Here We Go Again …

This was the headline in a column about the Arizona shootings in the Sunday Guardian out of London.

“In the US, where hate rules at the ballot box, this tragedy has been coming for a long time”

And then the sub-headline:

“The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords may lead to the temporary hibernation of rightwing rage, but it is encoded in conservative DNA”

Yes, the Guardian is a far left piece of work so we shouldn’t be surprised by the  shallowness or visceral hatred of conservatives by one of its pundits.  But the same message, in slightly less outrageous form, is the topic of much conversation in the American media too.

There is grave concern about the “vitriol” and “anger” in American politics and commentary.  It was all over the Sunday talk shows and on page one of the New York Times under the headline “Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics.”

Here we go again.

After Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, liberals in the media played connect the dots back to conservative talk radio.

Dan Rather said, “Even after Oklahoma City, you can turn on your radio in any city and still dial up hate talk; extremist, racist, and violent from the hosts and those who call in.”

Time magazine senior writer Richard Lacayo put it this way:  “In a nation that has entertained and appalled itself for years with hot talk on radio and the campaign trail, the inflamed rhetoric of the ‘90s is suddenly an unindicted co-conspirator in the blast.”

Carl Rowan, the late columnist, was quoted in a Washington Post story saying that, “Unless Gingrich and Dole and the Republicans say ‘Am I inflaming a bunch of nuts?’ you know we’re going to have some more events.  I am absolutely certain the harsher rhetoric of the Gringriches and the Doles … creates a climate of violence in America.”

And David Broder wrote in the Washington Post that, “The bombing shows how dangerous it really is to inflame twisted minds with statements that suggest political opponents are enemies.  For two years, Rush Limbaugh described this nation as ‘America held hostage’ to the policies of the liberal Democrats, as if the duly elected president and Congress were equivalent to the regime in Tehran.  I think there will be less tolerance and fewer cheers for that kind of rhetoric.”

As that great American philosopher Yogi Berra might say:  “This is déjà vu all over again.”

Now, we hear not about Gingrich and Dole, but about Sarah Palin and those bullseyes she put on a map depicting congressional districts that were in her crosshairs during the mid-term election.  Frankly, I think Ms. Palin pulled a real dumb move with those bullseyes.  But unless we find out that the shooter was influenced by those icons – or saw them, or even knew they existed – then why drag Sarah Palin into this?

There’s also been a lot of talk about supposedly extreme and dangerous rhetoric in other conservative circles.  Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh came in for special treatment by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. What else is new? But again, unless it turns out that their words influenced the gunman, then why bring it up now?

Paul Krugman, the left-wing New York Times columnist, went on line to say that “Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.  And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate mongers,” two of whom he mentioned by name:  Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  This without a scintilla of proof that the shooter was influenced by either of them.

And then there’s Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the top Arizona law enforcement officer investigating the shooting.  He too believes there’s too much hate and vitriol in the air – on radio and television – and, as he put it, “words have consequences.”  But when Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked the sheriff if there was anything he had discovered that suggested the gunman was “listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he heard or saw,” the sheriff said he had no such evidence.

Who needs evidence when your mind is already made up, when you just know those hate-mongering conservatives are responsible, directly or otherwise, for the massacre in Tucson.

The sad fact is that some people are just plain nuts.  They might go off after seeing a red balloon or Mickey Mouse or reading a recipe on a box of Betty Crocker cake mix.  That’s why we say they’re unstable and unhinged.  We don’t know as of this writing what motivated the gunman in Arizona.  And until we do, journalists — even opinion journalists — should stop playing connect the dots.

It’s interesting, and not in a good way, that the same liberals who are so concerned about supposedly hateful conservative speech polluting our national conversation never seemed especially bothered by all the talk about President Bush being a “war criminal” and a “Nazi.”

Nor were they especially outraged over the movie “Death of a President” which was about the assassination – not of some fictional generic presidsent – but of President George W. Bush specifically.

And were my sensitive liberal friends thrown into a tizzy when in June of 2008, during the presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama said,  “If they [Republicans] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

No!  Somehow all of this flew beneath their normally fine-tuned radar.

The terrible tragedy in Arizona should not be one more tiresome liberal vs. conservative debate.  But that’s what some liberals have turned it into.  Without a shred of evidence that the gunman was influenced by Palin, Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh or the tea partiers, the opportunists on the Left are fretting about the vitriol in our national conversation allegedly brought on by these supposed right-wing villains.  But what the conservative-bashers are really doing is simply taking a page out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook.  They’re not going to let this crisis, or any other, go to waste.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • find a roofer

    certainly like your website however you need to check the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very bothersome to tell the truth however I’ll certainly come again again.

  • Dan Farfan

    “And then there’s Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the top Arizona law enforcement officer investigating the shooting. He too believes there’s too much hate and vitriol in the air – on radio and television – and, as he put it, “words have consequences.” But when Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked the sheriff if there was anything he had discovered that suggested the gunman was “listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he heard or saw,” the sheriff said he had no such evidence.”

    Sad to say, Dupnik and the shooter have something in common. They want their voice to matter more than it does. Thank goodness that alone doesn’t trigger mental illness in all humans. Otherwise we might not have survived as a species for more than a generation or two after the invention of the newspaper.

  • Dan Farfan

    “But unless we find out that the shooter was influenced by those icons – or saw them, or even knew they existed – then why drag Sarah Palin into this?”
    Because some folks understand THEIR voice reaches far more people by mentioning someone that other folks like to mention, whether the mention is a positive one or negative, whether the mention is a legitimate one or not.

    However, with that in mind, as a capitalist I can’t fault commentators (or any business owner) for supplying (legally) what their customers demand. If the folks quoted in this piece didn’t jump on that particular bandwagon what category would their comments be? Reasonable? Rational? Responsible? Enlightened? And where exactly is the distribution mechanism to reach the audience that demands (and pays for) that?

    The knee jerk (easy) reaction is to say, well, the other side of course. Hmmm.

    Both “sides” in this country for all their wondrous differences and sameness have one thing ugly in common: Neither has (enough? any?) people of courage to police their own folks and call out, by name, and rigorously refute flawed “insight” when someone drops the rhetorical ball off the court of public analysis. In science, we use peer review.

    I predict whichever “side” steps (grows?) up and accomplishes the “internal” challenge of policing itself will have a big advantage in elections, because they’ll suddenly find themselves admired by millions of voters “in the center.”

    – The Next 10 Amendments

  • Ken Besig, Israel

    According to the Democrats, the Liberals, Paul Krugman, and the New York Times, everybody saw this shooting coming, given the harsh and incindiary Tea Party and Republican anti progressive, anti Democrat, and anti Liberal rhetoric.
    If everybody saw this coming, how come no one did anything to prevent it before it happened?

    • Paul Macey

      Ken, With all due respect, the comment is daft.

      • Bruce A.

        Kens comment is not daft. The mainstream media is daft for continuing to blame talk radio, Sarah Palin & Fox News over one week after this senseless act by an apparent lunatic.

        • Kane Weinberg

          It is a weird comment. The atmosphere in the country was very charged. Town hall meetings were very animated and tea party rhetoric was very charged. No one gets arrested unless a very clear threat or present intent to violence is made. It was clear that the less sophisticated members of our community could be adversely affected.

          • Paul Courtney

            Your own comment shows the insight of Besig’s comment. If the effect on the “less sophisticated” was so clear to you, Dupnik, etc., why was Sheriff Dupnik sitting at the donut shop instead of watching the “less sophisticated”(won’t digress to who you mean)? The Dupnik line was too good to pass, but the fact is we don’t blame him or others for failing to foresee this, we blame them for saying violence from the right (even when it’s not the right) is foreseeable from the “charged” atmosphere. In the face of countless examples of “highly charged” left wing rhetoric (listened to any sermons by Rev. Wright lately?), and plain facts that the shooter was not even aware of right wing rhetoric, I’m right now listening to yet another npr segment on the awful lack of civility. You folks just won’t let facts shake you off this narrative. I’m all for civility, and practice it, but politics ain’t tiddly-winks, and the 1st amendment clearly protects “charged rhetoric”. Keep working on it, though, maybe some nut charged by rhetoric will launch an attack, and you’ll all be primed (not leftie nut, of course-he’ll be totally disconnected from rhetoric).

          • Kane Weinberg


            This I america NOT the middle east. You get arrested for crimes commited or for actions beyond mere preparation towards commiting a crime. No one gets arrested because you may have a propensity to commit a crime or to, vaguely, incite others to commit crimes!! The first amendment does not protect “incitemet to murder”. A lot of public pundits are pushing their luck too far.

  • http://bernardgoldberg daryl duke

    Why is it that we never hear about Air America and it’s pundits. Radio of hate, listen to A.M.

  • Bob Hadley

    “I’m always amused when my hyper-sensitive liberal friends cringe at a joke involving race. Cringing is how liberals show their racial manners. It’s how they say, ‘I’m a good white person. I don’t approve.'”

    “Liberals are always showing how good they are when it comes to race. That’s why they support affirmative action programs. It’s their way of cleansing themselves of America’s historic racial guilt. ‘You see,’ they announce to the world, ‘I’m not one of the bad white people. I’m not a racist like the many others who just happen to look like me.’”

    “The Rich – otherwise known in liberal circles as the filthy, no good, greedy, heartless rich.”

    I could cut and paste many more such quotes from your columns, but I think this is enough. After all, you should know what you write.

    I guess after your positive comments about the character of most liberals tonight on O’Reilly, you will now try to turn your character assasination exclusively on “liberal elites.” Although I need to remind you that later, when O’Reilly asked you a question about the possibility of civil dialogue, you stated something to the effect that liberals (not liberal elites) have a visceral anger toward anyone with whom they disagree (this paraphrase is close enough, I believe). Was this a slip of the tongue?

    Of course, if the things you accuse liberals of were true, then talking to them would be pointless, i.e. all these sweeping allegations about liberals serve to shut down dialogue, not to promote it. When dialogue is shut down, what is left for those with whom you have strong differences? Screaming? Name calling? Threats?…

    If you are now to focus on “liberal elites,” please define that term. Are they rich liberals? Are they celebrity liberals? Are they liberals in the field of journalism and/or punditry? And do you know enough “liberal elites” to engage in sweeping character assasination? Or are you just irked by certain liberal elites?

    Remember, you complained bitterly about the MSM supposedly making the entire Tea Party movement out to be racist, even if there are, at most, ten or twenty racists among them. Incidentally, I agree with you. It’ hard, perhaps impossible, to accurately generalize about members of the Tea Party movement, at least some of whom are very decent, fair minded people. You need to show those on the “other team” the same fairness. Sometimes you do, but you frequently go way over the top and do what you accuse all or most of “them” of doing.

    Anyway, congratulations on what appears to be a new found desire to promote civil dialogue among those with whom you have real disagreements.

    Incidentally, I don’t think any of the right wing or left wing demagogues had anything to do with the shooting last Saturday (and I don’t include you as a demagogue). Finally an adult took over and told all the children to stop the food fight. I know “the other team” ignited it, but what good is it to jump into a food fight? You have shown that you can issue strong and piercing criticisms without ad hominen attacks or ignorant generalizations. Why don’t you exclusively aim your fire at the guilty members of the “other team,” without impugning the whole team? Or, when you generalize, do so with foresight and extreme caution. Remember, you’re trying to promote dialogue, right?

    On another matter, Dupnik started off by saying that all elected officials whom he knew, were the subjects of death threats and this would eventually prevent any good people from running for office. That was non-partisan and, I thought, not inappropriate. I also thought it was non-partisan when he said that we should all turn down the vile rancor. At first, he didn’t mention names or “sides.” Yes, I know, he later stepped in it. And he was rightly nailed for it. He should have merely said that he has no evidence to connect all this to the shooting, but that we must nonetheless all come together as Americans, and then just left it at that. I think it’s fitting to find a positive in a tragedy, as long as it is a positive for all involved.

    • Ron Kean

      Things he accuses liberals of are true and if you were a conservative you’d also feel that talking to liberals in many if not most cases is pointless. If they were able to listen to conservatives, Chris Matthews and his ilk would have conservatives on their shows like Fox has liberals like Williams, Rivera etc. They don’t. They refuse to hear it so in most cases it’s pointless to try.

      And I’m getting tired of cliches like…’not EVERY single one…’, ‘there are SOME who listen…’ etc. We know MSNBC would no more put a conservative commentator on the air than they would concede that Fox has balance by showcasing a plethora of liberal commentators.

      Liberal elites are ga-zillionaires who want to be perceived as Gandi. We who struggle to pay taxes and pay most of the taxes in the USA have to listen to them say we should pay more as half the nation pays nothing and many, like John Kerry try to skip out on hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxes on his yacht.

      Academics who can’t be fired talking down to those of us who can be fired tomorrow. Hollywood stars who think we care about them rather than the character their writer invented. And what about rich journalists who for years have fed us news and denied us news based on their whim and think they can create the whole of information that they think we deserve or not. They’ve existed for years and now they have competition and they can’t stand it.

      Zillionaires condescend to Sarah Palin who worked her way up from obscurity to a person of influence while being a mom and wife. They think the coasts are cool and the rest is not. They think Ivy League degrees are good and the rest is not. These people exist. You can’t deny that. They live in seclusion rather than integrated neighborhoods like so many of us.

      Guilty members? Read ‘The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America’ by Bernard Goldberg. How many more names will make you satisfied?

      • Bob Hadley

        How do you know I’m not a conservative? I know conservatives who agree with me. And many of my liberal friends consider me a conservative. With some liberals it is, in fact, pointless to try to have dialogue. But, it’s also pointless to try to have dialogue with many conservatives. Critical thinkers span the spectrum – left, right, center. On the other hand, bigots span the spectrum – left, right, center. I can name a 100 conservatives who are screwing up the country. But so what? That does not prove anything about conservatives in general.

        If you really think all or most liberals are as you say, then your exposure to the world is stunted.

        • Ron Kean

          I think it’s trite but it seems that I should use the ‘not every single…’ template over and over and over. Then again sometimes I don’t care if anybody thinks I include every single solitary liberal who lives and breathes on this planet today. I’m just angry about the Palin accusations and would like to see a high visibility liberal get angry too and put down Matthews and the NYT. Fox had some nice things to say about Obama’s speech. That’s the difference.

          And I disagree with you about the percentage of conservatives who are unhinged. Conservatives will happily talk to anyone on the air, will invite anyone to talk, and they say it. Andrew Brietbart has even offered money to anyone to disprove his assertions as has T. Boone Pickens.

          That’s why conservatives rule radio. Liberals will blow a blood vessel if certain people come on. Conservatives have more open minds. They hang up on insane callers.

          You don’t know about my world and personal insults speak volumes.

          • Bob Hadley

            I didn’t speak about “your world.” I spoke about “the world.” In the world there are all sorts of libeals and all sorts of conservatives. You keep refering to Talk radio and cable talk shows . They are not representative of the world of liberals and conservatives….And i don’t think I leveled a personal insult at you. If my use of the word “stunted” insulted you, I’m sorry. Maybe I should have been more politically correct. But the word has a specific meaning, and I think it’s use was apt.

            Thousands of husbands throughout the country beat their wives. Shall we say “many if not most of all husbands are wife beaters”? Or shall we say “well, not every single husband is a wife beater, but….” Of course not, that would be absurd and bigoted. There are many church goers who are hypocrites. Shall we say “many if not most church goers are hypocrites”? Or shall we say “not every church goer is a hypocrite, but….” Of course not, that would be absurd and bigoted.

            By the way, how many of the tens of million of liberals in this country do you know well enough to comment on their character?

          • Bob Hadley

            One more thing: I never spoke about a percentage of conservatives who are “unhinged,” a term I ascribed to no conservative. I said that it is pointless to have dialogue with “many” conservatives and that I could name 100 conservatives who are screwing up this country. I don’t even know 1% of 1% of all conservatives, so assigning a percentage would be presumptuous, unless of course I was relying on some poll. And I know of no polls showing how many conservatives are irrational,etc. If there were such a poll, I’d be highly suspicious of its methodology.

        • Guest2

          Bob, Ron said you’re not a conservative?
          I’m looking for those words in his first reply to you.
          As for “personal insults”, I’m pretty sure Ron is referring to what has happened to Palin, and if you don’t think what some lunatic did who never even met Palin led to personal insults towards Palin, you ought to see all of the death threats that were caught lodged against her on facebook and twitter.
          There is a video of them all compiled on youtube. It was pretty sad that so many people could senselessly hate so much.

          • Bob Hadley


            In his 01/14 post above–first paragraph–Ron said “…if you were a conservative….” I asked him how he knows that I’m not a conservative.

            He claimed I was leveling a personal insult at him when I said that if he really thinks all or most liberals are as he says then his exposure to THE world is stunted. I can’t be sure, but I think he may have reacted to the word “stunted.”

            I doubt he was referring to what happened to Pailn. The “personal insults” comment was directed at me. i did not and have never lobbed personal insults at Palin. I have been critical of her public persona insofar as it has entered the policitcal arena, however strictly in terms of political issues.

            It’s unnfortunate that there is so much hate and vitriol in politics or, for that matter, anywhere. I confront pettiness and vitriol in those on the left as well as those on the right. That’s one reason why conservatives ideologues often think I’m liberal and liberal ideologues often think I’m conservative. It’s this us vs them, “you’re either with us or you’re against us mentality.

    • Paul Courtney

      The quotes are plainly not “character assassination”, though they are generalizations. As such, they do not impugn (never mind assassinate) any individual’s character. Do your liberal friends have some sort of collective character? Anyway, you inject these comments under a column about actual character assassination by liberal journalists who still are forcing their narrative (meanies on the right cause violence) into a situation that has NOTHING to do with right or left. What do you think of that?

      • Bob Hadley

        In his quotes above, as well as many of his other remarks, Bernie characterizes liberals as hateful, intolerant and hypocritical. Ergo, he is impugning liberals’ character. That is obvious.

        Generalizations obviously pertain to all individuals in the groups about whom the generalization are made. This is almost axiomatic. Qualifiers like “most” or “many,” which Bernie uses only sometimes, are still targeting many or most individuals in the group. When one has had bad experiences with a few or several members of a group he often tends to blame the whole group and to think the whole group behaves that way, i.e. he will often tend to think with his emotions about that group. That’s why some women hate men, some men hate women, some whites hate blacks, some blacks hate whites, etcetcetc……. The examples are endless.

        Many of Bernie’s criticisms of the left are apt. When I am confronted with excesses or bigotry on the left, which I not infrequently do, I confront them in kind. That is one reason why MANY of my liberal friends think I’m conservative. As for some sort of “collective character” for ALL of my liberal friends, I assume you are asking me to generalize about aspects of their character. It would be very difficult for to make a responsible generalization about the aspects of the character of my liberal friends as opposed to my non-liberal friends.

        I get to know scores of people on a regular basis. Although I get to know their character well, I have no idea what their politics are. If I were to guess whose politics were liberal and whose were not, using Bernie’s generalizations as a guide, I’d probably be misjudging a lot of people. As another example, Jurors who are confined with other jurors for weeks or even months at a time sometimes report that they have no idea what the politics are of their fellow jurors, even in trials of political figures. Think about all the people you know well. Of those whose politics you do not know, how certain can you be whether or not they’re liberals?

        • Paul Courtney

          Of those whose politics I don’t know, a generalization about liberals doesn’t apply. Bernie’s comments that vex you so are usually made in response to a specific instance of media bias, usually liberal, often hateful and hypocritical. Like the present story. Nearly all of the posters have no difficulty looking past the use of “liberals”, understanding he doesn’t mean “every liberal who walks the earth past present future, including those people whose politics we don’t know but we assume are liberals”. Instead, we see him point to several liberal pundits and politicos who continue to blame right wing rhetoric for an act of violence, long after it becomes clear the shooter was not influenced by it, indicating the malice of liberals who are identified at the outset of the particular piece. Your long response still avoids my question-what do you make of these liberal commentators, or are you just gonna stick to your own narrative?

          • Bob Hadley

            My “own narrative” was responsive to your reply, a narrative which you didn’t appear to read. Again, generalizations apply to all members of the group about whom the genralization is made – liberals, conservatives, men, woman, whites, blacks latinos, asian-Americanes, etc. A generalization states that of all the members of a given group, the clear majority have certain general traits. Again, this is almost axiomatic. There is no way that either you or Bernie know the characters of a clear majority of the tens of millions of liberals in this country alone. I’m sure you’d agree that we should all be responsible for our words, especially when disseminated widely.

            To say “I, and other like-minded people, look past his sweeping generalizations and focus on the specifics” makes such generalizations no less irresponsible (and how do you know this, anyway?). And in making these sweeping generalizations, Bernie sometimes falls into the very acts and traits of character that he is condemning.

            Bernie responds to specific instances of media bias, but then he quickly goes on his typical tangent: “liberals this, liberals that…..” What if someone were to document several cases of conservative acting badly (which can be done) and then said “Not every single solitary conservative who is, was or will be warm and breathing is a bigot and a hypocrite, but conservatives are generally bigots and hypocrites”? That would be just as valid as what you are trying to justify.

            I have criticized those relative few – albeit, in some instances, influential – liberals who blamed certain conservative right wing demagogues for the shooting. It was inappropriate and inflammatory.

            I have also criticized Rush Limbaugh for blaming the shooting on liberals and Sara Palin for implying that such baseless attacks from the left can have the results they condemn. Although Rush and Sara were responding to a personal attacks, bad behavior does not justify more bad behavior.

    • joe from louisiana

      You must be in the law profession. My eyes glazed. I get your point but the hypocrisy is what has folks fired up. I listen to MSNBC for laughs sometimes and if anyone needs to tone down the rhetoric it is they. I guess the left needs to tell Maher, Garofalo, Roseanne Barr, Joy Behar, Al Franken and a host of others that appear to speak for the left. These are mean, angry people that use terms like dumb, racist, stupid, inbred, American Taliban, criminal, fascist, Nazi……. when they disagree. It is rather curious those that are all about free speech are so childish when dealing with controversial topics.

      • Paul Courtney

        Yeah, I sometimes glaze my own eyes on my best days. I, too, got some laughs from MSNBC before I downgrade the service, or should I say, upgraded to fewer channels. Now I get my laughs from Bob, who is determined to put quotes on paraphrases, and avoid the bigger issue. I had hopes of pulling him into the conversation, but he’s more concerned with whether Bernie and I will meet with his tens of millions of liberal acquaintances. I only have time for npr, local liberal rag and occasional glance at CNN to get a feel for what they think, and Bernie spent time with Dan Rather, which is more than anyone (but Bob, apparently) can ask. The hypocrisy surely is the point, and an occasional generalization doesn’t change that.

        • Bob Hadley

          I did confront the major issues we were discussing. I agreed with Bernie that some of the commentary in the immediate aftermath of the Arizona shooting were inflammatory and just plain wrong. But you fail to address the major issue that there is also a lot of bigotry, hypocrisy and demagogery coming from the right. As long as you agree with someone’s conclusions, you apparently will overlook his excesses.

          I was wondering why you keep saying the same things over and over again even though I already addressed them. I wrote in plain English. My points were fairly basic. If you don’t understand them, you could read them over again more carefully. But maybe you don’t want to understand. You don’t want to be confused by reason and logic. Perhaps your slogan is “My beliefs – right or wrong!” I was trying to engage you in rational dialogue, but if that’s too painful or unnerving for you, Ithen I won’t disturb you anymore.

          • Paul Courtney

            I thought we were having a rational dialogue. I read your comments again, and don’t see agreement with Bernie on the point at hand, though you conceded the libs started a “food fight”. So incitement to mass murder is a food fight? This was a very malicious and false allegation, made by far more than a few liberal pols, “journalists” (local and national-by the way, how do you know if my local paper speaks for the left?) and letter-to-editor types. I don’t read leftie blogs, was it there, too? Re-reading your comments, you clearly want this story to be about “name calling” on the right. That’s a device used by a “few” liberals to change the subject. Took a few tries, but you finally say you “criticize” those “few” liberals. Strong words there. I still am baffled that you think stories about liberal hypocrisy in the MSM is character assassination of tens of millions of liberals out there, on par with the left’s attempt to tar conservatives with incitement to murder.

          • Guest2

            The issue in the article above was how many liberal journalists and media commentators immediately blamed Palin and the Tea Party for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords without an ounce of proof that Loughner was tied to Palin or the Tea Party in any way.
            However, Bob may have a point.
            Some of these hateful hypocrites who rushed to blame Palin with no proof might have been conservative. They didn’t sit there and say, “I’m liberal and I blame Palin.” For all we know it may be only conservatives who would do something so hateful.
            Next time we should ask instead of assuming they’re liberal just bc they blamed Palin for having blood on her hands.
            Hey, did you guys see those articles that purported the false notion that Obama dyes his hair when Michelle insists he does not?
            See, the MSM is not just quick to make up nasty rumors about conservatives. These lies are comparable in the minds of most who eat it up (notice I did not call those people “liberal”).

        • Bob Hadley

          You’re posing the equivalence between incitement to mass murder and a resulting food fight?????? You need to back away from that one. As O’Reilly would say, that would put you in the loon category. I have heard no one, not even left-wing ideologues, pose that absurd idea. Nothing incited that maniac to commit mass murder the other week, except perhaps his own delusions. Here, the only food fight occurred and was incited after the shooting. It was started by certain liberals who in effect blamed certain conservative icons for inciting the shooting. They did not, however, say that such incitement was equivalent to a food fight. Certain conservatives climbed in the trough with these liberals.

          I don’t claim to know for whom your local papers speak. My hunch, however, is that they speak for themselves and that letter writers speak for themselves. How many agree with what they say is a different question. But, judging by your postings here, you have probably misconstrued any and all rational discussion that doesn’t conform to your preconceptions.

          You apparently consider the various forms of incivility coming from those with whom you agree as entertainment while you get your knickers in a twist over even the slightest incivility coming from those with whom you disagree. And there is plenty of incivility (i.e. hateful rhetoric, bigotry, hypocrisy, etc.) coming from both sides. You apparently have a double standard.

          Why do you think I have to agree with all of Bernie’s main points in order to have rational dialogue with you? Whatever happened to critical thought? I have stated my agreement with much or most of Bernie’s specific criticisms. I focus on criticizing, where appropriate, Bernie’s language, his generalizations and his hypocrisy. Bernie gets plenty of agreement from other posts. You seem to defend everything he says, and to take offense at anything critical of him.

          And if you think your previous post (purportedly made to a third party but nonetheless posted for anyone to see) promotes rational dialogue, then you need to learn the basics of personal responsibility. You not only need to re-read my posts, IF you want to understand them, but you also apparently need to re-read your own posts.

          • Paul Courtney

            You posed it, not I. You say I don’t read your posts, but apparently you don’t read your posts. Your initial post 1/14 called this a food fight initiated by “the other side”. What the other side initiated was Dupnik and Krugman claiming right wing rhetoric led to this act. Many jumped on board, and even when forced to admit the shooter was not thus motivated, they stuck to the “time to tone it down” narrative. I don’t get my knickers in a twist for mere incivility, it’s constitutionally protected, but I do when it’s alleged (without any basis)(yeah, I’m repeating that) to have incited mass murder. In my post to joe, I cited several sources including my local liberal rag. Your reply below says those cited don’t speak for the left. One other source cited was MSNBC, but you don’t think it speaks for the left. If you won’t read your own posts, don’t worry. I’ll keep reading, I need the laughs. As far as requiring agreement with Bernie, my posts asked you to tell us what you thought of those liberals who used the shooting to blame conservative rhetoric, and you kept telling us we don’t know what all liberals think. I would like to see one lib agree with him when he’s right on the money (like here). I don’t know if you’re liberal, but if you don’t agree with the truth, at least don’t try to change the subject and avoid the truth. If you don’t think you’re changing the subject, then look at your 1/19 post, where the “major subject” was bigotry etc on the right? Still gonna say I’m not reading them?

        • Bob Hadley

          Calm down big guy! You need to relax. I stand corrected: you only understand certain isolated parts of my posts my posts even though you read them. You admitted as much when you said your “eyes glaze over” at my posts. This is apparently because you’re so emotional about these matters that you cannot hold competing ideas in your mind at the same time, i.e. you think either I’m completely with you/Bernie or completely against you/Bernie. If you want to advance a rational discussion, you need to read these posts carefully. If you don’t understand something, just ask. Don’t make things up.

          I wrote two posts on 1/19. The one that began “The PEOPLE you cited do not speak for the left” was obviously intended for Joe from Louisiana–HINT: MSNBC and your local rag are not people. He cited several celebrity liberals who, to varying degrees, profit from their commentary.

          But you haven’t answered the questions I indicated: how can MSNBC and your local rag speak for the left? Who authorized them to speak on behalf of the left? Who on the left has explicitly agreed with everything these media have stated? Again, my hunch is that these media speak for themselves. Just a wild guess. :)

          I have stated several times that I agree with Bernie’s criticism of various liberals’ reactions to the shootings, i.e. various liberals’ statements that certain demagogues on the right were responsible for the shooting were reactive, wrong headed, irresponsible, etcetcetc. Many liberals have also essentially said, in effect, that Bernie is “right on the money” in his criticism above of various liberals.

          Criticizing Bernie for his bigoted, hypocritical and irresponsible statements (aside from his “right on the money” statements) does not deny or negate the above-given criticism of various liberals’ statements about the shooting, as you seem to think. Again, you must develop the ability to keep competing thoughts in your mind at one time if you want to understand what is being said here. And as far as I know, no one–liberal or otherwise–has drawn an equivalence between Bernie’s irresponsible statements and the above-referenced statements of various liberals with respect to inciting the shooting. YOUR words posed that equivalence. If you didn’t mean it that way, you should be more careful of your words. As Rush Limbaugh once said about one of Pres.Clinton’s campaign speeches, “words mean things” (I just wish he’d hold himself to his own standards). Nooooooooo, words did NOT incite the shooting, but they still mean things.

          The food fight that ensued after the shooting was started by the reactive, irresponsible statements various liberals made about various right wing demogogues. Instead of or, in some cases, in addition to taking the high road by responsibly attacking these statements, various members of the right started slinging muck back at these various liberals and, in many cases, at the left in general. Yes, some responses were responsible, but others were not. Again, this does NOT say or imply that both sides to the fight were equally to blame. As with food fights generally, both sides looked childish, albeit one side was more reprehinsible than the other.

          As many conservatives agree, Obama was correct to use this occasion to say that the rhetoric on both sides should be toned down, while making it clear that there was no connection between various vile rhetoric and the shooting and also implying that various liberal reactions were way out-of-bounds. Obama drew no equivalency there either.

          Why be merciless with anyone for uncontrollable crying? Certainly, it’s disconcerting, even embarassing, but is this a burning national, political issue? Or do you just see this as a game where each “team” merely wants to score points? What about keeping your eyes on the ball? What about keeping focused on the health of the nation?

          For your information, the “merely” uncivil speech that you claim doesn’t get your knickers in a twist and the speech implying that certain vile conservative talk incited the shooting that does (as irresponsible as it is) are BOTH EQUALLY constitutionally protected. Yes, in terms of the First Amendment, both forms of speech are equivalent. That’s not my opinion, that’s the language of the First Amendment and the longstanding judicial interpretation thereof.

          But judging from the tone and the garbled nature of your responses, apparently your knickers are perpetually in a twist.

          • Paul Courtney

            Wish I could reply, but I just get so…emotional. I get it now, nobody speaks for anybody, and you don’t speak for you. And when the networks all agree that Obama’s state of the union speech was Reaganesque, they’re all talking from the same page but speaking for nobody. Which doesn’t matter because the real point is, Bernie says bad things about liberals. Gotta go now, and iron my knickers.

      • Bob Hadley

        The people you cited do not speak for the left. They speak for themselves. I don’t condone name calling. Do you condone Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly when they not infrequently use Nazi metaphors? And both Beck and O’Reilly have complained about people on the left using Nazi metaphors.

        Yes, many on the left are hypocritical, but so are many on the right. The problem is that when you agree with someone’s main point you tend to minimize his blemishes, and when you disagree with someone you tend to maximize them.

        • joe from louisiana

          That is the crux. The American left will not acknowledge their double standard(I know “tit for tat”, the right doesn’t either). I’m not a fan of name calling or mock indignation by either side but this reaction to the shooting was outrageous. I was always a big fan of William Buckley(and Bernie) because he could dismantle an argument without using crass and boorish behaviors.

          • Paul Courtney

            Precisely, this attack is way out of bounds and should be condemned by the MSM, but it isn’t. I try to be civil and appreciate it in others, but I’m ok with some incivility, politics can be rough. I’m ok with them hammering the weeping speaker-and they are right, if Nancy tried that, I’d be merciless. I’m ok with some of the criticism of Sarah P, she’s a big girl and can hit back. What has me riled is so many commentators who begin by saying the shooter wasn’t influenced by the right, but then say heated rhetoric on right causes violence and must be toned down. Well, I’ll abide the harsh rhetoric from both sides rather than let one side and their amen corner in the MSM buffalo the other.

        • Guest2

          I get a good laugh from Glen Beck’s dramatic mud-slinging sometimes as I know he’s way out there and over the top (especially his nazi hysteria which he really should cut down on) but I did not get even the slightest chuckle from yahoo Associated Press and politico writing Palin’s name all over the murder of a 9-year-old child.
          Blaming Palin for the deaths and permanent maiming of several people is not something I see as akin to gossipy rumors about Obama’s hair or Michelle’s red dress.
          It’s not the same. I am not a big Palin fan but I can see the difference here and it is too great for anyone in good conscience to ignore. The MSM owes Palin an apology but she never got it. After a week of Palin-blaming articles run all over the country 35% of Americans thought the Arizona shooting was Palin-incited violence. More than a quarter of Americans still blame Palin for it. My support for her grew as a result of witnessing this cold tarnishing of her reputation. Democrats have used targets on maps too, and they’ve depicted their political enemies being slaughtered by guns and knives. The hypocrisy of saying “Palin has blood on her hands, no proof” while at the SAME time calling for a “toning down” of vitriolic rhetoric strikes me as outrageous hypocrisy. I’m sorry but that’s how I see it.

  • Davis

    Way back in ancient times, before the internet, when there was a “fairness doctrine”, before cable news systems there existed gods and lesser gods. The New York Times was the Zeus of the news world and resided on the new Mount Olympus known as the island of Manhattan. The lesser gods of ABC, CBS and NBC all paid fealty to the supreme lord by taking the stories published in the NYT and regurgitating them on their nightly news broadcasts. Obsequiousness to the great “Grey Lady” was the normal order of things, simply because that was how it had always been.
    But the world of the gods began to change with the advent of cable television and it’s giving birth to a new lesser god, CNN. The order of things on Mount Olympus changed little at first as CNN remained loyal to father NYT, but the mortals below soon became restless with the oppression of the gods, and being what they are, some of them rebelled. Soon they gave birth to a lesser god of their own, FOX, and this new lesser god refused to pay homage to father NYT or any of the other lesser gods for that matter.
    At first this new lesser god struggled under the weight of the older gods but still refused to bend its knee to them. The word began to spread amongst the mortals that perhaps they too need not cast their fealty to the gods of Manhattan. Soon the mortals became empowered to become their own gods! The internet was born and gave birth to its own child the “blogosphere!”
    All this of course angered the gods of Manhattan. “How dare these mere mortal pray to other gods!” they bellowed in their private conclaves. They would never state so publicly but they knew that just as with the gods of ancient Greece they would be rendered powerless without the fealty and prayers of the mortals.
    Soon not only was it their power that became diminished but also that of their demigods, the politicians, over whom they claimed the power to create or destroy at their whim. Not only had these impertinent mortals created their own rivals to the gods of Manhattan but they were beginning to not just challenge, but replace the demigods that had been chosen for them!
    With each new lessening of their power the gods of Manhattan would hurl new bolts of thunder and lightning down upon the mortals from on high. “This FOX you attend is a false god, a usurper of the wisdom of Manhattan! Your new politicians are powerless; we will destroy them just as we have those that came before them that refused to bow before us!” But the mortals continued to ignore the gods of old and their newly created lesser gods of MSNBC and CNBC as well. Fewer and fewer mortals went to their temples of circulation and Neilson numbers, so each new lightning bolt was weaker and farther off the mark that the last! The edifice of their temples, the great taxing and redistributing, all powerful government wherein their demigods had resided, we being redecorated by the mortals in their own image.
    The gods of Manhattan have not passed into mythology yet, the rumblings of Mount Manhattan will continue for some time but they grow weaker with each new cycle of the rebellion of the mortals, but like the Titans that preceded the Greek gods of Olympus they will soon fade into the mists of time, starved of the offerings of circulation and Neilson numbers.

    Read more:

  • joedee1969
  • Alan

    The gunman (I won’t use his name, because I don’t think he deserves that dignity) evidently first took interest in Representative Giffords in 2007. No one knew who Sarah Palin was in 2007. I have yet to see any evidence connecting the gunman to anyone on the right (or anyone on the left, for that matter). It would help if the left would understand that sometimes bad things happen outside the influence of any political figure.


    PROBLEMS ????


  • Robert Ziegler

    Dear Bernie, Having not read all the 90+ responses to your column, has anyone pointed out that when it’s an acknowledged left wing crazy radical ie. The Environmentalist Potential Discovery Building Bomber in Maryland., little is revealed about this individual. Gee, I wonder why. Does anyone know or remember his name? Maybe the most anybody remembers about him is that he is Asian. The entire event kind of got swept under the rug. And as far as Fascists and Communists go, they are both the same, and at the bottom of the “POLITICAL SPHERE” it’s certainly not a political spectrum. All the garbage flows down the sides towards the bottom, if we’re not careful with our Democratic Republic WE will slowly slide down the side to the bottom. Everything in Life happens incrementally, if you’re not aware, it could be too late.

  • Tim Hoffman


    • JDO

      I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, surrounded by the Alps as he is he has to shout to be heard over them? Just a guess.



  • Wil Burns

    I love how the words New York Times, NBC News, NOW and Media Matters just roll off the tip of Bernie’s tongue. Yet he says this one line near the end of his obscene opening rant last night, “There is hatred coming for right too”. Well come on now Bernie, lets hear you name some names now. Give us named examples of hatred from the right, lets hear you name some orgainizations and people, and the websites they run. Yet time and time again all you ever hear from him is usually, “Well yes, there is bad discourse coming from both sides”. He just never gets specific on right-wing hatred, just usually the Times, NBC and Media Matters.

    • Bernard Goldberg


      I rarely read what you say, mainly because I don’t find you even vaguely interesting. And, just between us (and everybody else who reads these posts) not too bright. You’re back to your old tricks — putting quotation marks around things I never said. Be careful. Last time I banned you from the site for that. We wouldn’t want that to happen again.
      But on this particular matter, let me try — repeat try — to shed some light on your darkness. On O’Reilly, I was talking about the wretched journalism at work here in the Arizona shooting story. A journalist — opinion or otherwise — simply cannot make a connection between a supposed “culture of hate” and the terrible tragedy in Arizona without some evidence that the two are linked. So far there is not one shred of evidence that the killer was influenced by anything Palin or Beck or Limbaugh or O’Reilly ever said. So it is journalistic malpractice to suggest those conservatives are co-conspirators, when, again, we have no reason to believe that the shooter was influenced by anything these people had ever talked about.
      The sad fact is, by all accounts, the gunman appears to be deranged. Crazy people do crazy things. To politicize what happened — and many on the Left have done –shows tremendous ignorance of mental illness and indicates they were trying to make sure they didn’t let a crisis go to waste. And that makes what they did shameful.
      I would think that any reasonable person — no matter what his politics — would agree with that. Even you. But I understand that may be hoping for too much.

      • JDO

        I thought it was a pretty good piece the other night. I don’t agree with EVERYthing you say, Bernie, but I agree with most (probably because of the, dare I say it, common sense in it) … and, man, O’Reilly was pretty ticked off (understandably/justifiably).

        Of course, Mr. O’Reilly couldn’t quite bring himself to agree with the take by one of his guests (Was it you? I don’t remember/don’t think so) on the “gun to a knife fight” quote that Obama used during his campaign (the 2008 one, I’ll be specific since he always seems to be on one), blowing it off as “just a movie quote” and not really the same as the weapon/gun/military rhetoric that the Left is disgustingly trying to (partially) blame this tragedy on. It was was of the only things I disagreed with him on as, like it or not, we do get a lot of our best, and worst, quotes on many subjects from movies/tv/literature, and using them doesn’t make the speech any different. It’s the meaning, not the source.

        • Juliet V

          You were correct- it was Bernie who mentioned the Obama quote that O’Reilly seemed to blow off. It bothered me a little as well, as it is not the only time our President has spoken that way.

      • Ron Kean

        I saw that segment. I saw O’Reilly’s talking points too. He’s very angry. You were very angry. I’m very angry. How can Krugman, Matthews and the rest get away with all their lying and insinuation? How do they get away with it?

      • Wil Burns

        So Bernie, Why do you seem to be saying, a determined that a “lone wolf” killer can’t be motivated by political dogma? Or that such a killer can’t have a political aspect to his actions? Sorry, I don’t agree!

      • Wil Burns

        So Bernie, Why do you seem to be saying, a determined that a “lone wolf” killer can’t be motivated by political dogma? Or that such a killer can’t have a political aspect to his actions? Sorry, I don’t agree! I do accept a nutcase did a terrible thing; I don’t accept that the prime contributors, including Sarah Palin, are absolved from their intemperate, vicious and dogwhistle politics.

        • Paul Courtney

          Probably a waste of time, but I’ve got a few minutes. You and Krugman (and so many others) say right wing rhetoric drives this act of violence (and others), with no basis (or even an attempt to support your point). When Bernie calls this out, again no attempt to show a connection, you simply try to change the subject back to acts of violence. You list acts of political violence, but are any of these people followers of Bernie (or Limbaugh, Beck, Palin)? You cite a Knoxville church shooter who read the 100 book, but did anything in the book call for violence? More importantly, did he go after the 100? No, he went after innocents with no connection to the people you think Bernie targeted, a clear manifestation of mental derangement. In the face of these points, and blatant hypocrisy by the same dems who,in the past, used the same vitriol they now decry, we get another change of subject from the MSM, to gun control. How ’bout this-we’ll let you decide who’s mentally unfit to have 2d Amendment right if you’ll let us decide who’s mentally unfit to exercise right of free speech. Before you ruin a keyboard with spittle, it’s not a serious proposal. Just try to stick to the point-what ties this guy to anything on the right, and if nothing does, then are you big enough to admit that?

      • Nancy

        I couldn’t agree more, Bernie. Will likes to feign knowledge but comes across wielding very little that even resembles that, not to mention he is disrespectful and unkind. And kudos to President Obama, he struck the right tone, said the right things and made me proud for the first time, to call him my President.

      • MerchantofVenom


      • Kane Weinberg


        I think the language used to address Will is quite frankly unbecoming. There is no need to use abusive words or to infer that he is “not too bright” or not “a reasonable person” because he does not share your views. It is more becoming to simply address the force or otherwie of his arguments. That is a reasonable approach to take. In view of the events of the last couple of weeks I think it is important that sane heads appear. I hope I talk for all independents when I say that there are too many hateful liberals and conservatives out there now. Tone it down boys.

        • JDO

          Lol, not everyone can be as high-browed, equal-minded, sane and fair as so-called “Independents.” Please, though, continue to try and teach us (liberals and conservatives) how public discourse is supposed to take place. I do so enjoy hearing people preach er, excuse me, “teach” in a condescending manner. Cracks me up, really.

        • Craig Smithson

          Ken, Thanks for your observation and comment. I was shocked at the language used by the site’s owner. It displayed a vulgar arrogance and unneeded vileness! I am shocked nobody else said anything. I was also shocked that Will did not respond to such vulgarity! I guess he showed he was brought up well and is infact the better man. Manners (if not learnt in one’s formative years) can never be taught!! Nancy’s slobbering additions made me make for the toilet!!

          • Paul Courtney

            I feel compelled to express my amazement at Kane and Craig. Wil began by demanding Bernie name names on the right, as if that’s part of this shooting story. Bernie pointed out, in harsh terms, this story was not about the right, “not a shred of evidence” etc. Wil comes back with no evidence, just bald assertion that Sarah P and others are “prime contributors”! Didn’t THAT send you to the toilet? It sent me to the keyboard, where it was laid out for Wil. THAT sent you to the toilet? It couldn’t be more plain that right wing talk had less influence on this shooter than the weather, and we now see that whining about “toning it down on both sides” is just as effective as kvetching about the weather. You folks all subscribe to the same bottled water service or what?

  • David

    I’ve read every one of Bernie’s books and just finished “Slobbering” last week and then days later this tragedy happens and sadly I knew what the press would crow from the top of the NY Times building as evidenced everywhere but little Fox News (Rush doesn’t count since he is not a news organization) The first thought I had after CNN’s lead story Sunday morning was, “WE’RE FINISHED” ..Bernie has warned anyone who will listen, most of all the national press corps, there is a real danger in what they’re doing which will ultimately lead down a road of no turning back.
    I wonder what someone living in a former communist country would have to say about our press’ behavior and the similarities between the two? I was sickened most of all as i considered what the parent of the killed child thinks as she hears news pundits ask if this tragedy is good for Obama? We are at a tipping point and sadly, tipping the wrong way. Beware!

    • JDO

      Ah, if only the “We’re Finished” CNN was refering to was their time as an organization/entity, followed closely by an “Ok, We Give UP” from NBC and “Heck, We’re Done” from MSNBC … of course, in MSNBC’s case, who would notice?

  • Tim Ned

    I would never have believed that the tragedy in Tucson would have been turned political and an attack against free speech by the left wing. The socialists not only seek to socialize our government, their agenda includes socialized speech. How many times in history must we learn that speech laws are a stick game? Those who hold the stick control the game.

  • begbie

    How about these quotes. Can you guess who?

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” — Not Sarah Palin

    Get out there and “punish our enemies” — Not Mitch McConnell

    “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” — Not Rush Limbaugh

    “Punch back twice as hard.” – Not John Boehner

    I want to know “whose ass to kick” — Not Sean Hannity

    “…I’m itching for a fight.” – Not Glenn Beck

    ALL of these were your illustrious President Barack Obama.

    • Wil Burns

      Begbie, From Dave Neiwert:

      — July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

      — October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

      — December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

      — December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

      — January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

      — February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

      — April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

      — April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

      — May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

      — June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

      — February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.)

      — March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

      — March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

      — May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

      — May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

      — May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

      — July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

      — September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

      Only one side does this nonsense, your side!

      • Csaba M Farkas

        I did not check the validity of your statements, but I am sure that many of the perpetrators were insane. Guess who worked so hard to have all of the state mental hospital shut down all over the country. If my memory holds two of the top ourpetrators were the ACLU and Geraldo Rivera, who was no conservative at the time. I am sure others were also involved, but the end result was that the insane, the addicts, and others in need of hospitalized treatment ended up on the streets. This increased the number of homless and insane criminals. Again please correct me if you know od any conservatives who were for this action instead of fighting against it. Ergo, Ohio State and Tuscon and I am sure many of the ones mentioned by you. Honur

      • stmichrick

        I take issue with your assertion that Nazis and white supremacists are ‘right-wing.’
        They are respectively, socialist/fascists and bigots.
        The abortionist killers are properly called, ‘murderers.’
        You will not find any prominent conservatives defending so-called ‘militias.’
        The Patriot movement radicals are anarchists.
        Tax protestors are tax protestors.

        • Guest2

          Nazis and white supremacists are in a completely different league of their own.
          “Anti-government” does NOT = Republican!
          Tim Mc Veigh was NOT a Republican (and for those who are new; he was an atheist).
          There is no tie between wanting transparency in government with more fiscal responsibility and holding shootouts with cops and blowing up government buildings.
          To help you out: the reason they are called “Right-wing Extremists” is bc they are white. If they were not white and doing this then they’d be “Left-wing Radicals” or more commonly “gangs”. That appears to be the formula.

          • Guest2

            I was hoping to edit my post above but I timed out. I used to believe crazy people who ran around bombing buildings were “Republicans” too, back when I was a liberal; Will, you may not be aware of this but many neo-nazis and anti-government extremists engage in acts of violence for the same reasons a man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would travel by plane toting a bomb in his underwear (leading to our new very thorough TSA screenings).
            Generally speaking, conservative Republicans want nothing to do with muslim extremist foreign terrorists while neo-nazi domestic terrorists want everything to do with them. Where the foreign terrorist leaves off, the US domestic terrorist comes in.
            Here’s a few more dangerous anti-government tax protestors, neo-nazis and militia compound killers to add to your little list:
            James Traficant
            George Hansen
            David R. Hinkson
            Matt Hale
            Geronimo Pratt
            Edgar J. Steele
            Judi Bari
            and of course the most obviously guilty one of all:
            Randy Weaver
            For the record, these terrorists say they are anti-government, not Conservative Republicans.

      • begbie

        My side? Who’s taking sides?

        Our president said the things I listed, our president. An elected president. Showing us a list of crazies doesn’t help your point or hurt mine. What are you talking about?

        In a discussion with substance, liberals will always fail and resort to insults or irrelevant points. If you point is that there are crazy people, then ok you’re right. But these folks are not conservatives. Do you think neo-nazies are conservatives? That’s an oxymoron by definition.

  • Shirl

    You can always tell every time the illiterate liberals learn a new word; they parrot it all across the media in every interview (vitriol, vitriol, vitriol). They are all just giddy with their newfound word for BS. It would be amazing if just one of them had an original thought. You can always tell when their comments have been through the liberal filtering machine.

    • Sasha

      I have a sister who talks the same way as the media liberals. You can’t really reason with her and I won’t be talking to her about this. She will of course blaime the Republicans and Tea Party. I once told her “she has not had an original thought since the 60’s”. I knew on Saturday when I first heard about this shooting incident that the Media (NSNBC, CNN, etc.) would go crazy without the facts blaming everybody but the shooter. They did the same thing with respect to Oaklahoma. I majored in Journalism in college and remeber the Professor’s saying the future for journalism was to socially direct the people. When what the Media backs something or goes crazy on an issue I also check further and researcg. They are so very predictable and I don’t trust them.

  • stmichrick

    I find it ironic and somewhat satisfying that the Lefty flaks, opinion-makers and newsies attempt to smear conservatives with Loughner’ s crime has resulted in everyone knowing just how crazy this guy is, to say nothing of him being interested in Mao and Hitler. Thank you New Media. Ditto the internet for giving us the ability of documenting the pot calling the kettle black.

    This exposure wouldn’t have happened when we relied on Uncle Walter for the news.

  • phillossifer

    pilysyllabid nothingless. Sheriff’s words echoed througout country because this vitriol is commonplace in politics from local yokels to privledged few

  • joedee1969
  • Cam

    Since some congenital idiot who claims he is from Switzerland feels free to make uninformed and unsubstantiated claims about American conservatives, let me give you the opinion of a very prominent Canadian. Jean LaPierre, a former federal Liberal Cabinet Minister who was extremely influential in the Trudeau cabinet, said words to this effect about the Arizona tragedy. On a National Mainstream Canadian TV political talk show he said words to this effect …. “This is a terrible tragedy for all Americans and it is obviously the work of somebody with serious psychological problems. The truth is this could happen in Canada or any country. If there is less chance of it happening in Canada, it is only because our population is much smaller than the United States.” Note: I paraphrase it is not an exact quote. In Canada LaPierre was considered a left leaning liberal. He is also recognized by people of every political stripe as an astute observer of politics. It is noticeable that he made absolutely no linkage between American conservatives and the shooting because obviously there is no link to be made. And by the way “Paul from Switzerland”, …… I am prepared to wager that both the Honourable Member Jean LaPierre and myself have forgotten more about Americans and their politics than you will every know.

    I would just like Americans to know that Canadians feel your sorrow but we have every confidence that Americans will not be dragged down by this tragic event or the sickening political spin the MSM has put on a human tragedy in which a young girl lost her life partaking in the American democratic process.

  • Wil Burns

    Bernie, You never heard Bill O’Reilly disparage anyone? Remember Bill railing against Tiller? He called him “Tiller the killer” guess what happened to Dr. George Tiller? Also, remember the Knoxville church shooter’s manifesto:

    “This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book.

    ’nuff said!

    • stmichrick

      Hey Wil,
      Has it escaped you that O’Reilly was referring to the livelihood of ‘Dr.’ Tiller, not what should be done about him?

      • Wil Burns

        Oh really?

  • Juliet V.

    Reply posted at 1:44 was meant for poster, David Jones, at 9:28– not you, Bernie! My apologies.

  • Juliet V.

    A few of your sentences are readable. For example, whose plan is it to ‘make the President illegitimate and a foreigner’? How does someone make someone else a ‘foreigner’ or illegitimate, outside of giving birth to that person? You give Conservatives (and a few conspiracy theorists) too much power. But you get a D+ for effort. Now go back to your Michael Moore movie. Bernie, how do you deal with this stuff? You are one brave guy!

  • Noah

    The depths in which leftist or progressives will go to turn this tragedy into a political blow against conservatives in this country is not surprising but tasteless non less. Truth and logic is once again turned upside down by the hapless media outlets like MSBC and CNN that are reporting with an agenda not to properly informing it’s viewers of the truth. The media has been doing this for years while reporting on the ME Conflict between Israel and the Arabs. These idealagues are allowed to get away with it in an open democratic society in Israel and they are going to do the same here. These reporters need to be called out for what they are. They are LIARS with a press pass.

  • Vince

    Conservatives offered prayers and condolences. The Left offered blame and hubris.
    Since when is disagreeing with the direction a Socialist wants to take the country grist for a nutjob’s mill?
    And the last time i looked, the death threats etc were all within Sheriff Doofus’ jurisdiction. Isn’t it just like a leftie to blame his own shoddy work on the masses..?

  • Terri

    I get really tired of the media and politicians taking advantage of tragedies to promote their agendas. I live in Tucson, and the community is very disturbed by this event. Dupnik’s comments are a disgrace to our community, and it is an embarrassment to have him representing our officers. People are dead, with many others (including a congresswoman) struggling to recover. These people are real, and I am sickened that people cannot take a moment to realize that this is about people, not agendas.

    • Bruce A.

      Most people are sickened by this tragedy, it reaches far beyond Tucson. It would be nice if our officials & the news media waited for all facts to come in first then offer comment, but that seems to be a thing of the past or requires common sense.

  • David Jones

    Your plan is to make the President illegitimate and a foreigner.
    How do you do it ?
    He’s a Socialist planted by the Russians…
    He’s a Muslim foreigner…
    His friends are Communist Terrorist…
    He tricked the American People..
    He’s disregarded the Constitution outside of what has happened ever before..
    He’s purposefully making the system implode because he wants CONTROL.
    He was not born here, so he hates America.
    He’s got legislation through by Unconstitutional means and with BRIBES.
    The States need to Succeed because he sooo outside the LAW..
    Then finally, WHATEVER he does Disagree with it. Even if you are the one that suggested the ACTION..
    THEREFORE : LINK that eludes you.
    Since you’ve (implied over and over again by FOX, Rush, Drudge etc.) he’s a plant that is purposely destroying our Great Nation. A Patriot would feel they were saving our Nation by stopping this President by ANY means. A Patriot who loves our Nation should STOP this foreigner, Socialist, Fascist, Muslim, Conman, that hates America, destroyer of Capitalism, and Alien Plant.
    THAT”S what you have done every day and night non stop SMEARING, win election on your ideas…That is what you pretend you do, you imply you disagree like all loyal American should do to better our Nation. In reality, the list above is what you do. Knowing this approach will result in the fringe ACTING violently, but you want to win the election by hook or by crook .


    • Juliet V.

      A few of your sentences are readable. For example, whose plan is it to ‘make the President illegitimate and a foreigner’? How does someone make someone else a ‘foreigner’ or illegitimate, outside of giving birth to that person? You give Conservatives (and a few conspiracy theorists) too much power. But you get a D+ for effort. Now go back to your Michael Moore movie. Bernie, how do you deal with this stuff? You are one brave guy!

    • Terry Walbert


      You wrote:

      His friends are Communist Terrorist… Bill Ayres and Ms Dorn
      He tricked the American People.. Ran as a moderate.
      He’s disregarded the Constitution outside of what has happened ever before.. Appointed more Czars
      than the Romanovs. Bribed to get support of Obamcare.

      Then finally, WHATEVER he does Disagree with it. He had the right idea to stay in Iraq and Afganistan.

  • ChrisM

    Bernie, great seeing you on O’Reilly tonight. O’Reilly referenced the DLC map from 2004 that was nearly identical to Sarah Palin’s but he did not show it on tv. I hope that you are able to help get out the word about this blatant hypocrisy and enable the public at large to see this:

    Notice the use of militant language such as speaking of targeting states and creating havoc behind enemy lines. Sensible people know that such figurative language is regularly used in politics, but for those on the bubble, seeing that Democrats use this language and also use a map with bulls eyes on states will allow them to see the hypocrisy that is being propagated.

    Eventually, I suspect the DLC will pull that article and map with bulls eyes, in which case this site has a copy of it and shows both the DLC bulls eye map and the map Sarah Palin made 6 years later:

  • Kathy

    So, it’s terrible, just terrible – all this right wing violent rhetoric. But the left has absolutely NO problem at all with gangsta rap! I will not hold my breath waiting for them to condemn REAL hate speech.


    I just read your column on the Tucson shooting, and I hasten to say “Amen, Brother!” and “Right on!”
    Where were these pop psychiatrists when Harry Reid said Republicans were from the same piece of cloth as slave-owners and those who denied the vote to women?
    Where were their denunciations when Democratic Congressman Nadler referred to Republicans repeatedly as “hostage-takers” and ‘gangsters” a few weeks ago on CBS’s Face the Nation?
    Keep up the good work.
    Joseph Benham, ex-AP, US News & World Report, NBC Radio News and daily newspapers staffer

  • Ron the Booner

    The disingenuous “Hypocrats” easily forget their own map that was all over TV, print media and the Internet in the 2004 election. Instead of crosshairs, they used actual targets with bullseyes on them and labeled the map Target Strategy that highlighted nine battlefield states. As Tennessee Williams once said, “The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hyopcrite.”

  • Larry W.

    Bernie, You are most definitely the “Whittaker Chambers” of our time! What a breath of fresh air you are! I really appreciate your input on this hot topic and look forward to following this website more often. Thanks.

  • Juliet V.

    THANK YOU, Mr. Goldberg! As soon as that dopey sheriff shot his mouth off about the ‘dangers’ of freedom of speech, and the “24 hour, 7-day-a-week mistrust of government” on-air ‘rhetoric’ in this country, during what was supposed to be a press conference, I (and everyone else with common sense) recognized a call to some sort of Fairness Doctrine. Half of his answers (understandably) were, “I can’t comment on that” and “I don’t know”, but he certainly was clear on his own opinions of what was really to blame for this loon’s actions: the state of AZ, FOX News, talk radio and Sarah Palin! I was hoping you’d address this today, and you did not disappoint.

  • CCNV

    I’m just waiting for California to make this dipwad their poster boy for legalizing marijuana, with the caption, “It’s not drugs that make you kill…it’s the Conservatives”!

  • Cody

    Bernie, Excellent column. Your summation on liberals not letting this crisis go to waste was exactly what occurred to me. How come no one in the MSM blamed angry liberals when President Reagan was shot or when there were two attempts on President Ford’s life? I don’t recall one word of condemnation when Bill Maher lamented the fact that the terrorists hadn’t killed Vice-president Cheney.

  • Paul Courtney

    Bernie: Just finished listening to npr Talk of the Nation doing its part, blaming the shooting on Arizona super-majority-of-republican legislature and repub gov and immigration debate overheated by right wing. Again, all connecting, no dots. Last week’s big news story were packages in Maryland and one to Janet Napolitano igniting, and at least one had a note protesting freeway signs to “report suspicious activity”. You had to read pretty close to even pick this up. I recall when Bush Admin suggested after 9/11 that local cops, fire, postal etc. should report suspicious activity, the left and friends in MSM went all Orwell. Putting aside the fact that Obama Admin has same policy (bet those freeway signs came at the stimulus rates) and the MSM has been…lame in going after that (which is not a bad thing), here we have actual dots to be connected. Left wing nut sends bombs to gov’t officials, but when he’s caught, blind eyes will turn toward his motives, and no Talk of the Nation segments will be produced.

  • Holly

    This is really getting beyond dangerous for Conservatives. EVERY single person who has been labeled as a Rightwing was or is in FACT a Democrat . Timothy McVeigh was a registered Democrat. His father was high up in the Unions. This Jared guy is a Democrat. Lincolns killer, Reagan attempted killer was not only a far left but a member of Manson’s followers.Jim Jones was so far left he even scared San Fran! I could go on and on. History has proven that their is a special gene for liberals. As a Lead Tea Party member of my State, I am very worried for my safety. The media does not care if they cause harm to come to us. Gabby was a GOP and switched parties and was a very conservative Democrat. The far left is angry because she did not vote for Pelosi and she was planning to possibly vote to appeal Obamacare.

    • paul from switzerland^


      • Nancy

        Just curious…

        What nationality are you?

        • paul from switzerland^


      • Neil M

        How do you know so much about US culture? Getting your info from Lamestream? Stay in Switzerland……,please

    • paul from switzerland^


      • Juliet V.

        yaaaawn… you might be taken a bit more seriously if you could point out which lies you see here.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Hey dimbulb, I have a quick question: What continent were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Milosevic from?

      • Louis

        Paul, I think you are a bit confused about what has happened here.. An obviously insane person did this. His MAYHEM FEST comments on a college test, his plastic skull/rotten orange/ash pit shrine in his yard combined with his unusual behavior in school that frightened classmates, all point to schizophrenia. Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto were two of his favorites.This does not fit the profile of conservatives who believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. Neither does attacking a politician for being too moderate a Democrat.

        • Bruce A.

          Of course a deranged person did this. This is overlooked by the MSM because they are not interested in reporting facts, just opinions.

      • Jay Thompson

        Your smugness is only exceeded by your ignorance. Your hyperbolic drivel (look it up) is condescending, and lacks a key requirement to pull it off: poignancy. For your information, I am an English and HISTORY teacher. You can put your rants where the sun never shines, you grandiose nimwit.


      • chuck

        Paul, Why are you here?

    • Louis

      The far left is as dangerous to the Democrats as radical Islam is to Muslims. because they are willing to attack those among themselves whom they deem too moderate.

    • Louis

      Bernie -as expected, liberals ” took advantage of the crisis” prematurely to attack free speech and conservative politicians. It gives away their overall agenda of big government control over all aspects of our lives. I wonder if Loughner, being an admirer of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, felt he had reason to attack a blue-dog or was he just insane?

  • stmichrick`

    It seems that many on the extreme left are addicted to violence as a means of political expression. If they are not using it as intimidation by groups like organized labor, the Klan or the Weather Underground, they use it as a hammer to smear opponents by attributing non-political or acts of lunatics to political motives.

  • JohnInMA

    Most outrageous for me is both the speed and energy used by left mouthpieces, including media. The speed at which they came out assigning blame to all their usual right targets could easily be argued to prove they were ready and waiting for such a tragedy. The speed and energy and also the complete lack of rational or deductive logic in making any connections is proof of their desperation and state of mind. Isn’t in ironic that the shooter’s mental psychosis manifested in conspiracy theories, which by definition require leaps of faith to fill the void that facts and reality cannot. Yet the “professional left” and everyone else who is taking advantage of this must do the same in order to make their points. Many, when pressed, are admitting they cannot make the link. So, only those who “believe” or who follow their ideology willingly make that leap, I assume.

    • stmichrick`

      I think Bob Shieffer was about the ‘speediest’ on television.

  • joedee1969
  • Clarence De Barrows

    So what’s new? It’s what liberals do, Bernie.

  • Richard Rogers

    Immediately following the bombing of the Murrah Federal building, a CNN newsman stated on the air that CNN had contacted the NRA and that “the NRA had denied any involvement in the bombing”. Honest, I heard it and saw it myself. How’s that for incindiary innuendo! That was the day that I swore that CNN would never again corrupt the air in my house.

    • Terry Walbert

      Yeah, but what about the Boy Scouts? And then, of course, there are the Jewish War Veterans, the Methodist Youth Association, and the weekly bingo gatherings at St. Anthony’s parish hall. Did CNN check on them this time?

      I have absolutely no respect for the left-wing mouthpieces in the mainstream media. But I can’t decide if they’re just plain stupid and ignorant, or actually evil. Either way, their reaction was soooooooooo predictable. As W.C. Fields once said, “Screw ’em.”

  • EddieD_Boston

    On the Drudge Report there’s a quote from one of his classmates claiming he knew him to be a left-wing pothead.

    Question to you Bernie: Was The Communist Mafesto written by Hannity or Beck?

    • EddieD_Boston


    • JDO

      I believe the author was someone named Rush Marx? Karl O’Reilly? Somethin’ like that.

      • EddieD_Boston


    • paul from switzerland^


      • Demonacracy

        Ummm, actually, Hitler was a socialist. The Nazi party stood for National Socialists. Thanks for playing…but, you fail. It’s kind of hard for Conservatives or TEA Party members to be Nazis when we are for small, less intrusive goverment and individual freedom. Those items being the antithesis of Communism and its bastard brother, National Socialism. Paul, I have a reading suggestion for you, Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”. You might learn something…btw, YOUR CAPS KEY IS ON, UNLESS YOU SUPERIOR EUROPEANS DON’T USE THEM.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Hey Bernie, it looks like Wil Burns has family in Switzerland.

        I wasn’t around them but was John Wilkes Booth a dittohead?

        • Bruce A.

          For years Europe chased their best & brightest out. This is what’s left behind.

      • Noah Becker

        No hitler was a progressive with a utopian plan for society that is typical amongst socialist and leftist.

      • Jay Thompson

        National Socialist, last time I checked. It still remains that Hegel and Marx were quite your declared opposite. Your comment proves nothing. Nada. What do YOU know about history? Any cursory look at the history of political philosophy reveals that extreme right and extreme left shake hands at the back door, but of course, simplistic as you are, my nuanced offering of rebuttal will escape you.

      • Ron Kean

        Take your medicine. Calm down.

  • Ellie Velinska

    More speech not less speech would have prevented this.
    More speaking about his drug addiction, discussions about his delusions with psychiatrist – more speech was needed.
    The Congresswoman office should have communicated with the local police that she will be holding public event where crowd gathering is expected.Again – more speech.

    • Ellie Velinska

      The same day two American died in Afghanistan. Obama did not hold moment of silence for them. Media did not analyze their killer’s profile (maybe because there is no Tea Party in Afghanistan). Nobody interviewed their parents.
      Double standard?

  • JDO

    I don’t know what’s more disgusting, the almost-instant “politicizing” of this tragedy, or the fact that it wouldn’t have taken a genius to predict that that’s exactly what would happen.

    Let’s say, just for the heck of it, that the shooter … excuse me, “alleged” shooter, had, in his possession, a copy of one of O’Reilly’s books in one hand and one of Beck’s in the other. Perhaps he had a poster of Hannity and Limbaugh in his bedroom (a disturbing thought on many levels, now that I think of it). Now, just when does “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” come into play? If Rush Limbaugh reaches 20 million people a week, then that means that there were 19,999,999 people this last Saturday that did not target and murder innocents. I’m not trying to be flippant about this. The bottom line is, Liberals NEVER champion personal responibility. It’s always someone ELSE’s fault when ANYthing happens to ANYone AND, more disgustingly, we NEED them (Liberals) to help run our lives correctly, because we just cannot do it on our own. We’re just not smart enough to think on out own. Well, some people aren’t. Fact is, whether we are or aren’t, it all comes down to OUR individual actions, and we MUST be responsible for them.

    I don’t care if this guy read Mein Kampf or Pinheads and Patriots … or both. In the end, he has to be responsible for his actions … he IS responsible for his actions, no one else is.

    • Juliet V.


  • Kathie Ampela

    There are so many examples of hate and vitriol on the left that I don’t have the time or the space in this comments section to list them all. I’m sure that the pundits and conservative bloggers will spend the next week doing just that. But this morning I came across a wonderful quote by Ronald Reagan:

    ‎”We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

    Ronald Reagan was the victim of a would be assassin.

    Is it a consequence of the nanny state that when an individual comments a heinous crime, society is to blame for it? Rather than stoop to the level of the MSM and squabble over which side spews more hatred, let’s move back to individual responsibility and pin this horrible crime on the maniac that did it..not which ideology he embraced (if he had one) in order to score political victory over the other. We are going to destroy each other if we don’t.

    • Neil M

      Well said I aggree

  • Lily

    Mike S stole my thunder! LOL. I agree with him, when there were only three networks that “reported” the news who did they blame for those shootings. When John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln did they blame the newspapers?

    Let’s follow their “logic” shall we? If Palin, Beck, O’Rielly, et al are responsible for stirring up feelings in a disturbed young man, than logic follows that Olbermann, Garofalo, Matthews, et al are equally responsible. Especially since this man’s favorite readings list includes Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.

    (BTW at no point in history was main stream media ever nonbiased. Editorial comments reign supreme in all reports whether written or spoken, sometimes just a word, sometimes whole columns/reports of a news story are completely biased. That’s why I put “reported” in quotes.)

  • Jay Thompson

    Bernie, since when did the mainstream media EVER see the need for FACTS? EVIDENCE? No “scintilla of proof” has ever been needed for the thievery of the narrative spun out of virtually any story by the left. If the guy was reading Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, then ironically, his inspiration comes from the same fascism and communism that CLEARLY influenced FDR (cf. Jonah Goldberg’s, Liberal Fascism).

    Of course, this story should have never been politicized. But remember, Rahm’s playbook is still in the frontal lobe of everyone on the left…

    • Jay Thompson

      I failed to mention: on a regular basis, there is never more frothing hatred spewed from any pundit or politician than that of Keith Olbermann, the quintessential hijacker of narratives, the penultimate vitriolic incarnation of the journalistic devil!

      • Terry Walbert

        In the interest of truth, I feel I must defend Keith Olbermann. He thinks he is the reincarnation of the late comedian Steve Allen and he is just trying to be funny. In additon, he’s trying to put the make on Rachel Maddow.

        • Jay Thompson

          I hear you. Yet, Uberman Olbermann fails miserably at both.

  • Sharon

    I was reading yesterday that the shooter responsible posted on his MySpace page that among his favorate reading materials was “Mein Kampff” and “The Communist Manifesto.” If, in fact, what I read was truthful (fully understanding that it very likely may not be), this is not characteristic of a right-winger. We on the right may read such things for our own education, but we would not designate them to be a “favorite.” Perhaps we’ll soon see reports designed to inspire sympathy for the poor, misunderstood young man……

    • paul from switzerland^


      • Juliet V.

        May I suggest YOU listen to the personalities you listed, and come back with some examples of how what they do/say are comparable to the true hatred vomited by Josef Goebbels. Perhaps if you learn more about the murderer, you will realize how hopeless his mentality was.( Maybe not.) In any case, connecting his deeds to FOX journalists and commentators would be laughable if this was not so horrific a story.

      • Jay Thompson

        My experience indicates that most of the vitriol aimed at Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, et al., tends to come from very vocal but ill-informed individuals who, in fact, rarely, if ever, listen to or watch them.

      • Terry Walbert


        Please write your responses in either French or German so you can express your thoughts more accurately. We have translation softrware nowadays.

        Bittle Schreiben Sie Ihre Antowrte auf Deutsch oder auf Franzoeisch um Ihre Gedanken genau auszudruecken.

  • Pingback: Arizona Massacre: Beware Of Red Herrings « PARTISAN DAWN()

  • Ron Kean


    You once predicted that the MSM would become irrelevant. That time can’t come soon enough.

  • MikeS

    Yet back in the “good old days” when all we had were the three major networks simply reporting the news, and there were no alternative channels creating a “climate of hate,” weren’t John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and John Lennon shot and killed, and wasn’t Ronald Reagan shot and wounded?

    • Tim Ned

      And with JFK, this was a time the traditional press called “Camelot”.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Here We Go Again … | --

  • Michael Getzewich

    Paul Krugman reminds of an erupting volcano which creates it’s weather system with all the ash spewing from his rim.

    Moreover the hibernation of the right is most likely a calculation in to subdue the positive rhetoric, as opposed to the negative, or both. One word comes to mind and that is picayune, as in the nature of a person not satisfied to the packaging because it doesn’t look or feel or smell right.

    Mr Goldberg, would it be more satisfactory to instead of targets, use surveyors marks? This is in reference to Palin’s targeting.

  • gerry

    There is also no reference in any of the MSM to the map published by the Democratic Congressional Committee that targets Republican candidates with bulls eyes. But, of course, Sarah Palin is not a Democrat, so she’s fair game.