Don't blame Sharron Angle
The far right's denial of complicity in the Arizona assassination was so immediate and remains so fierce one can only surmise it speaks of a extremely guilty conscience. Their desperate attempts to make this just another singular incident by a lone crazy person absent of all external factors is stunning to behold.
I've been laying low, watching the story develop and so far Sharron Angle is one of the most brazen of the "don't blame me" GOPers.
I've been laying low, watching the story develop and so far Sharron Angle is one of the most brazen of the "don't blame me" GOPers.
"I have consistently called for reasonable political dialogue on policy issues to encourage civil political education and debate," Angle said in her first statement addressing the fallout from Saturday's attack. "Inappropriately attributing blame of a singular tragedy to achieve a political agenda is contrary to civil discourse, and is a media ploy to which I refuse to belong."Because really, society couldn't ask for more civil discourse than this:
Labels: conservatism, Wingnuts
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:19 AM
6 Comments:
To be fair, I'd like to know the rest of the sentence starting "we need to take Harry Reid out. . ."
Vote him out of his elected position, or just "take him out?" Inquiring minds want to know, but batshit crazies don't bother to ask.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for the nonce, but although Jefferson did, how literally I don't know, suggest further revolutions, one would have a hard time convincing me the system he helped design wasn't intended to facilitate that process bloodlessly.
The bit about guns being needed to "protect against tyranny" doesn't fit with the stated reason for allowing ownership as a basic right, now does it?
It recalls Henry II crying "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Not exactly a demand that someone kill Thomas à Becket, but someone soon did and Hank got to wash his hands of the matter.
That's just it Fogg. The repeated conflation of a tyrannical takeover of government by that disturbingly dark-skinned guy and his political party and the imperative need to form militias and stockpile guns certainly isn't limited to Angle. She was just one of the first and most notable to use it during the campaign season and to great effect.
But in any event, it's diffcult to see how this could be judged as civil discourse when she cites some undefined threat to liberty and 2nd Amendment solutions. I don't we even need to know what she meant by "take Harry out" to make that value judgment.
These nutcases are speaking directly to a nutcase base. They know it's the only way they get votes and contributions, and they know it's despicable. The denials are just as self-consciously false as their accusations of 'tyranny' - and attributions of threat to 'our freedoms'. It they were good people they'd have no following among the fringe lunatic element they live off of. If they apologized, they'd lose their following.
Looking at the beating Tim Pawlenty is taking from that crowd for a very mild suggestion that in retrospect maybe Sarah's crosshairs map wasn't such a great idea, I'd say that's exactly right. The angry base only wants their madmess justified. Challenging its premises is not allowed.
Living in Florida that nutcase base seems wider than the Atlantic that laps at my back door.
I just got a video clip from Fox - the clip and it's sender tell me it's proof that Sharia is being instituted in Detroit because a cabbie wants to be excused from transporting alcohol in his cab.
Never mind the damned Pharmacists that want to be excused from selling condoms because of his goddamn bible.
I think they know they're nuts, but they're just addicted to the hate and don't want to be told.
Not sure they have enough self-awareness to know they're nuts. Cognitive dissonance runs deep. But I do think they're hate addicts. It must be an enormous relief in a way to be able to state it publicly now that the wingnut wurlitzer has made it acceptable public dialogue.
Post a Comment
<< Home