Defensive Palin finally responds to Tucson massacre, attacks media

Via Facebook, of course, Sarah Palin finally responded to the mass shooting that occurred in Tucson on Saturday. As we all know, her rhetoric and the infamous "gun sights" target list have featured prominently in the post-shooting discussion. But, we haven't really heard from Palin, until now. She also included a well-rehearsed, carefully staged video. And, she chose to release this statement and video on the day of the memorial in Tucson, which Obama will attend. Sarah wants to be in that story.

It's a fairly typical Palin screed. A defensive screed. And, there's an attack on the media, of course. Here's Greg Sargent's take:

A few quick things to note. First, the obvious care that went into making this video -- the pre-written script is over seven minutes long; she clearly rehearsed the reading at some length; and the backdrop includes an American flag on the right flank -- demonstrate once again that Palin and her advisers knew this was a potential make-or-break moment. Palin, of course, has long taken her case directly to supporters via Twitter and Facebook, while not permitting herself to be exposed to any journalistic cross-examination. Utilizing a pre-taped video message is a new twist on that strategy, and a reflection of how high the stakes have become.

Second, her core accusation on the video, the one that was clearly selected with an intent to drive headlines, not only accuses critics of "blood libel," but actually accuses them of expressing concern and outrage about the shooting in bad faith, as if they are doing so in an effort to do nothing more than damage her politically

Greg's right. The headlines are all including the term "blood libel." The Hill notes:

Palin lashed out at the media, one of her traditional targets, saying they fueled the notion that rhetoric played a role in the Arizona attack.

Lashing out, that's Sarah. Looks like she's trying to force Republicans to defend her. Will they?

Palin has the audacity to cite Giffords in her screed:

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.”

Since Palin chose to cite Congresswoman Giffords, we will too. From March 25, 2010:

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they've gotta realize there are consequences to that action."

Giffords and 19 others faced the real consequences of being in a gun sight.

Palin is now dealing with the political consequences of using that violent imagery and urging her followers to RELOAD!. This is a test for Palin. She's failing. Read More......

Rep. Dan Burton: Enclose House chamber in plexiglass

That genius Rep. Dan Burton has a solution to protect members of Congress from violence:

An aide to Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) tells CBS News that the Indiana Republican plans to introduce legislation next week that would encase the House Gallery in "a transparent and substantial material" such as Plexiglas that would keep members of the public from being able to throw explosives or make other attacks on members on the House floor.

Burton has introduced similar legislation in the past. It reads in part, "The Architect of the Capitol shall enclose the visitors' galleries of the House of Representatives with a transparent and substantial material, and shall install equipment so that the proceedings on the floor of the House of Representatives will be clearly audible in the galleries."

Does he want to enclose members in plexiglass, too?

Seriously, there aren't many more secure buildings in the world than the U.S. Capitol. How about putting some thought into how to protect the rest of America from violence, too? Read More......

Barclays Bank CEO Bob Diamond 'resents' questions about banker pay

He would much rather people stop asking about the nearly $50 billion Barclays Bank borrowed from the US Federal Reserve emergency lending program. What this means is that without the US Fed, Barclays probably would not have survived. So now the extremely arrogant American banker has the nerve to "resent" this issue being raised. Well, most Americans who bailed out the British Bank probably "resent" a banker like this being upset for being saved.

Diamond, of course, comes from the gambling side of the business like many of the bank executives these days. His side was the side that drove the big profits gambling but now he'd also like to pretend that's not the case. He's a conservative guy, you know. The reality of modern day "banking" is that without the gambling, there are no flashy numbers to report. None. This means the banks would have to come down to pay levels that are still considered quite generous by the schmucks who bailed out the bankers. But naturally, that won't be enough to satisfy the inflated egos of the banking industry.

They don't come any more arrogant than Bob Diamond:

Mr Diamond batted away the possibility of waiving his bonus, saying: "I haven't been offered a bonus yet. That decision is out of my hands. I would discuss [waiving] it with my family."

Responding to suggestions that Barclays Capital, the separate investment bank he used to run, indulged in "casino capitalism" and "black jack", Mr Diamond responded angrily.

"I resent the fact you refer to it as black jack. I think it is wrong. I think it is unfair. I think it is a poor choice of words. We have some fantastically strong financial institutions in this country and I think they deserve better. It is not appropriate to talk about casino banking in Barclays Capital."

Related to Barclays Bank, why is it that they have the honor of having their name plastered on the front of the London bike share program? If anyone should be there, it should be the US Federal Reserve. We're kidding ourselves if we keep playing this silly shell game and letting corporations get the limelight like this. The bank was on the verge of collapse and needed a lifeline from US taxpayers. Instead of playing this annoying game, just tax them and retain some level of dignity. Read More......

Floodwaters continue to rise in Queensland, Australia

The details coming out of Queensland have been terrible and the situation is likely to get worse. Flooding from La Niña is blamed for the current problems. The Guardian:

Thousands of Brisbane residents were stockpiling food and stacking sandbags or fleeing their homes yesterday as the worst floodwaters to hit Queensland for 50 years surged towards Australia's third-largest city.

Many people in the state capital, fearful of the damage already done, appeared to have heeded the authorities' evacuation warnings. By last night, Brisbane's city centre was a ghost town populated only by a few shop owners hoping to save their businesses with last-minute barricades of sandbags and plastic sheeting.

Ten people died on Monday as cars and pedestrians were swept away in an "inland instant tsunami" that sent a wall of water coursing through the city of Toowoomba, west of Brisbane. More than 40 people were pulled from rooftops by military helicopters that were still searching for 90 missing people yesterday. Another 200 Australian Defence Force personnel are being dispatched to southern Queensland, which has been declared a disaster area. The flooding has claimed 14 lives in the last two weeks, but police fear the death toll could rise significantly as the bodies of people who may have drowned in their cars and homes are found.

Read More......

Bill Clinton on Giffords' assassination attempt

Via HuffPost Hill:

Bill Clinton in an interview set to air on BBC World News tonight: "On the 15th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City incident, in April, I wrote an essay in which I said I could see this level of anger rising as it did once before when I was elected, and that no one intends to do anything that encourages this sort of behaviour -- and I think it's wrong for anyone to suggest it. But we cannot be unaware of the fact that, particularly with the internet, there's this huge echo-chamber out there, and anything any of us says falls on the unhinged and the hinged alike, and we just have to be sensitive to it."

I'm not sure whether anyone "intends" for people to use guns on their political opponents, but I'm also not sure that they give it much thought either way. It's almost as if they don't care. To wit: Palin continuing to use her gun imagery, and gun language, when asked to stop by the woman her bullseyes were targeting. She simply didn't care what the repercussions were, or didn't believe they were possible. The same way she and McCain didn't care what might happen when they told their gun-toting followers that Obama palled around with terrorists (and also didn't seem to care that their followers were showing up at Obama rallies with their guns). Anyone could tell that it wasn't a very safe combination - enraged McCain/Palin lemmings and guns - but it's as if McCain and Palin either didn't care, or had some bizarre notion that nothing bad could ever come of it.

Either way, even if it's not intentional, it certainly sounds negligent. Read More......

FOX is on the defensive

More from HuffPost Hill:

Neil Cavuto, on Fox News this afternoon, defended his network by arguing that there was no cable bickering in 1865, yet John Wilkes Booth was still mad enough to shoot Abraham Lincoln. That was the most cogent argument that would be heard for the next hour, as Glenn Beck came before the camera to say that Cupid and Christ on the cross are symbols of violence, too, and so should share in the blame.

Read More......

Limbaugh says Democrats support assassin who shot Rep. Giffords

Once again, the head of the Republican party throws gasoline on an already volatile situation. But his advertisers won't leave, and the Republicans will all continue to go on his show. (From Media Matters)


Ben Smith has the transcript:

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...That smiling mug shot -- this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

Read More......

Tea Party freshman congressman claims both sides do it

Sorry, but our VP candidate, unlike yours, did not put a bullseye on someone's district. Our leaders in Congress don't accuse the opposition of having a secret plan to exterminate millions of elderly Americans, a la Germany circa 1940. We did not urge our followers to bring guns to the other party's presidential rallies. You folks embrace your nuts and elevate them to the highest levels of your party and your propaganda organs. Our nuts are low-level aberrations, your nuts are nominated for VP. Sarah Palin is not akin to an anonymous commenter on a liberal blog. Both sides don't do it.

NYT:

Representative Raul Labrador, a freshman Republican from Idaho, who had Tea Party support, cautioned the host, David Gregory, about drawing connections between the anti-big government rhetoric of the fall campaign and inexplicable acts of violence.

“We have to be careful not to blame one side or the other because both sides are guilty of this,” Mr. Labrador said. “You have extremes on both sides. You have crazy people on both sides.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, went further in suggesting that Republicans commentators bore greater responsibility for increasingly incendiary rhetoric.

“Those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues,” Mr. Durbin said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Then, in a clear jab at former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Tea Party groups, Mr. Durbin said, “The phrase ‘Don’t retreat; reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response.”

Read More......

Illinois may implement 75% state tax increase to fix budget

It's not pretty, but neither is ignoring an even larger financial deficit as they are doing in Texas. The state of Illinois has been working on cutting costs plus raising taxes whereas Texas prefers to continue doing exactly what they've been doing as their state deficit has grown out of control.

Crippled by a massive deficit, Illinois has seen its bills pile up and its bond ratings fall. Now the state's Democratic leaders are making a desperate effort, and fighting the clock, to fill the budget hole with an equally massive tax increase.

They want to boost the personal income tax rate temporarily by up to 75 percent, pushing the current rate of 3 percent as high as 5.25 percent.

In sheer percentage terms, the Illinois proposal could be the biggest tax increase on the long list of increases states have passed as they grappled with recent economic woes.

Read More......

Why the Right uses hate speech and violent rhetoric

The Tucson shootings, the reaction to them, and a private conversation with an otherwise intelligent right-wing follower, have made clear for me the dynamic of right-wing hate speech. It's complicated, more than our own reaction shows. And there's a danger in ignoring this complication.

The situation — there is not one right wing, but two. There are right-wing leaders (for example, Rush Limbaugh) and right-wing followers (all of his listeners, along with Michelle Malkin's readers, Atlas Pam's droolers, Peter King's voters and supporters, and on and on).

The interests of the leaders is different than the interests of the followers, and each should be treated differently.

As illustration, consider the following. Here's Glenn Beck on murdering Michael Moore:

Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out — is this wrong?

And now Rush Limbaugh on the firestorm surrounding the Tucson murders:

Do not kid yourself. What this is all about is shutting down conservative media. That’s what this is all about. Shutting down any and all political opposition.

And finally my right-wing friend, a smart high-tech professional, in the course of a software discussion:

ME: Did you know that the GoodStuf software program is now developed in India? They fired the whole San Jose engineering department and rebuilt it in Bangalore. That's why they can make such big changes to that old code; it's now cheap to do it."

FRIEND: "We are so screwed, aren't we." [Huh? My ears pick up.]

ME: "What do you mean?"

FRIEND: "All of us, the whole country. All our money's going to Asia, and all our jobs. I don't think we'll ever get it back."

ME: "Can't argue with that. So, where do you think the problem is?" [I'm fishing for her economic awareness, so I know where to start.]

FRIEND: "Why, the Democrats of course." [I stare at my coffee in shock.]

In the ensuing conversation, she agreed with all of the economic analysis I offered, all the historical analysis about entrenched aristocracies going back to Hammerabi, and after a dozen Yesses at all the right places, she still couldn't get past tort reform (for some ungodly reason) and the damn liberals. But she got part way. I had made a dent.

Thanks to right-wing media, my well-meaning friend — who is deathly afraid that the future of her developmentally disabled child and his socially struggling sibling is going to crash and burn on the shores of the South China Sea — is almost fully confused.

And this is why we have to separate these two groups, if we're going to respond effectively.

She cares about what we care about, the economic future of her family, her children and eventually, grandkids. There are millions like her, and millions like us. We're all victims, and it's wrong not to see that.

Rush and the Glenns care about keeping her confused and adrenaline-laced, so that Bankers & Barons (Inc.) can keep its boot on both of our necks, hers and ours. And so that the servants of the Barons (the Rushes and Glenns) can continue to feast with the king (or at least write about it in the royal newspaper).

Most of the Erik Son-of-Eric types don't even believe their own spill; it's just a job that pays well. And we shouldn't treat them like they do believe. They're predators, not prophets. And me and my friend are both victims.

Bottom line — This violent rhetoric is just a tactic with a goal, cynically executed by a small group to influence a large group. We need to see both groups, and see them as different. In my opinion, we cannot respond effectively until we do.

The leaders deserve all the scorn and public humiliation we can hand them. They not only deserve it, but it drives them crazy, takes them off their game, and makes them dig the hole even deeper; good. (And I strongly advise always calling them out as cynical manipulators, and denying them true-believer status.)

The followers deserve sympathy for suffering in the same boat that we're in (yes, sympathy) and deserve all the attempts at patient education we can muster. There are obvious and common connecting points — China and Asia in general, loss of jobs, loss of wages, children who obviously won't better their parents, and parents who will die, leaving those children to struggle alone in the modern dystopia.

Treating the followers with respect is not only humane, but good tactics as well. Doing otherwise confirms everything the leaders say about us — that we're scornful, high-handed, dismissive. Remember, prolonging this fight enables and strengthens the leaders. Defusing this fight weakens them.

The conversation is not hard to have. After all, if you think the answer to the problem of low wages is "Dems", what's the response to this:


and this:


You don't have to talk about Dems to talk about that.

(Thanks to Juan Cole for the right-wing quotes above; and to masaccio for the low-hanging graphical fruit.)

GP Read More......

Chamber of Commerce pleased with new White House

Is this new team really that much different from the last team or is the Chamber just gloating? The new team is obviously center-right but so was the last team. The President has been center-right on the economy from the beginning. The Hill:

"To be sure, November's election results, the tax package, progress on Korea trade agreement, and a new tone coming out of the White House have addressed some of the business community's immediate concerns,” Donohue said Tuesday. “Yet uncertainty among companies, lenders, and investors still abounds.

"Our approach in Washington will be to call them as we see them. We'll continue to have our differences with the White House on some issues but we'll work together on other issues. We'll support the new House leadership on many occasions, and we'll work with Democratic legislators as well, but no one should expect the Chamber to march in lock step with anyone."

The business lobby fought against healthcare and financial services reform legislation pushed by President Obama in 2010, and then campaigned against vulnerable Democrats in the House who supported those initiatives. In the months before the election, the White House suggested the group was using foreign-sourced money for its electioneering, a charge the Chamber said the administration offered no proof to support.

Read More......

Paul Begala to right wing: Why so defensive about Arizona shooting?

From Greg Sargent:

Paul Begala -- who was in the trenches with Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and remembers how quickly the promises of civility vanished -- gets in touch to say that he hopes Dems and Republicans alike do a much better job this time around of showing some restraint in the wake of the Arizona shooting.

Begala has a simple question for those on the right: Why are you reacting so badly to those who are insisting that we all exercise some judgment going forward?

Read More......