for Dupnik to distract attention from the history of Loughner’s encounters with the authorities in Tucson. The sheriff bases his wild speculation about talk radio hosts on “watching what’s going on in this country for the last 75 years,” but it’s becoming clear he didn’t know a damn thing about Loughner’s activities over the last four years. Loughner has been making death threats against Pima County locals for quite some time. The sheriff’s department blew off every complaint filed against him. Perhaps not coincidentally, his mother worked for the county. He had a history of disruptive behavior at Pima County College, including five significant encounters with campus police. His “inappropriate behavior” included laughing about terrorism in class, and making jokes about strapping bombs to babies...
The Pima County sheriff is an elected position, which Dupnik has been re-elected to six times. Right now the county needs a cop, not a shifty politician with stars in his eyes. His behavior makes it clear that the profession of politics is pursued at the expense of all other competence. When Tucson reached its moment of crisis and tragedy, it found itself burdened with a sheriff who saw twenty shooting victims and six corpses as a great opportunity to kick back and tell a national audience about radio programs he dislikes.
