Posted on 01/11/2011 8:06:24 AM PST by markomalley
During a discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday, the panel conceded that conservatives and Tea Party activists were unfairly scapegoated in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree in Tucson, Ariz., which killed six and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life after a gunshot wound to the head. Mark Halperin of Time just thinks conservatives shouldn’t bother defending themselves, so as to avoid further political escalation.
“Obviously, the initial reaction was so offensive to conservatives it has united everybody from Rush Limbaugh to David Brooks this morning, who wrote a very, very compelling piece that the scapegoating was an offensive act,” Joe Scarborough said during a discussion about the politicization of the tragedy.
Despite claiming the media had behaved “pretty well so far,” Halperin seemed to agree with Scarborough’s assertion that “a shooting was turned into fodder to attack conservatives.” But he seemed to find more fault with how conservatives reacted to unfair attacks than with the original accusations.
“I just want to single out one thing. I think the media and the politicians have behaved pretty well so far.I’m worried about the anger of the right-wing commentariat,” Halperin said. “Fox and George Will and other conservatives are in some cases justifiably upset at liberals, but they’re turning this back into the standard operating procedure of ‘all this is war and fodder for content’ rather than trying to bring the country together.”
“Wait a second,” Scarborough responded. “I think they would say that you have that backwards, that a shooting was turned into fodder to attack conservatives.”
Halperin: “And, I already made that criticism, as well. they’re right, but rather than seizing on it and turning the other cheek, they’re back at their war stations. that’s not going to help us.”
The conversation then pivoted from a discussion of the actual facts to yet another lecture on rhetoric, with Scarborough hoping conservatives see it as a “wake-up call” on rhetoric even though he had just established that there was no connection between rhetoric and the shooting.
Personally, I’ve always had a slight issue with the biblical “Turn the other cheek” directive. It seems like the action of a wuss.
One of America’s greatest military leaders made much more sense....
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, so I propse to give them all the war they want.”Von Clausewitz made much more sense....
- Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
First, Halperin should apologize for using war-like language "war stations" is going to just encourage people to shoot their opponents. /sarc.
Second, who is this "we" that Halperin thinks is not helped? His left-wing buddies? Of course they won't be helped, because we are showing how offensive they are to use even the shooting of their own colleague (who they didn't like very well anyway) for cheap political fodder.
And I can't think of anything more uncivil, more impolitic, more indicative of violent, inflammed rhetoric, than accusing your opponent of complicity in murder, especially when there is absolutely no evidence to back your accusation.
God help us if some tea party fringe person (or a tea party poser [won’t put it past a disruptor]) actually does do something like this. I shudder to imagine the reaction and freedom clampdowns that would follow such an act.
Dear Mr. Halperin. You can go *entertain* yourself!
THat was hilarious! thank you.
Let’s just say that the Biblical “turn the other cheek” doesn’t mean what most people think it does, and it certainly doesn’t mean what these godless leftscum are trying to say it does. Busy now, but if I get a chance I’ll add some detail/links...
Great smile. I’ve never seen her from the shoulders down before, looks like she keeps fit.
Really?
I don't think so.
OK, no time to dig up the links, but short version:
A strike on the cheek is usually the result of a backhand. It’s not real violence. It’s right on the line between really insulting words and violence, but it’s more of a big insult. Culturally in Biblical times, it was a HUGE insult. Think “fighting words” and then some.
So the context is insults, even extreme ones. The idea is don’t answer insults with insults, even insults bordering or just crossing over into violence. (Remember, violence in those days wasn’t playing slap face. It was getting people together with weapons and killing each other.) The directive was in the context of avoiding unnecessary violence.
It does not apply to defending from real violence, standing up against injustice, etc. It has to do with not being the cause of escalation to violence. If hit on the cheek (i.e., even severly insulted), then accept another insult, don’t insult back.
What we’re dealing with now isn’t a “turn the other cheek” situation IMHO. These aren’t insults. They’re attempts to seize unjust political power and bear false witness. No “other cheek” need be turned, and anyone who suggests doing so doesnt’s understand the context of the Biblical “turn the other cheek” (again IMHO).
PS I whipped that out fast. Sure some freeper or two out there will correct any errors/mistakes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.