Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Left's Habitual and Ironic Rush to Judgment ^ | July 24, 2012 | David Limbau

Posted on 07/24/2012 6:36:41 AM PDT by Kaslin

When a radio host asked me what I thought of the massacre in Aurora, Colo., I had to ask for clarification. I said: "What do you mean? Who could deny it's an unspeakable tragedy?"

What he was really asking me was to address it in a political context. The problem is that I don't believe there was any political context to the shooting; not everything is political.

But unfortunately, elements of the left seemed determined to graft political implications onto the event, irrespective of the absence of any factual basis for doing so. They seized on it both to demonize grass-roots conservatives and to pump new life into their perennial campaign against the Second Amendment.

This is part of a leftist pattern to rush to the judgment that every such event is politically motivated -- by disgruntled right-wingers. The Daily Caller made a similar observation, citing such examples as The New York Times' speculating that the pilot who crashed his small plane into a Texas office building was "The First Tea-Party Terrorist" and Time magazine's wondering aloud whether tea partyers were behind the hanging death of a census worker in Kentucky.

But let's not forget the more high-profile examples: when President Bill Clinton pointed an unmistakably accusatory finger at conservative talk radio after the Oklahoma City bombing and when Democrats galore lurched to blame Sarah Palin and tea partyers for the Tucson, Ariz., shootings.

So it was hardly surprising that ABC News' Brian Ross noted on "Good Morning America" that a person with the name of the alleged shooter, James Holmes, was a registered member of the Colorado Tea Party Patriots or that David Gregory, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," in discussing the Aurora shootings, casually invoked President Clinton's words about the Oklahoma bombing.

While pretending to refrain from ascribing political motivations to the Aurora shooting, Gregory said, "But President Clinton's words back in 1995 could be true today, couldn't they, about how some of the public discourse can fall on more vulnerable ears?"

No, David, they weren't true when Clinton said them in 1995; they weren't true when Democrats attempted to exploit the Tucson shootings for political gain; and they are manifestly untrue with respect to the Aurora shootings, so shame on you for hinting otherwise.

Some have correctly observed that the left is engaging in psychological projection in seeing conservative politics behind every act of violence. That's true, but I believe there's more to it than that.

While there is a pattern in the left's repeated imputation of political motives to and shameless political exploitation of many large-scale violent acts in this country, there is a larger pattern at work, as well. That is, the left doesn't merely attribute violent acts to conservatives; increasingly, it frames their stance on most policies as their being morally depraved, which is why such statements as "Republicans want a smaller America" flow so freely off the tongue of President Obama.

According to this view, which is shockingly more pervasive on the left than the uninitiated might suspect, conservatives want to protect the unborn because they disrespect women and women's rights; they oppose same-sex marriage out of bigotry; they support welfare reform not to help people in the long run but because they lack compassion; they oppose higher tax rates for all income brackets because they believe in carving out special privileges for the wealthy; they advocate reducing the federal government's role in education because they don't care about the poor or minorities; they support stricter immigration law enforcement because they are bigots and nativists; they pass voter ID laws because they are racists who want to suppress the minority vote; they oppose socialized medicine because they don't care about those with pre-existing conditions or those without health insurance; they favor enhanced interrogation techniques against terrorists not to save innocent lives but because they are bereft, to some disturbing degree, of humanity; they obsess against the United Nations because they are selfishly nationalistic and close-minded; they oppose limitless extensions of unemployment benefits not because such extensions have been found to exacerbate unemployment but because they don't care about people; they favor the death penalty, gun ownership rights and a strong national defense because they are violent, jingoistic, imperialistic warmongering cowboys; and they love corporations and even want dirty air and dirty water -- another actual Obama quote -- because profit is their god and people come in a distant second.

Do you see the irony? The left's entire premise about Oklahoma City, Tucson and Aurora is that the right's rhetoric is hateful and leads to division and even violence because it gets people thinking such terrible thoughts about others. Yet on so many policy disputes, the left demonizes conservatives in precisely those terms.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: brianross; lsm

1 posted on 07/24/2012 6:36:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

David hits the nail on the head.

2 posted on 07/24/2012 7:01:39 AM PDT by JaguarXKE (If my Fluffy had a puppy, it would look like the puppy Obama ate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I had a conversation with my moonbat brother (he started it) —
“That Colorado thing is crazy, huh?”
“Yeah! Over 100 dead!”
“Well, not that many. I think 12 were dead, and dozens wounded. But there weren’t 100 dead.”
“No, definitely over a 100 dead. And that federal agent too — Brian Terry, I think his name was?”
“I don’t know. I didn’t catch any names. But really, I don’t think the number was that high.”
“But what really kills me is the media coverage! Total silence! They’re pretending that this thing didn’t even happen!!”
“What? What are you talking about? It’s all over the news!”
“No, the media is totally covering this up. It’s been going on for months and months and the media is totally covering up the whole thing!”
“Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Batman shooting?”

“Oh, Batman? Kind of small potatos, man. I was talking about Fast and Furious and how your president has been selling guns to drug lords so that they can kill hundreds of people. Doesn’t that upset you?”

3 posted on 07/24/2012 7:03:17 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Roger Taney? Not a bad Chief Justice. John Roberts? A really awful Chief Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Effective portable long guns have been around for over 500 years. Loaded with multiple heavy shot as a "blunderbuss," they were the deadly "assault weapons" of their era: especially when you consider the poor state of medical care for trauma and infection post wounding.

The 2nd Amd has been around for 220 years. Multiple-shot handguns are 150 years old. Semi-auto "assault rifles" are 80 years old. Yet there were no maniac massacres to speak of.

What has changed is the culture. Dark, nihilistic movies with evil but charismatic "anti-heroes" have only existed in the last 30 or so years. Yet liberals don't want to discuss the smashing of cultural and moral values, only the availability of guns!

4 posted on 07/24/2012 7:13:59 AM PDT by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Does he get his news from Comedy central?

5 posted on 07/24/2012 7:15:47 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE

He sure does

6 posted on 07/24/2012 7:16:53 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Only the left? There were too many conservatives who shafted Zimmerman solely on the basis of the propaganda put out by the Martin family publicist (I hesitate to call him a “lawyer”). The editor of National Review put out a notoriously bad column in the NY Post. Rick Santorum. We need to take names.

7 posted on 07/24/2012 1:35:20 PM PDT by Socon-Econ (Socon-Econ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson