He should learn that sometimes simple is better, as Congressman Jeff Flake showed us with this statement:

On the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shooting, we mourn those who were lost, continue to pray for those who were wounded, and take solace in the fact that out of tragedy, our spirit as a community, a state, and a nation has been made stronger.

Montini might have learned not to condemn as complicit individuals who had no connection to the event what-so-ever. He chooses instead to refocus the blame on political ads, which is exactly the muddy thinking that lead to Sarah Palin being demonized as making Gabriel Giffords a target. Instead, despite the preponderance of evidence that has come forward to show Jared Loughner was neither politically motivated nor aware of Palin’s “target map”, Montini chooses to stick with the meme that fits his political agenda. An agenda that finds any words of disagreement from the Right to be “inflamatory”, and the most vile and threatening words & images from the Left to simply represent “impassioned speech”

He might have learned that in the name of civil rights, we have failed the mentally disturbed and those who may eventually fall victim to them. Instead he dismisses Loughner’s illness and points instead to the “ugly discourse over immigration”, something that had no bearing on the shooter or his life.

He might have learned that public officials, particularly those who try to have an open communion with their constituency, would be well served by some sort of personal protection*.

He might have learned that when law enforcement is tasked with being the only line of defense, a Sheriff who fails to act despite repeated warnings & inquiries needs to be removed from his post. Particularly when the sherrif then proceeds to also blame rhetoric and newly minted laws, despite knowing that his office had willfully dropped the ball on stopping Loughner BEFORE he took 6 lives and altered so many more.

He might have learned that, when a person has shown an undue & uncomfortable fascination with another human (whether ‘famous’ or not), we do them no favors by brushing it off. Better Gifford’s staff had reacted to his letters & videos rather than believe him to be harmless.

Gabriel Giffords was shot for the same reason Rebecca Schaeffer was shot, some screwed up kid from Tucson got fixated on her.

In Giffords’ case, though the fixation was not romantic, the trigger was the same. He reacted violently when she did not respond as he hoped to his perceived relationship with her. He felt she disrespected him and made her pay.

* There was a mention after this shooting that Pamela Gorman, at that time a Phoenix area politician who made national news with a volunteer produced YouTube video showing her firing a plethora of firearms, would not likely have been the victim of such an act. Though there is no doubt a working knowledge of firearms goes a long way to protecting life in the event of threat, sometimes there is no time to act.

From the accounts I heard at the time, Lougher approached Giffords with the gun under his coat. When he was in very close proximity, he pulled it out and fired, first at her head, then at the rest of the crowd. When he ran out of bullets and attempted to reload, he was tackled and subdued. Had that exact scenario played out at a Gorman event, neither she not her constituents would have had time to act prior to that first shot.

What would surely have been different is what happened next, as her crowd would more likely be armed – and more likely practiced with their weapons. No one is suggesting a bunch of folks would have, or should have, started firing at Loughner immediately. That sort of reaction might have made an already chaotic situation even worse. However, responsible gun owners who carry for self-defense practice scenarios that require an intelligent assessment of the environment – for instance, in the midst of a crowd.

What likely would have been different is the ability of an armed man to get through the crowd and close to the candidate. A group of 2nd Amendment enthusiasts would also be more likely to be aware of their surroundings, more likely to be alert for threats, more likely to notice a gun, and more likely to be willing to act to stop someone before the day turns deadly.

{Still need to find some links for the facts in this post, if you have ‘em handy, drop them in the comments}

UPDATE: Warner Todd Huston takes NPR to task for the same offense: Falsely Blaming Giffords’ Shooting on Uncivil Political Rhetoric

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Seven Falls, Tucson

All of which is to say, he is nowhere near a man of the people – at least not the Arizona people. Many conservatives are long past ready to see him retired, not without cause. You need only do a cursory review of his record to see how his “Mavericky” ways have all too often been counter to small-government, conservative ideals. Which may be why he’s apparently not a maverick anymore.

He further distanced himself with his atrocious handling of Sarah Palin during the campaign, and abandonment of her to the wolves of his campaign staff after. The fact that he was only willing to handle Obama with kid gloves is in glaring contrast to the way he has enthusiastically attacked any Republican who dares to challenge him.

Like, for instance, J.D. Hayworth.

Not that J.D. doesn’t present an easy target, he’s managed to efficiently place a giant “Kick Me” sign on his own back. The baggage he brings to this race, from his voting record to his questionable associations, could fill the carousels at Sky Harbor.

While Hayworth’s campaign has consisted almost exclusively of “I’m not John McCain”, McCain’s campaign has been landing direct hits on Hayworth’s spending and charges of corruption.

I’m not the only one who noticed:

Hayworth’s campaign until this point, however, has consisted of “we’re not John McCain and John McCain is the enemy.” They have a treasure trove of issues on which McCain has abandoned the base (taxes, guns, environmental extremism, first amendment rights, government regulation to name a few) to work with but have not yet chosen to do so. It would be good for democracy and their cause if they moved to issues post-haste. They have a very receptive audience. At some point, it may benefit them to be more than “we’re not John McCain.”

There are two big issues in Arizona elections this year: Illegal immigration & government spending.

McCain ceded much of the ground on the illegal immigration debate by supporting amnesty, guest worker programs, and suggesting that Americans wouldn’t can’t do the jobs. Even so, he has always insisted that the border be secured – and he is continuing to make that point. Hayworth may actually be able to get a foothold on the issue, but he needs to sound more like a statesman and less like a shock jock.

McCain has, however, managed to carve out a solid reputation when it comes to spending – specifically by resisting it. I know there is a point to be made there, particularly after the massive bailout he supported, but it isn’t ever going to be a kill shot. Hayworth is especially impotent in making that charge – considering he spent his time in Washington up to his elbows in the taxpayer’s wallets.

Every charge McCain makes against Hayworth has been met with little more than, “I know you are but what am I?” If you have no answer when he brings up your big-spending, Abromoff-associated, also-a-Washington-insider past in the primary, how do you expect to survive the charges in a general election?

Recently, to add insult to the insult of Hayworth thinking we are smart enough to remember McCain’s record, but too stupid to remember his own, we were treated to video of an old infomercial.

Hayworth’s immediate ‘excuses’ were of the “I had no idea they were bad guys” variety. That does little more than reinforce the idea that Hayworth will do anything for money – after all, lawsuits had been filed against National Grants Conferences in several states, they were already under Better Business Bureau investigation. If Hayworth couldn’t be bothered to do even cursory due diligence before selling his endorsement, why should the voters of Arizona trust his judgment in D.C.?

Then, back to the “uhn uh, YOU are!” defense, they try to equate a campaign contribution the founder of National Grants Conferences made to McCain with JD Hayworth actively pimping the company. If Hayworth (or his campaign staff) can’t make a distinction that obvious, how discerning can he be expected to be in the Senate?

The next attempt at dodging responsibility for the poor choice comes in the pointing of fingers at McCain’s official Senate website*, where you can find info on applying for federal grants. Not only is this information provided by many members of both houses as a service to their constituents, it further illustrates how corrupt the National Grants Conferences scheme was. John McCain was providing, for free, all the information that NGC was charging for – and NGC was making enough of a profit to buy a “Former Congressman” to shill for them.

Finally, Hayworth decided that he regrets “pitching grants for troubled firm“. That’s great, JD, glad that after 3 years (and several days of bad press) you realized it was a very bad idea. However, at the time, in front of the camera, you had no problem encouraging others to wallow at the federal trough – the very thing voters are outraged about right now.

The anti McCain meme has been that he is a “convenient conservative”, a RINO who moves right during each election cycle. Unfortunately for Hayworth, he is attempting the same tactic – expecting that voters will ignore his actions of the past, and simply embrace his campaign rhetoric.

Not being John McCain may work in the primary, but if he makes it to the general election, he will need more than that. I can hold my nose and vote for John McCain, as I’ve done several times in the last 20 years.

I don’t think I could bring myself to cast a vote for Hayworth.

UPDATE: Noble Thinking seems to agree McCain v. Hayworth: It’s About Character

* They have since claimed that McCain removed or hid the grants link, but it is still available, in the same locations, and just as visible in all three browsers I tested. I think they missed that it was never a link on the home page, and was only ever linked on a couple of pages inside. In other words, depending on which page you visit, you can get a screen cap of it there – or a screen cap of it not there.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. A Rosie Day
2. Losers Law in #AZsen Race
3. Considering My Options

“Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely.”

But they also:

plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.

If Tea Partiers really are so horrible, why would you need to resort to infiltration & agitation to make them look bad? If there was any truth to the MSM’s attempts to paint them as homophobes, racists and morons, you would have nothing to worry about from the movement.

Obviously the Tea Parties are striking a chord. And foes must resort to tactics like this as they are completely unable to debate the actual issues.

Much like the treatment of Sarah Palin, they don’t work so hard to undermine you if they don’t fear you and your potential to elicit change.

She understands that the U.S. has been a force for good in the world—which is more than can be said of our president.

And in this one, he attempts to capture the reasons behind the remarkable vitriol she inspires, mostly from the Left, but also from a certain ‘class’ of the Right.

When push came to shove, they could not resist what Van Voorhees calls Mr. Obama’s “prodigious oratorical and intellectuals gifts” and they could not resist attributing Sarah Palin’s emergence as a formidable political force to “the base enthusiasms and simian grunts” of “the loathesome Tea Party rabble.”

She didn’t go to the right schools, she isn’t from the right urban area, she fishes & camps & shoots things, she is married to a blue collar worker, she has too many children…..

Here’s what those elitists snobs on both sides of the aisle are forgetting: Most people in America didn’t go to the right schools, there are vast tracts of land outside the uber-sophisticated urban hot spots, large numbers of their countrymen hunts & fish & enjoy camping. We are either blue collar ourselves, or unlikely to look down on someone who does an honest day’s work. We love a woman who loves her children and finds that she can, in fact, have it all; career, gorgeous hubby, beautiful children – and look great while doing it.

At this point, I don’t know that I want her to run for President in 2012. I do know that,

…I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. A Little Cyanide In Your Tea
2. Sarah Darling

If you read the article you will see it very clearly makes the claim that if Obama is voted out of office (and if Palin is on the ascendancy) it is because of racism. So, I commented. And he commented. And I commented. And I wanted to get more people involved, so here is the exchange:

Vox: How can you seriously reference an article that makes it’s point with a line like “who’ve emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.”

Come ON!

Him: Sometimes hyperbole can get to a point. It is exactly what seems to be happening, and the expression accurately describes southern Dems at that time. And have you ever heard the terms “northern liberal” or “liberal elite”…they are just less noxious terms for the same impulse being cultivated by those mentioned in the same article.

They are once again suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Obama or any of his policies is inherently racist. As far as “at that time” they reference Reagan & Palin, both fairly recent Pols. – neither one of which has ever displayed a penchant for keeping down “uppity Negroes” It is ridiculous and ineffective to distill every argument down to something so base – especially when it is not in evidence.

As someone else said, and I wholeheartedly agree, I have a lot of problems with Obama – the only thing I DON’T have a problem with is the color of his skin

What is the “color of his skin”? The article never mentioned Obama’s ethnicity; but I think he is half-black AND half-white. The article only draws a parallel to a group of people who felt disenfranchised after years of perogative (Southern whites) with those who also feel disenfranchised today (both white and black, Dems and the GOP). They are looking for a leader, and Palin is wisely cultivating that frustration. Without making any policy speeches, holding any elective and accountable office (she quit), she is perfectly invulnerable right now. It is working.

The article clearly (and repeatedly) referenced his ethnicity, and claimed that Palin was in the running due to her being one of a long line of politicians – sorry, “demagogues” – who are trying to save the country from “uppity Negroes”.

It also claims that “There’s an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign which was George Wallace” – yet another jab at racism (Wallace actually was racist, and a Democrat, who luckily learned the error of his ways)

“And for black America, that’s the good news.” Why would the author think that especially good, or bad, for black America if he is not fixated on & alluding to the color of Obama’s skin.

“Consider the post-Reconstruction era, or the post-civil rights era, or even South Africa’s Afrikaners who responded to a fiscal crisis by electing the National Party which introduced apartheid in 1948.” Really, does he think Obama’s abysmal performance is going to usher segregation back in the US?

The Obama presidency is a slap in the face to MLK’s dream, wherein people would be judged not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character. Every time any resistance to Obama’s agenda (which is also a resistance to a lot of old white men..and women) is written off as the product of racism, the color of his skin becomes paramount to his character. Interestingly, and tellingly, the only people I hear mentioning “uppity Negroes” are on the Left – and trying to put it off on those that lean Right is projection. It reeks of desperation and an inability to argue the issues on THEIR face, not his.

He’s referring to the black constituency (consider this source). Lots of anger and feelings of unrequited love among these people. I don’t blame them; Obama has so far let down a lot of people.

Anyone want to continue the discussion?

 
* To be clear, I do think Obama’s performance, and that of his cronies like Pelosi, Reid, Frank, et al is paving the way for a GOP presidency, but not Palin. However, I see nothing to “be very afraid” about if she were to hold a higher office.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. In Defense of Sarah Palin
2. Es Muy Macho
3. The Last Best Hope

The US Army plans to restrict media coverage of an appearance by Sarah Palin, pictured on November 18, at a military base to prevent the event from turning into a political protest against President Barack Obama, officials said.

Reference: “You guys make a pretty good photo-op”

Possibly Related Posts:

1. I Don’t Think That Means What You Think It Means
2. In Defense of Sarah Palin
3. Great Pumpkin

1. They were tasteless, they were crude, they were over the line, they were sexist – all those things. And, they were unfunny.

2. Greg Gutfeld was right; it is pathetic that with an entire inept administration to choose from for his jokes, Letterman is still so obsessed with Sarah Palin. It is also pathetic that he couldn’t come up with something funny.
3. It is conceivable, and even likely, that his staff was too stupid, too lazy, or too disinterested to check which daughter was with Palin in NY. Had it been Bristol, the jokes would have been stupid, the fact that it was Willow puts the jokes in beyond-the-pale territory. And don’t forget that Letterman also targeted Palin herself.
4. He would never have made those jokes about a female, left-leaning politician, let alone her children. You can imagine the outrage had Rush said something about the Obama girls, or if Treacher’s Ashley Biden joke was not merely in illustration of the double standard. There was hell to pay when Chelsea Clinton was maligned during her father’s campaigns/terms – and even much gnashing of teeth when it was suggested that as a grown woman she was being “pimped out” during her mother’s failed Presidential run.

That said………we do ourselves no favors by becoming “hysterical” over these things the way the left does. I know that in most cases it is an attempt to give as good as we got, but I don’t think that is always the best strategy in a PR battle. Think about how idiotic lefties appear when they bluster and foam at the mouth over every perceived slight, is that what you want for yourself? These were obviously comments that needed to be addressed, but not hammered over and over. Letterman needn’t be fired, though an actual, sincere apology would have been nice.
A-Rod having sex with Willow Palin would quite obviously be statutory rape (though pushing Letterman’s idiocy into giggles at statutory rape is a stretch), besides being disturbing on other levels. But statutory rape is quite a different animal from RAPE. To continue referring to Letterman’s comments as advocating the rape of a child trivializes the word, much the same way as moonbats calling Bush “Hitler” and Republicans “Nazis” trivialized the evil that was done by the Third Reich. It also has undoubtedly caused the child in question, whether Willow or Bristol, more harm than anything he said in the first place. We need to stand up for our principles, we need to defend smart, conservative women who are brave enough to step into the political arena, and we need to ensure everyone understands the limits of humor stop long before the family gets attacked. We also need to keep our heads and not risk becoming like the loonies on the left. We are bigger than that, we are smarter than that – and we need to stay true to who we are.
We also don’t need to give a jackass like David Letterman any more attention than he deserves. He can’t win on the humor front but he always has controversy. Since his Palin digs, and for the first time in a very, very long time, David Letterman won the ratings battle in his time slot.
It would behoove clear thinking lovers of humor to allow Letterman to fade into the obscurity he has been toying with for decades.
UPDATE: Found this quote

“If the right goes after Letterman, they make him look big and themselves small,” says Mark McKinnon, a former campaign adviser to George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “It’s win-win for Letterman.”

UPDATE: Regarding giving Letterman more attention than he deserves.
UPDATE: Here is Greg Gutfeld’s take.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. In Defense of Sarah Palin

In general, according to Beigun, Palin had a steep learning curve on foreign issues, about what you would expect from a governor. But she has “great instincts and great core values,” and is “an instinctive internationalist.” The stories against her are being “fed by an unnamed source who is allowed by the press to make ad hominem attacks on background.” Biegun, who spent dozens and dozens of hours briefing Palin on these issues, is happy to defend her, on the record, under his own name.