Politicizing tragedies

“I can just hear … Leavenworth Street accusing me of politicizing the tragedy.”
– Jane Kleeb

Well Jane, let us help you out. We don’t want you to just hear it, we want you to read it.

You are politicizing the tragedy.

But let us back up.

There have been two tragedies this past week, first at Millard South then in Arizona.

Both were horrific and both were caused by people who were not in their right minds and both ended in death.

And two of the leading spokespeople of the Nebraska Democrats chose to turn them into their own personal political footballs.


First there was Kyle Michaelis on his blog, New Nebraska Network.

He wrote a post days after the Millard South tragedy entitled, Omaha Can’t Afford Vacuum In Leadership At Time Of Crisis. The gist: Because a 17 year old kid shot his vice-principal to death, Omahans shouldn’t recall Mayor Jim Suttle.

Yup that’s it.

Need to take anything more from that? Anything more ballsy than to take a horrific action and turn it into a campaign slogan for the Mayor?



And then as we spit that horrible taste from our mouth, comes Jane Kleeb, founder of extreme liberal group and website, Bold Nebraska, taking to her Twitter account post Arizona tragedy.

What’s her beef with the tragedy?

It is that Governor Heineman didn’t cancel his Gubernatorial Inauguration events in the wake of the shooting.

Now it is indeed tragic what happened in Tucson. But that has got nothing to do with Heineman and the hundreds of people across the state that plan to attend the event.

And frankly, we wouldnt’ see it as a big deal if Kleeb had criticized Heineman prior to all that for having the events. Who needs a ball? Why three across the state? Couldn’t the Governor just sit in his basement with the radio turned low and tapped his foot?

All legitimate (and idiotic) suggestions that could be made prior to the shootings.

But once you take the OPPORTUNITY to make your same complaint in the wake of the tragedy, you are politicizing it. You are using it to make a political point.

And that is gross.


Then there is the latest post up by Michaelis on his blog and reiterated by Kleeb on her blog, bitching about GOP Chairman Mark Fahlesen having a picture of Ben Nelson’s with a target over his face.

There has been much wailing and moaning about Sarah Palin’s use of targets to focus on POLITICAL CAMPAIGN TARGETS on her website.

Of course, shockingly, no one ever suggested prior to the shootings that what Palin really meant was for some whackjob to take the idea of a target and start killing people.

But now? Oh, game on!

Only idiots, whackjobs, and liberal Democrats who choose to politicize a tragedy make this point.

And while we are at it, we see that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the mentally unstable whackjob in Arizona an “extremist”, and that we must stop all extremists around the world.

Well Hillary, and Kyle and Jane and all the rest of you who don’t understand: Jared Loughner was not an extremist.

He was what others called him: A scary freak. Mentally unstable. A nut. The guy had a skull altar in his back yard. He wasn’t making an extreme political point. He was crazy.

And oh by the way, has there been ANY suggestion that he was motivated by Palin’s website? Of course not. But that won’t stop the libs from politicizing this tragedy.

(And while you’re at it, take a look at Michelle Malkin’s site for an exhaustive review of all the progressive suggestions and actions of violence over the past few years. Oh, but that was back when all the bumper stickers said, “Dissent is Patriotic”.)

And it clearly didn’t stop Michealis or Kleeb from poltiicizing it either.

By the way, Fahleson took down the image from the site, because he is a normal, rational person who realizes something should taken down, even if it is harmless.

But since Michaelis and Kleeb seem to think that was such an egregious move to use the target image, we do hope they will both make a statement of apology for Michaelis using it as well.

WHAT’S THAT, you say?

Oh, well, go back to April of this year when the Omaha World Herald had a story about Dave Heineman being in the national eye, and maybe thinking about a Senate run.

The OWH went to the Democrat’s favorite mouthpiece, and he had this to say:

Michaelis said that, regardless of Heineman’s intentions, such comments have helped to keep Nelson “squarely on the defensive” and place a “big target on his back” if Nelson decides to run for re-election in 2012.

Why would Michaelis suggest that someone place a target on Heineman’s back? (Or, since it isn’t clear what he is getting at, on Nelson’s back.) Target? Oh my, is Michaelis suggesting that someone shoot a politician, because there is a target involved?

Oh well, Michaelis must be updating his blog as we speak and alerting the rest of the news media to apologize for his misstep. Heaven forbid that a mentally unstable person read that and think he really meant that he thinks one of those pols should be shot.

But of course, only an idiot would think we are serious about that.

And, in the same way, only an idiot would think the same about Palin. Or Fahleson.

Or, maybe, they are just politicizing a tragedy.

And they should be ashamed for that.

**UPDATE 1/11/11**

Just a quick note that Michaelis posted the following pic on his blog in the last election cycle.

And it’s STILL UP on his website.


  1. Target Dog says:

    If Nebraska and Oklahoma could play a football game the day after JFK was shot, the Governor can have have his ball after an Arizona congresswoman was shot.

    I said it in the previous blog – there are those ready and eager to exploit the evil of ONE and use it to tag everyone they’ve ever disagreed with.

  2. Macdaddy says:

    Amen, Sweeper. Democrats, in their fury over November, have lost all sense of perspective and decorum. Their current orgy of finger-pointing is disgusting and pathetic. Unfortunately, I can’t say that I’m shocked by it. Fortunately, it will backfire on them.

  3. Disgusted says:

    I wrote yesterday that it nothing is ever really “new”, that the right is always blamed every time there is a tragedy– without evidence, or even in spite the evidence, as with Oswald. However, there is something new– a balance in the press of sorts. That political hack of a sheriff from AZ (who previously called Tea Partiers bigots and supporters of the AZ immigration law “racists”) can go on Fox news and promote his agenda if he wants (and he did), but other voices are being heard as well on there. It is not like the old days, when our sources of information were few and “mainstream”. I’ve heard in the last few days prominent Democrats longing for the the old days of fewer media outlets, less “anger”, and more “measured” political speech. These are people seeking to silence their opposition, because they can win no debate on the merits. It is opportunistic, and disgusting.

  4. NE Voter says:

    SS, there is no denying the violence-tinged rhetoric from the right over the past 25 + years. I am the first to acknowledge that, 40 odd years, ago, this type of rhetoric more often came from the left.

    Not so much now.

    No one can say whether any particular Palin tweet or Beck broadcast pushed this guy over the edge, That is a useless exercise/debate. But you are ignoring the overall, cumulative effect of such rhetoric.

    So I see Palin took down the “crosshairs” chart from her website, and her spokesperson now claims that the “crosshairs” were really “engineering markers.” Really? Then why did you take down the chart. “Reload.”

    This tragedy IS political. How could the attempted assassination of a member of Congress not be? Not to mention the successful assassination of a federal judge. Not to mention the slaughter of 5 other Americans (including a nine year-old girl) and so many more wounded.

    Sure the killer was nuts. But crazy people are susceptible to the incessant drip, drip, drip of hate radio/television. To deny this is simply illogical folly.

    Oh, and I seem to recall that George W. Bush’s overt politicization of the 9/11 atrocities that gave us two wars (and secret wars in Pakistan and Yemen), not to mention illegal surveillance of Americans and further erosion of — cough, cough — supposedly precious Constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment.

    The right is spinning hard here.

    And it ain’t working.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Scientists are right. The conservative brain is different and not in a good way. No one is suggesting or even inferring that Palin really meant was for some whackjob to take the idea of a target and start killing people. But responsible people know that whackjobs may be set off and influenced by such imagery. I’d be just as irate if a Democrat did this, and I sure wouldn’t rationalize it.

  6. NE Voter,
    Go ahead and follow that Michelle Malkin link.
    And then after that, let us know your review of “Death of a President” which featured the dramatization of the murder of George W. Bush.
    How convenient you’ve forgotten the “patriotic dissent” during the Bush years.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The Malkin link is interesting, but almost all of the examples are from nuts that were barely noticed. Unlike Palin and other right-wingers who have have multiple media outlets and especially Fox to get their hate messages out. I’m not defending any crazies who promote hate and violence, but this is a false equivalence.

  8. Anonymous says:

    It’s interesting that the best argument from the right is that the left has done the same thing (though not at the same volume or as an ongoing meme). More of a schoolyard defense than one adults would be expected to use.

  9. Sarah Palin suggested that candidates were political targets.
    Only a fool or psychopath would suggest that she was “spewing hate”.

    I frankly don’t follow Palin, but I have no doubt that you can’t quote any “hate” by her.

    Unless you say someone hates liberal policies. Which I’m sure offends your fragile nature to no end.

  10. Target Dog says:

    NE Voter –
    You CAN say it’s not political because he DID kill so many who WEREN’T political. Doesn’t the fact that he killed a 9-year-old girl and many other civilians tell you that he IS nuts and not out to make make Rush happy? You have no basis to say a steady drip of what you call “hate” radio and television caused it, either. There was a classmate of his that said he was a pot-smoking leftist, and she knows more than you would.

    You’re the classic example that SS gives of someone politicizing tragedy – you don’t need proof, you just need the tragedy to start spouting off. And really, do you guys have to ALWAYS play the “hate” card? It is so cliche for you.

  11. Charles says:

    Forward Omaha has made a list prioritizing the reasons to support the mayor. Reason number 1, top reason – because it is good for the environment. The reaction and motivations of the left in tragedy and in the face of political struggle are simply laughable.

  12. Icon says:

    SS You’ve fallen into a Sand Pit! Try to stay Neutral as you’re supposed to be the big boy or girl here about??? Palin is an EXTREMIST/Wackjob as is the kid in AZ & so is Rahm & a lot of others in & out of politics. Don’t try to call them MENTAL CASES because that’s just BS as 1/2 the world is or are mental cases! Bottom line, America is a VERY SICK Country.

  13. Disgusted says:

    Amazing how the same types who are willing to just assume firey political rhetoric can lead to violence are the ones who deny violent music lyrics, movies, games, etc. could possibly do so.

    I personally believe neither drives violent people to violence– they drive themselves with whatever they find. NEVoter’s “constant drip, drip” of rhetoric theory is simply assinine– and not based upon anything we’ve seen when other figures were targeted.

    But why let that get in the way?

  14. Target Dog says:

    Half the world is mental? I don’t know anyone with a skull shrine in their backyard like this guy does.

    The Phoenix New Times printed a series of tweets from a woman who was a classmate of the shooter in high school and community college and knew him fairly well until his remarkably deranged behavior ended the friendship. She describes him as “quite liberal” and as a “political radical.”

    If it pans out, NE Voter, I’ll admit the shooting has political overtones if you admit that far LEFT rhetoric pushed him over the edge. Oh, and if you apologize for your unfair characterization of Sarah Palin and others. But I’m guessing you’ll spin it left instead.

  15. ADJ says:

    To be clear, Fahleson did not take down the picture because “he is a normal, rational person who realizes something should taken down, even if it is harmless.” He took it down because he got a call from Politico asking why the Hell he had it up. Even after taking it down he never acknowledged it was in poor taste, he simply said he took it down to appease “gripes.”

  16. Shoe Salesman says:

    Sweeper- One again your selective sampling of the issue has presented a false choice.

    I noticed that you left out of your rant against the finger pointing on the left the rampant and defensive finger pointing on theRight. The head of the Tea Party issued a statement calling the deranged shooter a “lunatic liberal” and called on his membership to “fight back.”

    As for Sarah Palin – when she posted her now infamous graphic with crosshairs targeting Democratic officials, she was called on it. At the time she dismissed the criticism. So all the Palin apologists here who think she’s getting a raw deal should take it up with her. She ignored the calls for civility. I’m not saying this nutjob in AZ even knew about her site, but let’s not pretend Palin didn’t know exactly what message she was/is sending. It was inappropriate BEFORE the rampage in AZ and she knew it.

    As for Fahleson – he’s a worthless copycat that spouts the points his Washington masters tell him to spout. His rhetoric on Nelson has always been over the line of acceptable political discourse – nothing new on his insipid blog.

  17. Anonymous says:

    The right wing seems to be pretty defense. If they did nothing wrong they would not have to defend themselfs. But any rational person who has studied the situation for the last 30 years will see that the righties have been pushing hate and lies . They finally got caught. They caused some deaths with their hate speech and hate actions. If it was not so. why are so many people talking about it? PS they were talking about it long before any one got killed. Including the lady congress person who was the target of this anti government person.

  18. Target Dog says:

    First off, I DO hate illiteracy. 11:48, the word you wanted was “defensive,” not defense, and “themselves,” not themselfs. Otherwise, your post is just too idiotic to be worth any additional comment.

  19. Anonymous says:

    If the Right tried to politicize such a tragedy we would never hear the end of it. Jane stepped in it again but she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. She doesn’t realize that her many statements and posts tend to conflict with one another over time and she apparently doesn’t have grounding principles to know where she is supposed to stay on an issue. Kyle is much brighter than Jane but he just couldn’t help himself on this one.

  20. Icon says:


    Has anyone seen any Suttle Snow Plows about??? Just wondering if he has them all out West in GOP land because he sure doesn/t have them here by the Field Club! I think if he blows this snow job again, it’s Curtains for his “L” arse! BTW JIMMY, tell your plow drivers, if they ever do show up, to pile the snow on the huge lawn along the FC & not in the intersections & on the sidewalks like they did last year!!!

  21. Grundle King says:

    Anon 10:09 wrote: “But responsible people know that whackjobs may be set off and influenced by such imagery.”

    REALLY? Because to believe what you’re saying, we have to believe that no whackjob has EVER played Grand Theft Auto. I mean, the imagery doesn’t get much more violent that killing random civilians, prostitutes, or police officers. And yet, we don’t see people running around in the street stealing cars, killing their inhabitants, then driving wildly through the streets killing civilians and law enforcement officers with machine guns and tanks, now do we?

    Here I thought the snow was deep, but the depth of stupidity it takes to believe that political rhetoric is to blame for the Arizona shooting could put any snowstorm to shame.

  22. Dennis says:

    Message to GOP and conservatives: Pot meet kettle. The GOP and conservatives shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 for years until it lost salience in the 2006 election cycle.

  23. Target Dog says:

    Message to Dennis: There’s a helluva lot of difference between a coordinated plan of flying jets with hundreds of people in them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and a nut case with a pistol. Please offer salient points.

  24. Lincoln Politico says:

    How about another subject? Mayor Beutler autodialed Lincoln residents to say he was hard at work plowing the streets, but the problem is many of the calls went out around 3 a.m. this morning. Nice work, Rick Hoppe and the Beutler/Seng/Wesley political machine.

  25. anonymous says:

    Politicizing a tragedy, you mean like after the Fort Hood Shootings the Right Wing talking heads started blaming Obama and political correctness.

  26. Omaha Independent says:

    I agree with SS, Kleeb is on the bandwagon and grabbed the sticks from the bass drummer. As I pointed out earlier, this sewage comes from both sides. The current may ebb and flow, but both sides add to the supply. I’ve always thought that civility was more productive than hostility, but I just may be an old fool.

    I haven’t seen any of the mythical private contractors plowing in my neighborhood, but it’s a heavily Republican precinct. Be careful out there….

  27. Dennis says:

    Target Dog, The GOP and conservatives exploited the 9/11 tragedy for electoral gain. Just a few weeks after 9/11, Karl Rove and the RNC decided to run on the war against terrorism. This was after President Bush promised the country 9/11 wouldn’t be exploited for partisan political purposes. What followed was a disgusting campaign of fear in which prominent Democrats were accused of being indifferent to the security interests of the U.S. and even worse. During the 2006 campaign, Bush said the terrorists would win if the Democrats win. According to former DHS head Tom Ridge, numerous terrorist alerts were issued for political purposes. Disgusting.

  28. Disgusted says:


    You are lying. Ridge made comments that suggested he wondered if 1 alert- which was never issued-was. Suggested for political reasons. He then clarified 8/31/09 that he never felt pressured to raise an alert level for political reasons. So, who is disgusting here?

  29. Dennis says:

    Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claims in a new book that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush’s Cabinet to raise the nation’s terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election.

  30. Target Dog says:

    Hmmm… I don’t remember any attacks on the country after Bush started “politicizing” 9/11. The policy worked and your opinion fails. It’s not my fault the American people tended to believe they were safer having GOP candidates in office.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I’ve already read Limbaugh’s talking points in the comments posted on his web site.

    Most of what he says is classic Karl Rove: “deny, deflect, obfuscate”­. I’ll bet there’s a memo from him circulatin­g among the propagandi­sts. But as for “criminali­zing speech”, do any of these right wing screamers realize that even free speech can be criminal? In the classic example, yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected, nor is incitement to riot or advocating murder or armed insurrecti­on. Yet this is pretty much what Limbaugh and Beck do on almost a daily basis. Their cover is that they’re merely entertaine­rs.

    And do they remember when even disagreein­g with GW Bush’s policies was labeled treason by the same voices that now demand total freedom of speech?

    “Hypocrite­” is not a severe enough word to describe these people

  32. Dennis says:

    Target Dog, I get it. It’s OK for the GOP to exploit a national tragedy for partisan political gain. It’s “different” when a Republican does it. Carry on. Nevertheless, Bush’s national security policies were a disaster for the U.S. Bush got the U.S. embroiled in two wars that have already cost 100,000 lives and will cost the U.S. $3 trillion. Bushie, you did a heck of a job!

  33. NE Voter says:

    Target Dog, you seem to have forgotten the terrorist anthrax attacks in October, 2001. Those attacks remain unsolved. And, as I recall, the principal targets were Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Funny that, huh?

  34. Target Dog says:

    Again, NE Voter, you’re taking ONE crackpot and brushing a WHOLE side of the aisle.

    I get the impression that you think nothing should have been done about 9/11 other than clean up the rubble.

  35. NE Voter says:

    Target Dog, I personally would have preferred that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would have done soemthing — no, ANYTHING — in response to the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, “bin-Laden determined to Strike in U.S.”

    Oh, well.

  36. Target Dog says:

    Didn’t Clinton get something like that briefing? Wait, no, it wasn’t a briefing… what was it?… OH YEAH – the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, killing 224. That was HIS “briefing.” Then do you remember what Clinton did in response? Yeah, blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan. Wow.

    Of course, he could have even GOT bin-Laden… but didn’t.

    Oh well.

  37. NE Voter says:

    Um, last time I looked, Kenya and Tanzania were pretty far away from the “United Staes” referrered to in the 8-6-01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nice try, though. Next!

  38. Anti-Omaha says:

    I’d post a link but SS doesn’t like it. So go to the voter registration website for the State of Arizona and look up Jared Lee Loughner. Guess what. He’s a registered Republican.

  39. Target Dog says:

    NE Voter: Those were U.S. embassies. You might not have made it beyond the fifth grade so you may not realize they count as American soil. And “United Staes”? Perhaps second grade? Bad try – next!

    Anti-Omaha: Don’t politicize tragedies. And the Washington Post reports he was an Independent who didn’t vote in the last election. So you guessed wrong. Next!

  40. A-O,
    No. Read Chris Cillizia in the Wash Post:

    “Suspected Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner registered as an independent voter in Arizona in the fall of 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters.

    Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as “inactive” on the state’s voter roles — meaning that he did not vote in November.”

    Though maybe you were mislead by someone faking the information.

    Go here to see the faked info and why it was easy to spot it as a fake.

    Now why would someone fake that sort of info?

  41. Whatever says:

    You right-wingers sound so defensive. The argument no one can talk about this because it’s “politicizing” is dumb. Yes, let’s bury our heads and ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room because it will mean all the righties promoting violence and killing would have to face their demons.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Let’s not forget Homeland Secretary Napolitano’s warning early after her appointment about lone wolfs and violence – Republicans DEMANDED, and RECEIVED, a retraction. They were incensed that she’d mention both active and inactive military. Since then, we’ve had Ft. Hood, and now this.

    The left was guilty of heinous, violent political acts in the 60s. The right is guilty now. Which is NOT to say Loughner is anything more than a crazy loon – he may well be only that. But the current climate of birther and teabagger-inspired hate isn’t helping – at ALL Especially after Glen Beck makes fun of the moment of silence that President Obama had for the victims.. What more can be said the guy is a complete fool.. .

  43. Target Dog says:

    Whatever: Defensive? Yeah – defensive of the truth. It sounds like the left is in the mode of “repeat a lie often enough and people will come to believe it,” so we vigilant defenders of the truth must continually call down the lie spreaders.

    Anon 7:33: Don’t politicize tragedies. You just chose to indict Republicans, the military, the Tea Party, Americans who legitimately question whether Obama was born in America, and Glenn Beck under the aegis of this senseless criminal act. I suspect that you actually hate all of these groups and people you just mentioned. You should be ashamed of blindly casting millions of people you don’t even know in with this psychotic.

  44. SS#2, your anonymous cowardice is really shining through on this one. You attack my site and attack Bold Nebraska but won’t even share links with your readers so they might grasp the actual context – and your usual distortions of the truth.

    As for this most recent image you pulled from NNN (courtesy of Chuck D and Flava Flav), it of course referred to the tactics of the Nebraska Republican Party – especially its chairman, Mark Fahleson. I have no intention of removing the image and NEVER demanded that the NEGOP whitewash history in such manner. I do, however, ask that they confront the issue of violent political rhetoric head-on and join NNN in committing to no longer using such images and language. As I wrote on my original post this weekend, “This imagery is dangerous and has no place in American politics – not anymore.”

  45. Kyle the Hypocrite says:

    The image I used was fine. It was used to attack Fahleson–a Republican. That’s different. Just ask Jane Kleeb.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Target Dog it is not the left that says the same lies over and over like you will hear on FOX news and from talk radio. The University of Maryland did a recent study that proved that the people who watch FOX news know less about what is really going on than viewers from any other network. Why you ask? Because on FOX the all star wrestling version of news (FAKE) you hear nothing but falsehoods. Another thing about the left. We have been saying for years that the violence and lies preached by the right will cause some violence. Maybe the murders in Tuscon were caused by that or not. But sooner or later it will happen because of the lies and and filth of the right. Glen Beck making fun of the moment of silence yesterday should be seen for what is is. WRONG! I hope you will say that. But i am not holding my breath.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Target DOG any one who say Obama was not born a citizen is a 100% IDIOT. If it was true FOX news or the real republican leaders would have proven it by now. Bill Clinton could not hide his sex life from the people. Nixon could not hide Watergate. from the people. You sound like the fools who said the Bush wanted 9-11 to happen they were wrong and you birthers are wrong.

  48. Kyle,

    Since when does context matter to “progessives” like you?

    I guess I missed where you pointed out that Fahleson’s image was innocent and only indicated that Nelson was a “political target”.

    Or I missed where you posted that your image was “dangerous and has no place in American politics “.

    And I must have missed where you apologized for posting your image.

    And I must have surely missed where you apologized to Tom White or Mark Fahleson or both for using the image and noted that the image was “violent” or “suggestive”.

    Yup, must have missed all that information on your website — all things that you demanded of Fahleson.

    Of course, Kyle, the point is that your “issue” was whipped up in the partisan frenzy of your own mind.

    Take your politician in a gunsite down or leave it up.

    But please save us your sanctimonious rants that use the tragedy of 6 deaths to score political points against your opponents.


  49. Target Dog says:

    Tell us all what lies you heard on Fox News and talk radio – I’ll address what I can. But just saying “Fox News lies! Fox News lies!” does not make it so. I’m not buying your “recent study” claim, either, and I defy you to show where Rush or Beck or anyone preached “lies” and “violence.” You can’t because it doesn’t exist.

    I can’t even buy what you now claim Beck did yesterday – I didn’t listen to him and (as much as you despise him) I KNOW you didn’t listen to him, either. Come in with facts, or don’t come in at all.

  50. I dunno, it doesn’t seem to me that Kyle really wants to join a good faith effort to tone things down. A nice place to start would be ‘here are all the things I’ve done that I now regret, because they were over the top’. That would establish his good faith and sincerity.

    Of course, it’s likely that he doesn’t think he’s ever done anything over the top, and by ‘join NNN’, he means, shutting the other side up. As in ‘dialog about race’, passim.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Oh target dog. You just can’t take the truth. There is a tool called google try using it on the University of Mary land study. Then you can search for the links that talk about Glenn Beck making fun of Obama on the moment of silence. It is in every news web site and the major newspapers. Then that all time favorite FOX news. Whose owner said more than once we re not a news network we are an entertainment network. We will tell our viewers what they want to hear not what may be the truth. That is why they are FAKE.Look it up. Everyone knows this stuff. It is First grade math like. Think about it. No one complains about any other networks about lying. They may not like what they say. But no one says they lie. Eventually even some one like you should catch on. So do some basic research and then come back . So go way for now. Don’t go away mad . But go away. Then when you have REAL FACTS. Come back on and blather i guess.

  52. Grundle King says:

    No one complains about any other networks lying? I have a hard time believing that one. More likely, you just don’t listen when other people complain about other networks lying.

  53. Grundle King says:

    BTW, has anybody else noticed that the lefties on here main defense seems to be “But you guys do it too!!!”, when it should be, “You’re right, tragedies like this should not be politicized.”

    For all their pompous talk of owning the “high road”, they sure don’t seem to use it very often.

  54. Target Dog says:

    10:35 –
    University of Mary? Do you mean the University of William and Mary? And a “land” study? I thought you indicated it was a media study? What would a “land study” tell me about the truth? Hmmph – oh well, I’ll leave you with that one.

    I did do as you suggested and googled Glenn Beck and found an AP story running in the Washington Post that said he told his listeners to reject violence. I agree with Beck (I’m guessing you don’t?) Then I googled “Fox news entertainment not news” and found a story on Politico (leftist site) saying David Axelrod was the one who said what you claimed the Fox owner said! Axelrod doesn’t own Fox – in fact he hates Fox – so I’m thinking that must be where you get your news and now it’s left you confused.

    Where you got your ability to punctuate, type, capitalize or write a cognizant sentence, I don’t know. If you’re over 40, it’s apparent you somehow slipped through the system; if you’re under 40, you’re a great advertisement for what’s wrong with the public education system.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Well I tried to give people some truth.I had to cut and past some statement because some people don’t don’t want to hear the truth . But in normal Tea party matter SS delets any thing he does not want his readers to read. It must be a great feeling to know you can censor the truth . I was able to find articles that proved the University of Maryland study on FOX news did exist. It came from US and News Report. A pretty conservative magazine. i found an article from the Washington Post a liberal paper on Glen Beck and his making fun of the President and the moment of silence for the Tuscon victims. But SS he learned from FOX and Rush and Sara and Glenn and all the birthers etc. Never let the public know the real truth. Very sad. Very sad. SS you did not surprise me at all You flunked the honesty test once again. Oh you will have your excuses. But i have seen cut and pasted articles before on this web site always when they prove a right wing point of view.And you wonder why most honest people can’t really accept you and people like you. I really feel sad for people like you. You are the problem and you don’t have a clue. You’re no different than NNN that just allows a liberal point of view. Not everyone is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. They just want the truth.

  56. Anonymous says:

    target dog i did what the person said in ANON 10:35. I found dozens of sites on the University of Maryland FOX news study. You must have not tried very hard. I also did what he or she said and found more than a dozen sites on the Glenn Beck situation. Tough luck for you it is out there. So make fun of people . But the truth is the truth.

  57. Target Dog says:

    11:19, you’re also 10:35! How do I know? You have the same writing style, you punctuate just as poorly, and you obviously have been waiting for me to post!

    Agreeing with yourself is.. well, it’s just sad.

  58. Macdaddy says:

    The recklessness of the Democrats is verging on jaw-dropping territory. Before anyone even knew the names of all the victims, they were shamelessly slandering their political opponents. The shooter was captured alive and able to talk but still they gambled and rolled snake eyes. Turns out the guy is a registered independent, a pothead, and completely out of his mind, so they have decided to double down with even more slander and now with completely unconstitutional legislation. This horrible situation has been made 10 times worse because the Left just can’t help themselves. They have been practically begging someone to lash out violently at a Democrat and now they got their wish. Unfortunately for them, it had nothing to do with anything other than mental illness. Hopefully, President Obama will inject some sanity back into this entire argument. This is his time to lead. Doesn’t seem like his side is listening, but I Hope he can Change that.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Target Dog is NUTS. Any one call tell by his writing style and punctuation. He does not seem to realize many people write on blogs and don’t care how they do it. They just write and all the spelling and grammar police can’t change it. Maybe some one will write tweet style on here eventually. Or maybe they will write everything in pig Latin. Or an alien will write in Martian.

  60. Target Dog says:

    11:31 (aka 11:19, 10:35), I’m glad you took my comments to heart and cleaned up your writing and punctuation. I still knew it was you, however – you made “Anyone” into two words, and you couldn’t help but put some good old-fashioned vitriol into your comments. Seriously though – don’t you agree it’s better if we can ALL read and understand what you’re saying (even if it may be wrong)?

    Why don’t you just give yourself a nickname like the rest of us?

  61. Whatever says:

    SS, I think you should post the link to Kyle’s article. After all, if you want to be fair, like Kyle was, you can have your opinion but give your readers to chance to make up their own minds. Kyle linked to Fahleson’s posts so people could see what he was talking about in context. Why aren’t you linking to Kyle’s article so people can see what you’re talking about in context? It’s cowardly and disingenious to do anything less, and means you’d rather spin a falsehood rather than present real facts.

  62. Martian says:

    Dear Target DOG, . I wrote Anonymous 11:31 That is the only thing i have written today. So you would know I gave my self the nick name Martian. I hope that is good enough for you. Maybe i will write in my native tongue some day. Spin this into a vitriol statement . Neither the super right or the super left is correct about what is going on with the shootings. Both sides say hateful things including you. The truth will come out and then we will finally know. This is not a football game where people keep score.

  63. W/e,

    I didn’t link to Kyle’s post because he didn’t link to his post or post the picture that he put up the same day as he did for the Fahleson one.

    But I’ll make you this deal: As soon as he updates his post about Fahleson with the image of a politician in a gun crosshairs which he put up, and apologizes for putting up that image and links to that image, I will add a link to his post.

    Let me know when all of that happens.


  64. Target Dog says:

    Martian – Define “hateful.” Even better, quote anything that I have said in this blog that I’ve said that you think is “hateful.” ANYTHING. I challenge you or anyone. I’ve questioned your education, but anyone could do that based on your substandard writing and your lack of and improper punctuation.

    And please don’t lie – as defensive as you were at 11:31, it’s obvious you’re the “University of Mary Land Study” guy.

  65. Just one of a hundred examples of unvarnished liberal hypocrisy on this issue…

    Paul Kanjorski, former Democrat Congresscritter from PA, in the NY Times this morning:

    “Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.”

    Paul Kanjorski, incumbent Congresscritter from PA, to the Scranton Times Tribune editorial board, last fall:

    “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for Florida governor] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. ”

    Just freaking amazing.

  66. anon says:


    Better watch it there RWP, if the grammar Nazi’s don’t come after you, you may get booted for doing such a poor job with the cut and paste function.

  67. The Grammar Nazis says:

    3:39 –

    “GH” could have taken a comma, a dash or a comma after it, but not a semi-colon.

    There should be a comma between “there” and “RWP” with a period, or possibly an exclamation mark, after “RWP.” “If” should be capitalized as the beginning of a new sentence.

    The plural of Nazi does not take an apostrophe. You meant to write “Nazis” rather than “Nazi’s.”

    Additionally, “grammar Nazi” is a proper name and you should have capitalized it.

  68. Anonymous says:

    Right-wingers seem to have a problem understanding the concept of equivalence. GH found an example of a nut on the Democratic side. I’d never heard of this guy, Paul Kanjorski, and probably won’t hear of him again. Not defending him in any way, but I could easily find 10 to 100 examples of right-wingers promoting violent behavior (and getting a megaphone on Fox and most AM radio) for every nut on the Dem side. It also seems to be in the fiber of Republicans today to use this as it triggers fear which can be turned into support for Republicans who will “protect them”.

  69. Anonymous Coward@4:37.

    You can start with one elected GOP representative who has called for a named Democrat candidate for a major office to be put up against a wall and shot. Just one. I’m not interested in what you speculate you ‘could’ do. Put up or shut up.

    I can easily imagine you never heard of Kanjorski, but he served in Congress for 26 years. Your ignorance is really not evidence of anything.

  70. anon says:

    It looks like we’re making some progress around here. At least one of the right-wing nut jobs posting here admits to being a Nazi of one kind or another.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Okay, GH, give me an honest answer. Had you heard of Kanjorski before 2011? He’s not exactly a household name like Palin, Beck, Savage or Limbaugh who have large megaphones with which to spew their calls for violence.

  72. RWP says:

    Anonymous Coward@ 6:22.

    I guess that’s an admission you can’t.

    Yes, i’d heard of Kanjorski. He was in a vulnerable district, and I’m an election geek.

    And the ‘Newspaper of record’ knew him; they put him on their oped page (though now I bet they wish they hadn’t)

  73. Whatever says:

    You’re such a liar, SS. Kyle always had a link in his article about the NEGOP image of Nelson. I clicked it and it took might straight to one of the pages, and another link in the article just took to the main page. You don’t want to link Kyle’s becuase it destroy’s your fake moralistic outrage. Geezus, you’ve gone down hill and turned into a bleating shill. You used to have some integrity.

  74. Anonymous says:

    Man, Bud the Moron has been active on this thread. Any liberal post with lots of bad grammar and mindless blather reflexively accusing FOX News and Glenn Beck of lies and calls to violence about has to be our dear old friend Bud making an arse of himself again.

    Hey, Bud, I don’t listen to Glenn Beck so I’ll need for you to educate me on all his hate-filled calls for violence. Can you quote one of these calls for violence you claim he’s made? How about Palin? You claim she’s made them. Can you quote one such example for me? And Rush Limbaugh? Same thing. Quote me an example.

    Tell you what, I’ll cut to the chase instead of sending you off on a fool’s errand (which would only be appropriate for you): You can’t do it; it doesn’t exist. You make this crap up and post it here. It sounds plausible to you because you buy into the narratives that you’ve been spoon-fed by the Daily Kos and Keith Olberman and their ilk. You assume that these things you believe about conservatives like Beck, Palin and Limbaugh must be true because it fits your prejudiced template of “all conservatives are haters” and so you post it as though it’s factual … and sadly (pathetically?) you believe what you post.

    But if you actually listened to Beck and Limbaugh, you’d find that this narrative you’ve bought into is an inaccurate myth and, all this time, you’ve just been full of (sh) it.

  75. Anonymous says:

    Does anonymous at 11:12 (post #59) remind you all of anyone?

    About as nonsensical as this: “What is government if words have no meaning?” (If you didn’t recognize it, this second quote came from that Loughner loser.)

    Both statements are barely-comprehensible gibberish. We know that the source of the second quote is an insane lunatic. We only suspect it of the author of the first.

  76. Anonymous says:

    I’ve got to agree with post 82. Millions of people listen to Rush and Beck daily, yet we don’t have millions of people going out daily and shooting millions more people. We have 24/7 news coverage, but I have NEVER heard of any case where someone killed another “because Glenn Beck told me we have to start taking these people out.”

    I’ve listened to Limbaugh since the mid ’80s. I laugh, I shake my head, I get informed, I get entertained, and I get on with my life. I figure that’s the experience of 99.999999 percent of his listeners because if someone went on a shooting rampage and blamed Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin), I think we would hear about it.

    I am certain, however, that these three ARE hated people, and are hated by people who have never given an hour to listen to them. And that includes people posting to this blog.

  77. Nancy Pelosi says:

    I guess you all thought I was just kidding in the fall of 2009 when I called for civility in our discourse and feared that the tone was too similar to San Francisco in the late ’70s and the violence that erupted.

  78. As you well know, SS#2, I posted a link to the article that includes the above “Public Enemy”-logo on the @NewNebraska Twitter feed within minutes of your attacking me here. The article is from September of 2009 and is about the outrageous tactics Fahleson and the GOP were using “gunning” for Tom White. Whether or not the tone of political discourse contributed to this weekend’s assassination attempt against Congresswoman Giffords, we’ve all received a tragic reminder that such rhetoric is inappropriate, and I’m committed to no longer using it in the future.

    Of course, Fahleson posted Ben Nelson’s face in the middle of a target on November 2nd AND on December 28th – just two weeks ago. I hope that he’s learned the same lesson and that we’ll all think twice before ever again using such language and images as a substitute for reasoned political discourse.

  79. Kyle,

    Would you then agree that your use of the image was “dangerous and has no place in American politcs”?

    And Twitter is nice, but let’s see such a statement on your actual website — you know where you originally posted the image. Offended viewers could then see your “apology” in the same place where you did a separate post just about Fahleson’s image.

    C’mon Kyle, don’t be afraid. Join the “marketplace of ideas”.

    (And readers who want to read Kyle’s post about the GOP “gunning for Tom White” can follow the link above.)

  80. Anonymous says:

    Oh, come on – Michael Moore? Michael Moore says anything he wants to about anyone and he does it bombastically. I think anyone can do likewise for him.

    I’ve never heard of the other guy, and now that I’ve read what YOU said he said, I still have no desire to kill you.

  81. Anonymous says:

    11:31, you don’t get it. Are you saying it’s okay to say you want to kill Michael Moore because he’s bombastic? Remind me to never cross your path. And the point about Adkisson is that he didn’t come up with his ideas in a vacuum. He read (Bernard Goldberg’s book) and viewed right-wing crap that demonized liberals, driving him to murder. Adkisson was the main evening story for a few nights, so I don’t know how you missed it.

  82. Anonymous says:

    Nope, dope, I’m saying it’s OK to fantasize about it for humorous purposes. Of course, that don’t hold a candle to getting a budget to fund a film about assasinating President Bush as you lefties did. If you’re bombastic and offensive, I suppose I could come up with something funny about imaging Michael Moore choking you.

    I guess I missed it because I don’t wallow in liberal media looking for minute topics with which to bore blogs.

  83. Anonymous says:

    So I ask for examples to defend the claim that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh incite violence. And what I get is ONE SINGLE QUOTE from FIVE AND A HALF YEARS AGO where Glenn Beck joked about what it would be like to strangle Michael Moore. In 33 years of broadcasting, that’s the best you can do to pin the “incites violence” rap on Glenn Beck? Pathetic.

    And, so what has that to do with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh?

    Waiting. Waiting. (crickets chirping.)

    As for Adkisson, yeah, I’m beginning to hate left-wingers too. But it has nothing to do with Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or anything they’ve done or said. It has everything to do with reading the crap they (the left-wingers) post on this blog and elsewhere. You people are low-life scum for trying to pin this murder on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Just scum.

  84. Anonymous says:

    Fantasying about murdering someone is not humorous, and Beck didn’t do it in a humorous manner. It’s also very reckless when broadcasting to millions of people. Missing a bit of humanity if you don’t see a problem with Beck’s actions. I also notice that the names come out when you don’t have an argument. The film you mention is British, so I don’t know how you attach it to lefties. In any case, let me give you a quote which explains things quote well: You folks embrace your nuts and elevate them to the highest levels of your party and your propaganda organs. Our nuts are low-level aberrations, your nuts are nominated for VP. Sarah Palin is not akin to an anonymous commenter on a liberal blog. Both sides don’t do it.

  85. Anonymous says:

    No one is trying to pin this murder on Palin or the Tea Party. We’re just saying that the hate environment they have been pushing is dangerous and may result in a crazy going over the edge and committing murder. It’s almost impossible to say how much that this environment had to do with the Arizona attack, but it should be taken as a warning as any future attacks may be more attributable to hate promotion. Now instead of apologizing for her cross-hairs pointing at Gifford, Palin tries to make herself the victim, and throws out an anti-Semitic term (blood libel) to boot. Very childish but par for the course.

  86. Ted says:

    “No one is trying to pin this murder on Palin”?
    Gimme a break.
    How about your #1 lib blogger, Markos Moulitsas
    “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin”
    And after that probably x1000 or more from the rest of the lib establishment.
    Take it somewhere else.

  87. Target Dog says:

    Martian, or Anon 1:12 (wink), “blood libel” is not an anti-Semitic term. Stop lying.

    Yes, you ARE trying to pin the murder on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party by repeatedly claiming they “created the environment” for it. Stop lying.

    Palin WAS libeled in this – big media has tagged her with it (and you follow their lead) and the guy apparently doesn’t watch TV or participate in politics or have any interest in Palin. Stop lying.

    You continue to politicize this tragedy, Martian. You are base, low, disgusting, and – as SS says – gross. Oh, and stop lying.

    Oh, and to your “anonymous” (wink) comment at 1:02 – yeah, it was done in a humorous manner. I read it, imagining Beck saying it and it made me laugh, but only because I find Michael Moore base, low, disgusting and a liar.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, Target Dog. I’m not Martian. I don’t expect to change any of your locked-up minds because most of you have made it clear that what you view as reality is reality whether it’s based on facts or not. I only rebut your nonsense for the viewers of this blog that read but don’t post. No one can say with any confidence what effect Palin’s use of crosshairs on Giffords had in finally pushing a nut to shoot her. I believe that she shares some blame for helping to create such a toxic environment. But for most of you people everything is black and white, so if I say she shares some blame, you take it as if I’m saying it’s all her fault.

  89. MacDaddy says:

    You liberal posters have lost. A Gallup poll shows the majority of Americans not buying your slander. But I would encourage you to keep it up. Let the whole world see your character.

  90. RWP says:

    No one can say with any confidence what effect Palin’s use of crosshairs on Giffords had in finally pushing a nut to shoot her.

    None. I’m fully confident of that.

  91. Target Dog says:

    Yeah, I’m confident, too. Everything that HAS come out about the nut indicates he’s withdrawn from society and is influenced by his inner demons and not talk radio.

    You (Martian) on the other hand appear very easily influenced by others and willing to look past simple facts. I am not confident you have what it takes to debate effectively in this blog.

  92. Oracle says:

    I guess in your profession, RWP, everything is black and white. But in the real world there are shades of gray. Loughner didn’t suddenly go crazy. It took a period of time. Only an arrogant fool would express 100% confidence that right-wing hate had nothing to do with his mindset. And do you believe that spewing hate would never affect an unstable mind? Adkisson was already given as a good example of someone who cited Goldberg’s hateful book as one of his incentives to kill Democrats and liberals.

  93. Macdaddy says:

    Oracle: That guy who took people hostage at the Discovery Channel was inspired by Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Lock him up!

    Watch where you’re throwing the word “hateful.” Everybody knows that’s a not nice word and could inspire someone to do something bad.

  94. Oracle says:

    MacDaddy, where in Inconvenient Truth did Gore preach hate toward the right, or say conservatives were a cancer? I saw the movie and must have missed that.

  95. RWP says:

    “Only an arrogant fool would express 100% confidence that right-wing hate had nothing to do with his mindset. ”

    Or maybe somebody who’s spent their life studying schizophrenia, such as E. Fuller Torrey. Can’t link, but you can google the quote. It’s from that well-known right wing source, salon.com.

    Question: We’ve heard a lot of debate about how heated political rhetoric might have led to this. What do you think about that?

    Answer: I think it’s a red herring. We have seen these kinds of things in periods with relative peace in the political environment, we’ve seen it in turbulent times. I think it’s unrelated, frankly.

    The only reason we’re talking about this today is that he killed six people rather than one person and that one of the people he shot is a congresswoman. These are not uncommon events. People like this man, with likely untreated schizophrenia, are responsible for about 10 percent of the homicides in the United States. That means about 1,600 homicides a year.

  96. Anon says:

    I remember hearing Al Gore scream “He BETRAYED our country! He preyed on our FEARS!!” about George Bush. That was pretty inflammatory. We heard a lot of hateful things about Pres. Bush from the left after that.

  97. Macdaddy says:

    The hostage taker felt that people were ruining the Earth and that the Discovery Channel wasn’t doing enough to stop it. He was awakened by Al Gore’s movie. Therefore, according to your logic, Al Gore is complicit in his crimes. I never said that the movie bad-mouthed conservatives.

  98. Oracle says:

    The salient point is one side implies that violent action may have to be taken against those on the other side. By count and impact the right is far more guilty than the left (we’re talking today, not the 70’s). Disparaging Bush is not the same as calling for violence against him and his supporters.

  99. Jenn says:

    We should be careful about calling Loughner “crazy” or any variant thereof. Did he know the difference between right and wrong? I think so. What we know of his careful planning, and his farewells made before the incident, suggest he may have been perfectly cognizant that he was doing something wrong and terrible. His reasons may be “crazy”, whatever they were, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know what he was doing. In other words: why are we making out his insanity defense for him, merely to defend our political allies? Seems unnnecessary.

  100. RWP says:

    ” By count and impact the right is far more guilty than the left (we’re talking today, not the 70′s). ”

    Got anything to support this, other than your own biased opinion?

  101. Macdaddy says:

    The salient point is that it is ridiculous to try to hold someone accountable for somebody else’s whacked-out interpretation of what they said. I’m astounded that I have to state that, but I keep reminding myself that the Democrat finger-pointing was all done for political purposes, so I shouldn’t take the screeching too seriously.

  102. Oracle says:

    MacDaddy, I think you’re more concerned about “winning” the argument and scoring points for your side than to have an honest discussion. It’s similar to joint liability (and I would only ascribe a minute percentage to the hate messaging). But I forgot that I’m dealing with a person who views things as completely black/white, good/bad. Maybe this makes it easier to get through life, but it’s denying reality. And while I don’t doubt that some Democrats used this for political purposes, the vast majority saw it as a wake up call for everyone to tone down the calls for violence. (Sorry, it’s not an all/none dichotomy that you’d be happier with.)

  103. Oracle says:

    RWP, google “Insurrectionism Timeline ” (csgv.org domain). If you can provide me an equivalent list of the left promoting violence, I’d like to see it.

  104. Oracle says:

    RWP, are you telling me that the stories there were made up? These events actually happened, no matter what site they are referenced from. And if you don’t like the site, then follow the hyperlinks. Following your logic, if a fact or event appears on a web site that you consider partisan, then it is no longer a fact? And you’re a chemistry professor?

  105. RWP says:

    Let me explain it to you in very simple terms, Oracle, because evidently they’re the only terms you understand.

    You made the statement that ‘the right is far more guilty than the left’. You can’t prove that statement by simply listing some examples from the right. All you’ve proven is that some people who identify with the right sometimes say violent action needs to be taken against the other side. It doesn’t prove the right does it less than, the same number of times as, or more than the left. Michelle Malkin recently posted a very long list of examples of violent rhetoric from the left. And I could add plenty more.

    I have no idea how one could prove the statement you made. But then, I didn’t make it.

  106. Macdaddy says:

    Oracle, I didn’t hear a single Democrat other than Obama telling everyone to cool it. I’ve only heard scurrilous attacks on the Right by the Left. Attacks that came even before the bleeding was stopped or we knew who was killed and injured. Attacks that came fast and furious from every echelon of the Left. Attacks that couched this entire incident in black and white terms even before the facts were known. Democrats gambled and they lost. I have to say that it was probably most disgusting display of political opportunism that I have ever seen and one that will not soon be forgotten by the voters.

    But I’m sure the outburst made you all feel much better.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.