FROM GATEMOUTH’s FACEBOOK PAGE:
Political targeting: Don’t Get Demoralized! Get Organized! Take Back the 20!
Res Ipsa Loquitar: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/15645 www.clevelandleader.com
MATT TAIBBI: Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house.
Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.
"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'" Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."
SHARRON ANGLE: "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out,"
STATEMENT FRON “NO LABELS”: The horrific act of violence that occurred Saturday in Arizona has shocked us all to our core and spurred many Americans to ask some hard questions, both about this specific incident and the larger political forces that may have contributed to it. We at No Labels believe this kind of conversation, as painful as the circumstances surrounding it are, is in the best interests and traditions of our country. At times of crisis, when our fundamental democratic values are threatened, we come together as Americans and directly confront our challenges.
But for our country to move forward from this tragedy, we have to talk carefully as well as candidly. We do not yet know all the facts behind this senseless act, and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to rush to judgment or point fingers of blame at the moment, as some sadly have already done. This is no time for self-aggrandizement or partisan point-scoring — that's part of the problem, not the solution.
It is clearly, though, a time for self-reflection, as Sheriff Dupnik eloquently put it. Based on the immediate and intuitive reactions of so many Americans, we know enough to say that something is deeply wrong with our political discourse — and that with this incident, a dangerous line has been crossed. As we grieve for those who died and pray for the recovery of those who were injured, we hope this moment of mourning will lead us to engage each other with more civility and respect and see each other not as opponents or enemies but as Americans.
Am I missing something here?
The horrific act of violence which shocked us all to our core, and the seemingly delusional response to it by “No Labels,” really should spur us to ask some hard questions about exactly what they are thinking.
Guys, who exactly do you think are “the larger political forces that may have contributed” to this obscenity?
Those at “No Labels” say they believe that having a conversation about what occurred is in the best interests and traditions of our country, but also seem to feel we should remain silent about who and where the problem actually is.
At times of crisis, when our fundamental democratic values are threatened, “No Labels” says we traditionally come together as Americans and directly confront our challenges. But confront who and what, exactly?
I agree with “No Labels” that for our country to move forward, we have to talk carefully as well as candidly, but the statement from “No Labels” consists entirely of the former, while the latter is completely absent.
While it is true that we do not yet know all the facts behind this senseless act (the young man involved may very well just have had a Jodi Foster obsession) and it is true that the time for rushing judgment and pointing fingers is as yet premature, eventually the time for such activities may very well become ripe.
But while it may be inappropriate and irresponsible to rush to judgment or point fingers of blame for this atrocity, it is not inappropriate and irresponsible to rush to judgment and point fingers of blame for the coarsening of our national discourse and the atmosphere of hatred that permeates it. We know who is responsible, and it is time to give those responsible a label.
Self-aggrandizement and partisan point-scoring may be part of the problem, but pretending that the lion’s share of blame does not lie exactly where we know that it does is surely a greater one.
It is clearly a time for self-reflection for all of us. But, we know enough to say that not only is something deeply wrong with our political discourse, but that we know where most of the blame for that wrong lies.
A dangerous line has been crossed. As we grieve for those who died and pray for the recovery of those who were injured, we should hope that this moment of mourning will lead us to engage each other with more decency and respect; but if it does not, we should have no reluctance to attach labels and name names.
I'm not necessarily opposed to a Mandela-like magnanimity from this day forward, but only if it comes with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.