Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Politics

On The President's Speech

1.  A large (but too long effort) to call forth the better angels of his countrymen.

2.  The audience reaction was very weird, but the people cheering and hooting really, really wanted to like him and they thought that the cheering was what he wanted.  They were trying to help.  It is a reminder of the (sometimes latent) strength of Obama's bond with millions of Americans. 

3.  The speech contained implied criticism of the Paul Krugman's and Andrew Sullivans of the world.  This was very smart, but also very politically convenient.  Obama is especially strong when he can position himself as an arbiter above left/right debates.  He knows that being seen as a bitter and disingenuous left sectarian would get in the way of implementing his agenda and conducting the other responsibilities of governing.  He has greater self-control and depth of vision that Professor Krugman.  Obama is also tougher than the big mouthed Krugmans, Sullivans and Clyburns of the world - though they no doubt have their uses for Obama.  He is focused on winning rather than lashing out petulantly

Categories > Politics

Discussions - 43 Comments

Consider this short piece by Garry Wills on Obama, Lincoln, and Henry V:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jan/13/obamas-finest-hour/

Having read Obama’s speech (though I did not watch it), I think he offered a fitting memorial without rising to the heights of either Lincoln’s or Shakespeare’s memorable speeches. Tough standards, to be sure, but Wills made the comparison, not I.

I also watched Sarah Palin’s same-day, “fireside” reflection, and believe the MSM does her absolutely no justice in their characterizations of her video statement (on Facebook):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13palin.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I say this with no expectation that she will be the GOP nominee in 2012, nor any intention of voting for her in the primary (pace Schramm’s blog on Gov. Christie). Hers was a measured memorial that in its own way contributed, for those who have ears to hear, to the public discourse regarding the tragedy of the shooting, the character of the American people, and the requirements of self-government.

Hey, check out this snazzy billboard - in TUCSON! - that was taken down 2 days after the shootings. The next thing you know, the NRA will cancel their Kids-n-Guns Day in Tucson.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/rush-limbaughs-tucson-billboard_n_808563.html?ref=twitter

The shooter is mentally ill and seems to have operated on little more than bizarre, dark fantasies. He engaged in sub-Beckian ramblings about the Constitution and gold and silver and simultaneously obsessed over and mangled English grammar. He was probably in love with Giffords or something.

It's a mistake for liberals and lefties to try to stick with pinning this crime on Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin, etc. It just doesn't add up (although if he did have any connection to American Renaissance, then I'd be ready re-open the discussion - and btw, that earlier info. came from AZ authorities, not DHS). But most importantly, it's just not necessary. Comparing the OVERALL numbers, the frequency of seriously threatening remarks, more importantly the amount of influence had by those uttering them or posting them and, most importantly, the willingness of followers to act violently in response to the rhetoric, well, there's just no equivalence.

This pretty much nails it, as much as anything shorter than a massive book could:

http://www.alternet.org/story/149470/let%27s_get_this_straight%3A_there_is_no_leftist_equivalent_to_the_right%27s_violent_rhetoric?page=entire

Just in the very recent past, we've got 3 guys who went on shooting sprees (and were ready to do a lot more) and who, either in manifesto form or interview form, openly admitted that Glenn Beck and/or O'Reilly / Hannity / Savage (and Bernard Goldberg) served as their educators and their inspiration for their violent acts.

I speak of Byron Williams the "Progressive Hunter"- off to the Tides Foundation to stop what Glenn Beck has been warning us about! - and Jim David Adkisson, the guy who shot up a Knoxville Unitarian church in '08, killing 2 and wounding 7. And then there's Richard Poplawski, killing three Pittsburgh cops, fearing that they were coming under Obama's direction to take his guns.

Unsurprisingly, none of these shootings were ever addressed at NLT.

Let's not forget Scott Roeder, inspired by Bill O'Reilly to cleanse the world of George Tiller - the holy and righteous won that one, eh?

The problem in making definitive statements asserting that reckless rhetoric needlessly pushed some semi-sane political zealot over the edge is that, if you're wrong, it will be so costly that even if the next half a dozen shootings are clearly inspired by one's extremist opponents, your credibility is already compromised, quite possibly beyond repair.

And unfortunately, odds are good that you won't have to wait very long for someone else - inspired by a pundit or pol (see Beck, Boehner) who weeps shamelessly on-camera and just can't proclaim often enough his patriotic fervor - to get all trigger-happy.

Remember, socialist (commie, terrorist) Obamacare is going to destroy America, and the day that Giffords voted on that legislation (in favor of it) her office window was broken.

From Reuters:

"Giffords said she faced a deluge of threats for her support of the healthcare bill.

"We've had hundreds and hundreds of protesters over the course of the last couple of months," Giffords told MSNBC. "Our office corner has really become an area where the Tea Party movement congregates and the rhetoric is really heated. Not just the calls but the e-mails, the slurs."

The Tea Party - really??? That non-partisan group comprised of Real Americans, committed to peaceful, non-violent solutions to our problems, achieved through intelligent and rational political discourse (like Obama was born in Kenya!!).

Here's a great quote - one of many that can be found (check the link to the PDF to read the whole 4-page wad of hate!) in Jim David Adkisson's manifesto:

"Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate, + House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the Mainstream Media. But I knew these people were inaccessible to me."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/01/12/who-i-wanted-to-kill-was-every-democrat-in-the-senate-house-where-the-notion-of-right-wing-political-murder-comes-from.aspx

Oh, and here's a fun update about an obvious tea partier threatening a Dem. congressman (McDermott - WA).

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/what-violent-rhetoric-another-right-

This is some quaint rhetoric - what colorful metaphors!

""Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, if any of them had ever met uh, uh Jim McDermott, they would all blow his brains out," Habermann said in the first rambling message, according to charging documents. "They'd shoot him, in the head. They'd kill him, because he's a piece of, of, of disgusting garbage. …"

I'm sure he didn't mean shoot him in the head, like with a gun...and bullets. Maybe he was talking about prospecting for gold?

Craig, I'd think that "It's a mistake for liberals and lefties to try to stick with pinning this crime on Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin, etc" should be something more like "We shouldn't have speculated confidently about the shooter's motivations based entirely on our cultural bigotries, and then we should have apologized in the name of the civility we claimed to value." Something snappy like that.

"The problem in making definitive statements asserting that reckless rhetoric needlessly pushed some semi-sane political zealot over the edge is that, if you're wrong, it will be so costly that even if the next half a dozen shootings are clearly inspired by one's extremist opponents, your credibility is already compromised, quite possibly beyond repair." well, your credibility is pretty dented because of a failure to live down to your assumptions, but the problem is in your assumptions that if a disturbed person on your "side" (left or right) commits an act of political violence, it is the fault of democratic politicians who engage in democratic politics. I'd hate to see everyone on the left-of-center having to live down the various assassinations and attempted assassinations undertaken by self-identified leftists in the 60s and 70s. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256921/climate-hate-allen-c-guelzo?page=1 Not that I think that they should. That would be a stupid way to argue about politics.

3 reasons why that Guelzo article deserves to be blown to bits with a hand grenade (the article, not Guelzo! haha):

1. "When the Left talks about violence from the Right, the only name it seems able to come up with is that of Timothy McVeigh."

My post above already disproves that handily.

2. "If we are living now in a time of unprecedented political “vitriol” — and I believe we are, and very much to the detriment of democracy itself — it is a brand of vitriol that was sprayed with relentless generosity on George W. Bush, who was caricatured by The Nation, day by day during his presidency, as a morphed version of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman. And it was only yesterday that the Left’s president referred to Republicans as “enemies,”"

Um.... seriously? Caricatures of Bush as the guy from Mad magazine? Oh wow - that could have resulted in... hurt feelings! Who wants to talk about the comparative numbers of death threats addressed by the Secret Service then...and now? Also, who was "the Left's president"? The guy who was all gung-ho to "end welfare as we know it" and signed NAFTA? (Ask the Left how they feel about him - start with Nader.) Also, referring to someone as an enemy is not, by any reasonable estimation, inciteful. It's not remotely violent rhetoric. Hell, one could have "enemies" in chess club or in grade school cliques. Inciteful is more like Mark Levin, who has said:

- that the Tea Party had been "tormented and abused far more that the colonists were by the King of England" (wow, then I guess it is time for those "2nd Amendment remedies" eh?? Time to fight back!)

- that America is "not a representative republic anymore. It is a soft tyranny."

and wrote a book about the Supreme Court is "Destroying America." (Judge Roll, killed in the Tucson madness, was hated and threatened by the Tea Partiers for his decisions on some immigration-related cases)

3. His reference to John Hinckley, Jr., a guy who's clearly every bit as mentally ill as Loughner, and whose motivation for going after Reagan was to impress Jodie Foster (and he lost some of his leave privileges because his Foster obsession appeared to be intact as late as 2000 (!!)), not to trigger a Stalinist takeover of the US. Also, as Guelzo should know (from the Wikipedia article that he apparently cherry-picked from), Hinckley had previously followed Pres. Carter (a Dem, and that means liberal, which means leftist, which means Marxist, etc., etc. Beckian logic ad nauseum) with the same intention; maybe, just maaaaybe, Oswald was a role model for Hinckley because he had successfully assassinated a POTUS?

But enough - what we really need to do now is address how things can be made right with the greatest victim in all of this - Sarah Palin.

Please. You're fighting shadows.

Yes, yes - pointing out actual, very recent, violent shootings and killings in which the perpetrators openly admitted that they were inspired by the rhetoric of right-wing pundits is "fighting shadows." I'm sure.

Since I'm here, a couple more (recent) examples, but fortunately, these guys were stopped before they harmed anyone:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/02/BADN1GL5HU.DTL&feed=rss.news

In December 2010, Gregory Lee Giusti was sentenced to a year and nine months in federal prison for threatening to destroy former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home if she voted in support of the health care reform law. Giusti's mother attributed his extremism to FoxNews.

But gosh, does anyone on Fox EVER have an uncivil or impolite word for Pelosi?

In October 2010, Charles Wilson was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for threatening Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) with "violence" in phone calls to her office. He had also made homicidal threats against Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013231129_threat23m.html?syndication=rss

Some of his charming words of dignity and civility, of restrained conservative thinking:

"Just remember that as you are politicing for your reelection. It only takes one piece of lead. ... Kill the f***ing Senator! Kill the f***ing Senator! I'll donate the lead. ... Now that you've passed your health-care bill, let the violence begin. Let the violence begin."

"By your attempts to overtake this country with socialism, somebody's gonna get to you one way or another and blow your f***ing brains out, and I hope it does happen. If I have the chance, I would do it."

"Kill the f***ing Senator! Hang the f***ing Senator! I hope somebody puts a f***ing bullet between your fucking eyes. Far left liberal socialist democratic b****. You mother-f***er. You sold the f***ing people of the country out for socialism. I hope somebody f***ing erasers your f***ing life. Yes, I hope somebody assassinates you, you f***king b****."

"We are going to f*** you up. We are going to f*** you up as bad as we can. Yes, the independents. The real people of this country, not you spineless f***ing socialists. You better watch your f***ing back, baby, because there's people gonna come after you with f***ing both f***ing barrels, bitch."


Did you get that? "Far left liberal socialist democratic" (it's all one undifferentiated thing, isn't it?) and talk of "the real people of this country."

He also boasted to investigators that he carried a concealed firearm with a permit. But wait, there's more.

Wilson's cousin said in publicly available documents filed in federal court that:

"What happened later with Charlie is something I think I can understand. He became basically housebound due to illness and his small world became even smaller. His brother got him a computer and he was able to stay connected with family. And he watched television and found Glenn Beck... I found Glenn Beck about the same time Charlie did. I understand how his fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality. The same thing happened to me but I went in a different direction with what I was seeing. Rather than blame politicians for the current issues, I simply got prepared for what Glenn said was coming. I slowly filled our pantry as Glenn fed fear into me. I did not miss watching his show and could not understand why the rest of the world didn't get it."


Last thing, a fun factoid: In the very same thread here at NLT (a thread titled "Culture War and Liberty") where I noted that Mr. Schramm had described Glenn Beck (at the Ashbrook Memorial Dinner which Beck spoke at) as "inspiring," "informative," and who "tells it like it is" and "cuts through the fog," the commenter Hal Holst wrote:

"I hope you get shot in the face with a bazooka."

and that comment is still there as of this writing.

You are doing heck of a job trying to convince yourself that Sarah Palin caused John Lee Loughner to commit murder. Palin is living in your head rent free - so are conservatives for that matter.

Scanlon

You are obsessed, I hope you are on the No gun purchase list. I also hope you don't live anywhere neare where I live or travel. You are one scary mixed up dude. Beginning to sound like Loughner.

thedaddy

Hal Holst said that?? Incredible!! I don't believe it!!!!

"You are doing heck of a job trying to convince yourself that Sarah Palin caused John Lee Loughner to commit murder."

Really, cow?

As in, when I wrote:

"The shooter is mentally ill and seems to have operated on little more than bizarre, dark fantasies.
,,,
It's a mistake for liberals and lefties to try to stick with pinning this crime on Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin, etc. It just doesn't add up..." ???

Why do I have a feeling that you could only pass a reading comprehension exam in Texas?

All right I guess I should tone down the rhetoric. Craig I don't want to shoot you in the face with a bazooka and I don't hope you die in a fire. I just hope you get your fingers chewed off by weasels.

And your pro-Arab.

My pro-Arab WHAT, Hal?

I don't really care what you manage to type, Hal. I'm just not sure how anyone's supposed to distinguish between your cutting-edge brand of "humor" and the average blog-trawling knuckle-dragger with a concealed carry permit and a license and intention to hunt liberals.

I think Scanlon has a crush on Palin. Just like boys in grade school hide it by saying cruel things about a girl. Scanlon and Palin sitting in a tree.............

2,019 words.

Pete, what'd everybody have in the pool?

I dunno, I got lost around where Craig suggested that Pelosi got death threats because FOX was rude or something. If it was another week I'd say it was like something out of A Beautiful Mind only without the math, the accomplishment, the social utility, or the beauty.

Come on pumpkin, you have been all over this blog in the blaming the shootings on Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Fox News, and just about anyone on the right. Quite the fool you are...

Bear in mind that you are doing on this blog exactly what you are accusing everyone on the right of doing.

You just might reap what you sow.

Craig, what do you do for a living, if you don't mind my asking? Not trying to be snarky, I am just genuinely curious in your background, life, etc. Even my committed liberal friends (three good friends of varying degrees left of center and who all despise Sarah Palin) have unequivocally come out against the rhetoric coming from the left-leaning pundits over the last week or so. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Art - Still doing the childish word-counting and imagining it to be some kind of definitive smackdown? You might consider a bit more variety in your repertoire.

Pete - You offered me a link to the Guelzo article. I read it and offered a series of rebuttals to his various points, complete with descriptions and links. You respond with ad hominem?

cow - You honestly think I'm inciting violence? As to Loughner's shooting spree, I think I've been more than clear in saying that Palin can't be held culpable.

Andrew - I am fairly surprised at the sub-par reading comprehension levels displayed by NLT's fans. Not trying to be insulting but, really, if you've read enough of my stuff to develop the curiosity about me, then try to absorb what I've actually written. I don't engage in esoteric word-games. I wrote, in this very comment thread:

"The shooter is mentally ill and seems to have operated on little more than bizarre, dark fantasies."

and

"It's a mistake for liberals and lefties to try to stick with pinning this crime on Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin, etc. It just doesn't add up."

Is there some official statement of exoneration of Palin & Co. that one needs to sign on to?

When I first heard the news, I DID link to the infamous crosshairs graphic from Palin's site (which, should not be forgotten, came along with a lot of shooting and hunting language from Palin), and I said:

"Perhaps someone took inspiration from Palin's Take Back the 20 program with its "Lock and Load" rhetoric and gun-sight targets."

That was the extent of my (entirely reasonable) speculation (consider again the context of who had made threats against both Giffords and Roll previously - it was NOT liberals). I did explain how I thought Palin had employed some pretty reckless rhetoric (too much to catalog quickly, right here), including her ""Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" but that's not anything like saying "Palin is to blame" - directly or indirectly.

Later in the same thread I wrote:

"As it stands though, I think the shooter was simply schizophrenic and had no coherent thinking. He could've shot just about any VIP."

Was that not "unequivocal" enough? Do I need to hope that Krugman or Sullivan (neither of whose writings on the Giffords shooting I had read until last night) deserve to die in a fire, or should be shot in the face with a bazooka to show the proper emotion about their misplaced emphases? I'm joking, of course, like that conservative comic genius Hal Holst.

But here's the most important thing. Conservative, tea party-approved and connected pundits and politicians alike have used a LOT of hateful, violent, inciteful rhetoric over the last few years, particularly in the last few years, with the intensity reaching a fever pitch after Obama won the election. There have been numerous violent incidents and shootings, some of them deadly, that have happened in the last few years, and some of the perpetrators themselves have openly admitted that they were inspired by such rhetoric (see Byron Williams and Jim D. Adkisson, for starters; I already provided the links - please do read Adkisson's 4-page manifesto), and in other cases the inspiration was beyond clear. Even Mr. Schramm has described Glenn Beck as "inspiring" - perhaps it's quite reasonable to admit that Beck could inspire someone - like Byron Williams - to do something terrible?

So, an appropriately reflective attitude from right-wing conservatives (who make Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. so very popular, and who voted for Bachmann and the numerous other tea party pols) might be "Perhaps we should (re)consider some of our overheated rhetoric and violent military metaphors, since they could inspire an unstable person in all the wrong ways, and they ALREADY HAVE done so." We can disregard Loughner's crimes for this; there have already been shootings committed by those clearly worked up by tea party revolutionary rhetoric (the tree of liberty must be watered and all that good stuff).

But no, no self-reflection by the super-zealous "progressive hunters" (Beck's phrase) and those who have tried to make "going postal" into something wink-wink-cutesy with "Going Rogue." Instead, we get the absurdity of Palin's facebook video (already well-skewered by Colbert, Stewart and various other sane folks) and similar rubbish - with tea partiers proclaiming themselves victimized (or pre-victimized - "they're coming for our microphones!") and suggesting that by merely pointing out their reckless talk one is inspiring violence against THEM. Those are not voices of reason.

Andrew, are you as curious about the employment of the NLT bloggers as you are about mine?

2,795 words.

Andrew, are you as curious about the employment of the NLT bloggers as you are about mine?

The signature interests of the others are not so hypertrophied.

Scanlon's whole shtick is based on ferreting out what he perceives are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in others.

He goes about this with such a fervor that I am left to conclude that he is hiding some pretty dark hypocrisy of his own. The self-righteous often have the least to be righteous about.

I don't know what it is and I don't really care.

I've outlined his argumentative tactics in other posts here on NLT. His posts above simply bear out my observations of those tactics. He is true to that form time and time again.

* * *
Miracle of miracles -- my "Captcha" for this was "change sphere" ... and it was completely readable.

Yes, I do think you are attempting to incite violence, not sure much because of Sarah Palin, although she lives in your head rent free, but because progressive/liberal/democratic values have proven to be useless, damaging and destroying this country. People are waking up to these facts and unfortunately, because liberals/progressives/democrats can't handle the truth, they turn to vitoral rhectric. The Truth Hurts.

Oh by the way, a conserative is a liberal that has been run over by reality.

"Andrew, are you as curious about the employment of the NLT bloggers as you are about mine?"

Yes, the ones who I find intelligent and/or interesting (they are mutually exclusive), which is most of them.

I must say, I love how much you've effort you've invested on the last couple threads. I finally understand that, while not responsible for the Arizona shooting (which you unequivocally stated), the militaristic speech ("campaign", "targeting", "Don't Retreat Reload", "If they bring a knife we bring a gun", "punish your enemies", etc) of Palin, Beck, Tea Partiers, et al, is still responsible for all the other threats which are made against politicians nowadays.

Check-and-mate, mon ami. Even though you're not a manly, patriotic Christian, it's still fun to have you around.

"Yes, the ones who I find intelligent and/or interesting (they are mutually exclusive)..."

Huh?? If they are mutually exclusive, then how could any of them be intelligent AND interesting?

"....the militaristic speech of Palin, Beck, Tea Partiers, et al, is still responsible for all the other threats which are made against politicians..."

ALL the other threats? Did I say that? If that was one of the multiple choice answers available for a reading comprehension test where my comments were the text, "all the other threats" would be incorrect.

If you could just admit to their clear, obvious influence on Adkisson, Byron Williams, Poplawski, Giusti, and Charles Wilson (see my links!), I'd be satisfied.

So, did you actually declare checkmate there?

Sometimes I wonder if Scanlon is capable of offering a cogent argument on any subject without aid of other people's articles, and without trying to hang people on some past thing they had posted.

Just once I'd like to see it.

Just once.

I'm not sure he's capable.

Whoops! They are *not* mutually exclusive. Big difference, eh?

And I was calling it for you, bro, since I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore. Victory through volume.

Hey ... is this a first? I'm replying to myself! :-)

I'm actually quite serious about my question. I would very much like to see a short, sincere and personal statement on the part of Scanlon on what he believes and what motivates him.

Because I honestly have no idea beyond what I suspect is a reflection of his beliefs based on his links. And even that I'm not sure of because there's a good chance he's posting those links just to be antagonistic.

Another thing that's come to my mind since reading Guelzo's article, in which he finds it troubling that "the Left’s president [again, who would that be?] referred to Republicans as 'enemies.'"

How could Guelzo have forgotten about the volumes published by his National Review colleagues that have been so popular among tea partiers?

I speak of Dinesh D'Souza's

"The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11"

and of course, Lucianne Goldberg's son and his "Liberal Fascism"

The messages here being, see, we've got these liberal schoolteachers and college profs and vegetarians and suchlike and they're a lot like Hitler and Stalin and cheered for the Islamofascists and encouraged them to conduct the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (even though any tall bldg. in Manhattan is statistically more likely to contain fellow liberals than any tea party members or sympathizers). They're dangerous people and, while they might appear to be quiet right now, they're just making their plans for an ultimate takeover, including FEMA camps!! So, if modern-day fascists are taking over, were responsible for 9/11, and want to take your guns away, what should you do?? You can't just be civil and docile - you've got to "fight back"!! "Second amendment remedies" and all that good stuff.

I challenge the right-wing to compile a list as lengthy, well-sourced, and damning as this one cataloging all the violent, right-wing vigilante rhetoric - and actual shootings that have come about from it (but definitely barring the Loughner one - having just seen his college campus video I'm more convinced than ever this guy just has major brain chemistry issues and couldn't even maintain incoherent tea party thinking - he's that far gone). It has several Ohio and Ohio-related incidents, but doesn't seem to list the Sandusky, OH Hutaree arrests (the Christian militia guys who wanted to take out a bunch of cops and then start an uprising with bombs) - really, they should take out the Loughner thing and replace it with those guys. Otherwise, it's a rather solid list:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

I have to say I'd never heard before about Rep. Joe Barton's PowerPoint presentation, with the page titled "What's in Store for the Obama Admin." where he fantasizes that "I want to be George Patton - put anything in my scope and I will shoot it."

So (whether he was serious or just busting out some Hal Holst-style hilarity) that was very, very classy, civil, and dignified. And note that Barton is actually a U.S. Congressman, not some random commenter from DailyKos.

But that's just one of dozens from the list.

Looks like they'll have to add former Tea Party Republican candidate Cheryl Allen of Indiana to the list now, too.

columbus.rr dot com/news/topic/article/rr/1110/32262238/Ex-candidate_charged_with_making_threats_in_Ind

making threats against judges (think Judge Roll, RIP), like these:

""Someday Boooooom while your setting in your offices," read a second. "And you know I won't even be the one pulling the trigger," said another."

Scanlon - looks like you lose again:

A Tucson mass shooting victim was taken into custody Saturday after yelling "you're dead" at a Tea Party spokesman during the taping of an ABC-TV town hall event hosted by Christianne Amanpour.

The Pima County Sheriff's Office said J. Eric Fuller, 63, was involuntarily committed to an undisclosed medical facility, NBC News reported. The Associated Press said he was undergoing a psychiatric evaluation.

KGUN reported that Fuller took exception to comments by Republican state Rep. Terri Proud and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries. Fuller reportedly took a picture of Humphries and shouted, "You're dead."

Some media reports said Fuller kept booing and making other remarks before deputies escorted him from the church.

Let's see, a man who was shot in the knee and the back, witnessed the outright murder of six people and wounding of more, who has admitted to problems sleeping and is almost certainly experiencing some kind of post-shooting trauma, might have had an inappropriate emotional outburst relating to the conversational topic of... guns!

I'll reserve judgment for now, thanks.

You have fun with it, if you wish. Lock and load or whatever it is you do...

Eric Fuller gives an account of himself here:

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/j-eric-fullers-profile-a-few-answers-and-many-questions/

It would appear he has had problems with functioning as an adult for 26 of his 63 years.

Oooooh - The Dakota Voice - "Exposing the Pernicious Lie"!!!

Apparently, after reading their incisive expose of him, I've learned that he's been getting a disability check from the government (!!!!), is the wrong kind of military veteran for the VFW, and is ignorant and/or hateful of The Constitution.

I'm guessing that a REAL, all-American Tea Partier will put a "surveyor's symbol" on him soon enough.

The Dakota Voice derived its remarks from Fuller's profile here:

http://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JamesEricFuller

By his own description, he has been gainfully employed for perhaps a third of the time since 1984. He evidently does draw disability benefits (or is on someone's dole), in spite of the fact that he is not, by his own admission, crippled in any way by authentic illness or injury. That is regrettable. The guy's a mess, as some people are. That is not derived from recent trauma.

So here's Scanlon backing up his dump truck full of links for every post.

And when a link is offered against him he immediately dismisses it as a link not worth of consideration.

Typical.

Typical of someone who has no sense of his own voice. All he can do is parrot others with links, and reject those links from others he does not want as part of the discussion.

"I'll reserve judgment for now, thanks"

Gather around everyone - Scanlon is going to reserve judgement for now!!!!!

ROTFLOL

Thank you Art Deco for a beautiful summarization of Craig Scanlon. The dumptruck is right on TARGET. Oops I guess I will be hung in effigy for that remark!!!

Scanlon doesn't think on his own, He relies on others to think for him, thus the dumptruck load of links.

Michael Savage has a name for it "sheeple"

So here is this Eric Fuller playing the full victim role and Scanlon helping him out.

Two peas in a pod.

That's right, he's "playing the full victim role" - I bet he purposely took those 2 bullets just to make people feel sorry for him or something.

cow, I think you've spent too much time in your trash-filled canal.

And you Scanlon have spent too much time trolling for underage boys on the internet.

Whatever Mr. Fuller is or is not doing, victimization is not coterminous with virtue or wisdom. Suffering can bring wisdom, but that takes time. People who wish to attribute to Mr. Fuller a measure of authority (as to whether it is or is not legitimate to insinuate that political opponents of the President are somehow responsible for this) are in error. The events referenced make clear he is a rather erratic character. His biographical squib makes clear he has been for some time.

Yes, Fuller and you pumpkin both play the victim quite well. It is your badge of honor.

By the way my "trash-filled" canal has a great accessory - it is called my "trash-filled" street - decorated with tires, beer bottles, clothes, T.V.s, computers, hoses, bikes, toddler swimming pools, broken furniture, mattresses, spoiled food, toilets, engine parts, oil cans, paint cans, broken toys, the list is long but quite distinguished. Now since you are the King of taking care of the environment, I expect you to step up to the plate and write scathing blogs to the people who are doing this to my street. I have contacted both the Sierra Club and Greenpeace here in California and they are not interested. So you get to take the dirty job since you have preached environmental responsibility to me on many occasions. I expected you to walk the walk and talk the talk. You might also want to write scathing letters/remarks to all those people in Central and South Central Valley in California who are littering and trashing the Stupid State.

Funny, California is home to the loudest, richest and most temper tantrum-throwing environmentalists in the United States and California is looking more like a third-world country every day. Just come here and drive around the farming and ranching areas. California makes Tijuana look like paradise.

I will do now what you do constantly: Here is a link to an article on a very prominent professor who lives in the South Central Valley of the Stupid State describing what a dump the Valley has become. This is a reflection of what my street has become......

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255320/two-californias-victor-davis-hanson?page=2

Nope. Sorry. Your link is from a non-approved site.

There can be no knowledge gained from links you provide. Only links Scanlon provides. That's the rule.

What? You think that's a double-standard? Well, of course it is.

And your point would be? ...

So pumpkin, the hits just keep coming for you:

From the New York Times:

Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=3&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

Here is a tidbit from that article:

He (Loughner) became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/16102