<...>
But as time wore on, as we moved into war in the Persian Gulf, the tenor of meetings began to change. Genuinely angry people would show up, the tenor of letters and phone calls (no email back then) would become increasingly profane and threatening. I began assuming a more defensive posture at these meeting and at all public events with the Congresswoman. I ensured that members of the SFPD would be visible, but not too intrusive, at all our public meetings. I shifted my position from being seated amongst the attendees to standing or sitting behind or to the side of her, the better to scan the audience. There was more than one occasion that I would physically interpose myself between her and others, or lightly but firmly direct her away from people whose demeanor I wanted her to avoid. For the last five years I worked for her -- from 1991 to 1996 -- I made a mental decision to add "bodyguard" to my list of duties as her national profile rose and, accordingly, the number of lunatics who contacted our office increased.
The proliferation of platforms for hate on cable, radio, where the anonymity of the internet allows filth-spewing idiots (many of whom comment on this blog) to rage, has changed the political climate of this country. Now, as compared to when I started twenty years ago, it is ok to act like a common street thug on the media. Extremists aren't censored -- they get their own cable show, they create their own blogs and internet sites, the more outrageous the better to find adherents and disciples that Jim Jones and David Koresh could have only dreamed of.
The shooting of Rep. Giffords comes after a year where Congressional offices being vandalized, of death threats sent to Members. Town hall meetings on health care were targeted last year for disruption. And, of course, just this week, a package with explosives was sent to Homeland Defense Secretary Napolitano. More and more, something has gone awry in our culture where destructive and deranged behavior has elevated itself to a point where mere anger finds an outlet in inappropriate and deadly means.
We don't know for sure what the motives of this particular madman were. There will be many commentaries on the fact that this occurred in Arizona, an "open carry" state for firearms. There will be renewed arguments about the Second Amendment, gun control, etc. There will be a call to ensure that every Member of Congress is protected by local or Capitol police when they go back to their districts. But that is just window dressing for the real issue. And for the other innocent victims of this madman, our nation needs to understand that they are more than victims -- they are martyrs, martyrs to a culture of hate speech and violence we have done little to stop. Because whatever the reason, we cannot ignore the fact that the current political climate is toxic beyond reason.
moreThe media and the GOP are complicit in creating the toxic climate. They're always dropping hints about harm coming to those who don't share their views.
Via Daily Kos:
Media Trying to Inoculate GOP in Giffords Shooting<...>
...This statement from the Tea Party, as reported in the WSJ
article (emphasis mine):
Tea Party Nation, the group started by Tennessee lawyer Judson Phillips, put out a statement to its supporters decrying the shooting. "Congressman Giffords was a liberal, but that does not matter now. No one should be the victim of violence because of their political beliefs."
However the situation develops, Congresswoman Giffords was alive at the time these people described her in the past tense. Freudian slip?
The statement went on to say that "no matter what the shooter's motivations where, the left is going to blame this on the Tea Party Movement."
Whatever the shooter's intentions, we know what the "Tea Party Movement's" intentions are.
Americans endured eight years of Bush, his illegal wars, torture and other disastrous policies, but there was no media-driven lunatic movement on the left advocating harming public servants. It's a movement that has roots in the GOP Congress.
Hint:
During an
interview with the New York Times last month, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) — who has
made no secret of his disdain for President Obama — said that the President should put himself in harm’s way with U.S. troops when he travels to war zones just to show that
he is a true leader. “(I)f I’m asking my young men and women to go out there and put their lives on the line, I should be willing and able to do the exact same thing,” he said.
On MSNBC last night, host Lawrence O’Donnell
asked West if he really believes that the President should risk his life on the battlefield. “If you disagree with the fact that I believe that leadership’s about leading from the front, then you can do that,” West said. O’Donnell noted that
no President in West’s lifetime has ever done what he is asking Obama to do and offered the new GOP congressman a chance to retract his statement. However, West refused:
O’DONNELL: In your lifetime, you’ve never once had the opportunity to vote for a president who would, as you put it, put himself in harm’s way as president. You want to retract that. I’m going to give you a chance to retract that suggestion that the president of the United States should put his life in harm’s way while president when visiting war zones. This is a chance to just apologize for it and move on.
WEST: Lawrence, I’m not going to retract that statement, because I will tell you this — if I was sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I would fly into a combat theater and I would get out there and visit those troops wherever they are. That’s just the type of leader that I am.
“I’m sticking with my guns,” West said later, still refusing to apologize, although he acknowledged that “no one is going to allow the president of the United States to be in a dangerous situation.” Watch it:
<...>
West is correct — no one is going to allow Obama, or any other future president or high ranking government official, to be placed in a dangerous situation. So it seems that this is just another one of West’s baseless and
gratuitous attacks on Obama. Perhaps we can look forward to seeing West join the troops on the front lines during an upcoming congressional delegation visit to Afghanistan?
Daring the President to put himself in harm's way isn't about courage, it's about harm.
Edited title to be more reflective of the content.
On further edit: One thing to point out about West is that his thinking is extremely flawed. The danger is that the Republican Party has condoned the bizarre logic of candidates across the country who were once relegated to the fringe.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
