Prof. Krugman, who types at the speed of hate, blames the Arizona shooting on righties, natch. But I love this:
I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report.
Indeed they did. But they also debunked it - the DHS hyped incidents even when the facts were at odds with their target narrative.
Back to Professor Hate:
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
Well, it's hard for me to imagine that in October 2010 the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's capital markets subcommittee could have said this about a wealthy Republican candidate for the governorship of Florida:
"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Kanjorski was subsequently ostracized by the voters, but I missed the round of condemnations from Krugman and the left.
Almost done with krugman:
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Hmm, cites? All I have is Google, which gives me this:
A 66-year-old man was sentenced Thursday to more than two years in federal prison for threatening Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) in the aftermath of the healthcare debate.
...
The Tribune reported that when agents questioned Pidrman in April following his arrest, he expressed frustration over threats made against Democrats and said he probably thought, "Let me scare one of those righties."
Pidrman claims he was in an alcohol-induced black-out when he called the congresswoman's office in March and left a message saying, "Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this ***** does not live to see her next term."
"I'm terribly sorry that it ever happened," Pidrman said before his sentencing Thursday morning, according to the Tribune. "I very often watch the recycled news shows on MSNBC," at the time at which he made the call, he said.
Interesting - all this 'the righties are coming to shoot you' rhetoric actually provokes lefties into getting arrested. Profesor Hate, take note!
Well. In a much more fair and balanced column Ross Douthat mentions the Discovery Channel hostage taker, just one example of lefty violence Krugman overlooked.
Meanwhile, news of the occult from Arizona in the Daily News:
A sinister shrine reveals a chilling occult dimension in the mind of the deranged gunman accused of shooting a member of Congress and 19 others.
Hidden within a camouflage tent behind Jared Lee Loughner's home sits an alarming altar with a skull sitting atop a pot filled with shriveled oranges.
What, the guy was into witchcraft? That exonerates Sarah Palin and implicates Christine O'Donnell (her denials notwithstanding).
WHAT AM I SAYING? My bad - the witchcraft angle implicates Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party, which further implicates Sarah Palin. Obviously. My neighbor's cat got stuck in a tree, which is... Sarah's fault (she has created a climate of fear among animals, don't you know?).
RIGHT, LET'S HEAR FROM THE NEGOTIATOR: The Times discusses the political ebb and flow, including this:
Mr. Obama was considering delivering a speech about the greater context surrounding the shooting, but advisers said it was premature to do so until Ms. Giffords’s condition stabilized and more became known about the gunman’s motives.
What, Obama doesn't want to get in front of the cameras and explain that he doesn't have all the facts but the Republicans acted stupidly?
Personally, I look forward to hearing the guy who promised to change the political tone back in 2008 and then compared Republicans to hostage takers a few weeks ago explain that we need to be more civil and respectful of opposing views.
SORT OF NSFW (OR SAFE FOR YOUR STOMACH): Michelle Malkin recaps a decade of Palin-hating, Bush-hating, and so on. Pretty hard to take in at one sitting. Well, for me - I imagine for a guy like Krugman it would be a pleasant remembrance of happier days. Or if not happier, at least days when the anger was more focused.
These guys are so desperate for their Timothy McVeigh moment, and are so behind the times that they think they can fashion one relying only on media spin.
Posted by: turtle noneck | January 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Krugman's a nutter but Pegram at Fox is just vile.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028109.php
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Sadly no surprise, clarice, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2011 at 10:42 AM
How does Krugman's column survive this?
(ps. I still find it ironic that John Cusack, who furthered the 2012 conspiracy by starring in the movie about it, tried to point fingers at Palin via Krugman. Does anybody think he will be "blamed"? Does anybody think he'll see he could just as easily be blamed?)
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Perhaps, along with the "no mean political pictures" bill, Congress can pass a bill that no movies be made that may inflame nutty conspiracy theorists.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM
The American Spectator:
He should be strung up."
The speaker: one very angry federal judge furious at the cynicism displayed by both Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and the mainstream media in the shootings that took the life of one federal judge, wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killed or wounded 17 others.
The judge, a personal friend of the murdered federal judge John Roll, declined to be cited by name but was brimming with anger at what he termed the "cynicism and downright evil" of the liberal media's "cynical attempt" to blame conservative talk radio and television for the murder of the only public official not to survive the shootings -- the conservative Catholic Roll, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.
The judge, who assigned blame for the shootings to "a lone nut," was bitter over Dupnik's much televised departure from his job as sheriff to relate the facts of the shooting and instead start "grabbing the limelight for publicity."
Said the furious judge: "And though terribly tragic though all of this is, how ironic that the one constitutional officer to die was a conservative, Republican-appointed federal judge. Will anyone point out the hypocrisy of liberal media on that one? Or is it a fact that is just too inconvenient?"
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM
My neighbor's cat got stuck in a tree, which is... the fault of Climate Change.
The cat went up the tree and the tree, due to Climate Change, grew at an alarming rate till the cat could no longer reach the ground.
Perhaps the cat could have looked for the Giant's castle and the goose that laid golden eggs, but that another story.
Posted by: Neo | January 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM
MayBee, If you and I play our cards right we can be the no mean words czarinas.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM
I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach
That's just pressure from the top of his skull because he has his head so far up his ass.
Posted by: bgates | January 10, 2011 at 10:51 AM
no movies be made that may inflame nutty conspiracy theorists
What ? Put Oliver Stone out of work ?
Posted by: Neo | January 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Well, speaking as just one of the no mean words czarina duo--YES. No Oliver Stone. Of course
indulgencesexceptions can be granted.Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 10:54 AM
The Today show has gotten around the fact that there seems to be no actual tie to Sarah Palin by saying there is apparently no tie, but boy her rhetoric sure created a bad atmosphere which "could" inflame people on the edge.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 10:56 AM
I concur, clarice.
Plus, Oliver Stone is more of a truth teller.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 10:58 AM
See LUN (via Instapundit) for a Best of Prog Hatred Items. I wonder whether Professor Krugman condemned any of the cited attacks on consevatives.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM
How does Krugman's column survive this?
It's in the NYT. He's doing what they pay him to do -- reinforce their narrative.
(BTW, as I understand it, Krugman doesn't actually write his columns. His wife does.)
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM
It is becoming clearer that the shooter was personally, not politically, offended by Giffords. From the WSJ about his interest in Giffords:
“That interest might have triggered Mr. Loughner's first meeting with Ms. Giffords in 2007. Mr. Loughner said he asked the lawmaker, "How do you know words mean anything?" recalled Mr. Montanaro. He said Mr. Loughner was "aggravated" when Ms. Giffords, after pausing for a couple of seconds, "responded to him in Spanish and moved on with the meeting."
The letter, with his name misspelled was in the safe in his house. Obsession.
We will see what the computer reflects. I’m predicting porn. We can blame Palin for that.
Posted by: MarkO | January 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM
We will see what the computer reflects. I’m predicting porn.
I'm predicting Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Infowars.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM
--"Personally, I look forward to hearing the guy who promised to change the political tone back in 2008...
I remember his tone.
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxu82jB_5Aw"> "I'll put Mr. Burgess up against Sean Hannity. He'll tear him up."
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Btw, has anybody commented that Sheriff Fuzznuts' idiotic comments might be torpedoing the prosecution?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 11:15 AM
If I didn't know any better I would swear he came from Boulder, Co,
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Tom-- bless you. Krugman and his NYT masters are beneath contempt. That's the most polite way I can put. For these c#@*%$suckers-- INCLUDING the POTUS, there is nothing but slimy politics. There is no decency, no compassion, no nothing but the politics of control. Bastards. I have to stop before I lose my temper....
Posted by: NK | January 10, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Annoying Orange worship. What everyone wants to know is who gets all those rich federal jobs for their families. Can you beat a space shuttle commander and brother in NASA and Congressmen wife who gets re elected for being open to the public and is tragically shot by an unappreciative public? Maybe term limits are bad and Congress should be protected behind a loyal police force who understands legacies in federal service. Congress went on strike for benefits right away, like the Clinton shootings, its a time to take advantage. They need more protection and life terms like the supreme court and their families need jobs in federal govt to to protect them and known for their service as the children of govt service.
Posted by: Computer | January 10, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Barney Fife has set the stage for serious defense counsel maneuvering. Apparently, the DOJ finds the political message to be more important than a clean prosecution. Otherwise, they would shut him up.
Posted by: MarkO | January 10, 2011 at 11:25 AM
This sums up the Today show:
We need to tone down the partisan rhetoric because, even though the Republicans didn't necessarily cause this murder, they have created an atmosphere where a murder could be blamed on them.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 11:29 AM
We really need to put our heads together and figure out how to beat that narrative into the ground.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 10, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Btw, has anybody commented that Sheriff Fuzznuts' idiotic comments might be torpedoing the prosecution?
Yeah. Me. From the minute I heard him. Videos of the sheriff are going to be used as Exhibit 1 by the defense attorney at the trial.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Tying his actions to the Congresswoman's vote against Pelosi would do it, Jane. Much more likely than all of their fantasy theories, too.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Well, if this guy was 12 years old in 2001, then he was coming of age right at the heart of the Truther nonsense. It seems Trutherism gave initial form to his budding paranoia and allowed his friends to accept it at the time as "normal questions." I say Rosie (Steel doesnt melt) O'Donnel has blood on her hands.
Posted by: Ranger | January 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Posted by: Neo | January 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM
We can blame Charlie Sheen and Rosie Odonnell for this shooting then. Works for me.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Even Der Spiegel is wising up:
Blaming Sarah Palin for
Arizona Shooting Is Wrong
Der Spiegel, by Marc Hujer Original Article
Following this weekend's tragic shooting, many on the left in the United States are calling for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to be called to account for their alleged culpability in the killings. But these claims are spurious and could do more to help the left's political detractors than harm them. (Snip)Of all people, it is precisely those who have complained the loudest about the culture of debate -- about the rhetoric of the Tea Party, the right wing's harsh words and the baseless Obama-Hitler comparisons -- who are now poisoning the debate with their own baseless insinuations.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM
The problem ex, is no one would listen. WE don't have assholes like Krugman on our side to sacrifice all credibility for the narrative.
I'd like to see that sheriff get fired.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM
I don't know.
The false accusations of spitting and yelling the N word (15 times!) during the civil rights march recreation before the health care vote took off with no problem.
Nobody in the mainstream media (that I recall) condemned how berserk people went over Bristol Palin succeeding in Dancing With The Stars. I mean- talk about vitriol.
NOBODY in the mainstream media criticized the SEIU for staging a demonstration on the lawn of a random bank executive.
Most reporters are liberal, and therefore understand what motivates the left toward anger. They see the right's anger as showboating and unwarranted (how can you be against a policy that is designed to make the world better?).
They don't see that disparity in treatment makes people more angry*
(*angry does not equal prepared to do violence)
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 11:50 AM
HA! A credentialed moron (phd in organic chem) friend of mine owns a pet wolf. He swears when Sarah comes on the TV Shaman reacts visciously.
Posted by: caro | January 10, 2011 at 11:51 AM
I just watched this Fox interview of ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvc_7Fb5T5M"> Barney Fife.
At the 6 min mark he describes the country he grew up in. It was a country that had politicians that could sit down and discuss important issues, without being vitriolic. We no longer have that country he goes on to say.
">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Dupnik"> Clarence William Dupnik (born January 11, 1936)
He must have considered this congressional event to be non-hate speech.
In 1949.
And Jews?
">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Rankin"> John E. Rankin "In 1920, he was elected to the House as a Democrat. He served sixteen consecutive terms (March 4, 1921 – January 3, 1953)
I guess the Sheriff remembers a different country.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM
This is Jayson Blair territory.
I don’t listen to any of these folks regularly, but “shooting government officials or beheading a journalist” ?I demand that Krugman give citations.
I bet he has never watched them, just got second-hand BS from his friends.
I suggest new friends.
Posted by: Neo | January 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Barney Fife?
He's almost a dead ringer for Otis Campbell.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 10, 2011 at 12:00 PM
So he went crazy AFTER he stopped smoking pot. Just sayin!
h/t Hot air. LUN
Posted by: Donald | January 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM
when Sarah comes on the TV Shaman reacts visciously.
I don't doubt it. Animals can sense upset emotions in their owners. Your friends grinds his teeth and gets his colon all twisted up when Palin comes on. The animal reacts to these events.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM
The left went crazy for years on Ari Fleisher's (misrepresented) words "Watch what you say". For years.
Now "watch what you say" is the most vital thing for our national security.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Clarice,thanks for directing me to that Spectator piece by Jeffery Lord. LUN
Excellent history of the leftist hatemongers
Posted by: SWarren | January 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM
I haven't followed all the examples of violent images from lefties, but I would also add, if it hasn't been mentioned, the movie Death of a President about the fictional assassination of Bush (while he was still in office). Much defended by the literati as inoffensive, but one can only imagine if the current occupant of the WH had been the subject.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM
But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Just a quick question for the legal eagles here... Does that cross the line into an actionable statement, given that its not true and there is clearly malice aforethought in it?
Posted by: Ranger | January 10, 2011 at 12:08 PM
from Donald's link--
Rick, was it you who guessed he'd be obsessed with The Matrix?
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 12:08 PM
O'Reilly will go nuts. He hates being lumped into the "right" meme in the first place and to accuse him like that will piss him off royally.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Jonathan Alter has really made me think refrain from untoward thoughts, but it's hard;
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2011 at 12:18 PM
O'Reilly will go nuts.
I hope his first call is to his lawyer. While IANAL, it sure seems like it crosses the line, although Krugman could claim that he did not know it to be false.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM
MayBee,
Yeah, he's a "classical" anarcho-nihilist, totally unmoored and possessing the attributes one can expect from someone who thought "this is your brain on drugs" was an advertisement for "recreational" usage.
The fact that the MFM coverage has shifted to 'nutter' indicates (to me, at least) that his note contained elements that will be construed as leftist. IMO - he's too drug ravaged to have had anything that could actually be construed as an ideology.
Yaknowwaddimean, man? I mean, like, you know, it's a conspiracy, man. They're keeping us down and lying to us - you know? Wanna hit? Got any Doritos? Wow, Neo is like Christ, ya know?
I'd like to see his tox screen results.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 10, 2011 at 12:21 PM
I don't know if it is an actionable offense, but O'Reilly has a large, and probably more politically diverse, audience to go nuts with. Much larger than Krugman's and it is 5 days a week. I think sometimes these people just want the publicity. Krugman has to know O'Reilly will not take this insult silently.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Holy shit; somebody posted this at AoS (sorry for the length; I'll clean some of it up):
from thechollajumps.wordpress:
Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office
The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident. His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it. He needs to step up and start apologizing to the families of the victims instead of spinning this event to serve his own political agenda.
Jared Loughner, pronounced by the Sheriff as Lock-ner, saying it was the Polish pronunciation. Of course he meant Scott or Irish but that isn’t the point. The point is he and his office have had previous contact with the alleged assailant in the past and that is how he knows how to pronounce the name.
Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation. My sympathies and my heart goes out to her and the rest of Mr. Loughner’s family. This tragedy must be tearing them up inside wondering if they had done the right things in trying to manage Jared’s obvious mental instability.
Every victim of his threats previously must also be wondering if this tragedy could have been prevented if they had been more aggressive in pursuing charges against Mr. Loughner. Perhaps with a felony conviction he would never have been able to lawfully by the Glock 9mm Model 19 that he used to strike down the lives of six people and decimate 14 more.
This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Dr Sanity has a number of posts describing how postmodernism facilitates adoption of delusional mental states by people not otherwise afflicted with mental illness. Not surprising then it attracts the afflicted as well.
Posted by: boris | January 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256752/peyton-manning-targeted-assassination-rich-lowry>Rich Lowry at The Corner points out the front page of the NY Post yesterday.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Btw, has anybody commented that Sheriff Fuzznuts' idiotic comments might be torpedoing the prosecution?
No, because the madman left behind a signed confession before he left, is likely on multiple cameras committing the act, and there are plenty of live witnesses.
The sheriff is doing no more to poison the jury pool than the press is.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 10, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Rob,
Not true. The sheriff is an official investigating the incident. There is a reason this doesn't happen. Most prosecutors would have drug this sheriff off the stage with a hook. For some reason, he is being allowed to ramble on. Unless his scheduled appearance on Bill Hemmer's show this morning being canceled was something other than a scheduling conflict.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM
I expect the left to get some legislation out of this - we must monitor the internet, we must allow congress to bypass the TSA, we must give congress a raise...
Capn' Hate, what is the source of that information?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM
I wish I could be sure of the accuracy of that Capt.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Whoa, Mama!
========
Posted by: So let's see the details of his 'community care'. | January 10, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Here's the LUN for it guys (sorry I didn't just do this originally)
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Why does it have to be accurate? ::grin:: Run with it. Spread it like wildfire. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be done? Let them have to work to deny it.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Seriously, Krugman has just made the allegation that Bill O'Reilly "jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist". Why does our side have to make sure anything is accurate?
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:42 PM
It seems to me there were any number of previous incidents that should have resulted in an official record that would fail a gun purchase background check.
Posted by: boris | January 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM
Never, Sue. There are things one doesn't do. One prefers the demise of the republic or even death itself to those things.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM
Trying to find a way to post on this thread. I have at least 5 not make it. Weird. Must be Safari - using Chrome now and that doesn't take will go to Firefox. I don't think I installed Narcisolator and put my name in the box:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 10, 2011 at 12:52 PM
O'Reilly really did joke about beheading a journalist. Dana Milbank. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110905611.html>Source
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Why does our side have to make sure anything is accurate?
In communicating with the muddle, we are implicitly promising them our honesty. I don't know of a case in which this promise may rightly be broken.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 10, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Does everyone else see my post?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 10, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Judy Clarke will defend Jared Loughner
Previous clients (all now serving time):
1. 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui
2. "Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski
3. Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph
4. Susan Smith, who drowned her toddlers in 1994
Posted by: Neo | January 10, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Anyone know if a sheriff can be fired in AZ?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 10, 2011 at 12:55 PM
JiB, I see a 12:29 & 12:52
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Jane, I'm pretty sure the governor can remove him but it would probably produce a partisan shitstorm and end up having the DOJ involved.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Judy Clarke is a "plea bargainer" type defense counsel. Don't see any Federal prosecutor accepting any kind of pleas even "insanity not fit for trial". Oh, wait a minute, who is the AG? Holder? Okay, I back off my first observation.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Sheriff Stupidneck repeated on 2 of 3 FNC interviews that Loughner had made threats to kill before but would not elaborate to whom. Refuse to watch Jerry Rivera, so no clue what was in that interview.
Posted by: centralcal | January 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM
The sheriff is an elected official. He can be removed just like any elected official can be removed. But it won't be easy.
Posted by: Sue | January 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM
I'm glad he has a reputable lawyer. When he gets the death penalty everyone will be okay with it. A plea means no death penalty which sounds like the feds. But I doubt AZ will be quite as passive.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 10, 2011 at 01:03 PM
Capt, I know there's a source and that you didn't make it up..I meant the accuracy of the report itself.
The father of the slain child says he does not want any of our freedoms curtailed because of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rj47lB1a-0Y>Hero
Clyburn is such a liar and a crook trying to use this to get "the fairness doctrine" instated..you know something that would make it even easier for him to lie without contradiction by people like Breitbart.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 01:03 PM
Centralcal, I think it was on Geraldo where the sheriff blamed Palin and Angle by name. I was floored. Geraldo tried to get him to back track but he wouldn't. The I too changed the channel.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 10, 2011 at 01:04 PM
I wonder if the Sheriff knew about Jared's threats and just assumed Jared was a right winger.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 01:04 PM
">http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_Arizona"> Laws governing recall in Arizona
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 10, 2011 at 01:06 PM
Strike until her husband is Presient and brother vice presidnt.
Posted by: shesgaytoo | January 10, 2011 at 01:07 PM
I was wondering if there was some deliberate distraction/misdirection going on in the sheriff's comments. I suspect we'll be learning a lot more about his role in weeks to come.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 10, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Where was Dupnik in 2006 when Harry MItchell ran this ad against J. D. Hayworth. Can anyone name the party? LUN
BTW, that is a real rifle scope gunsight not a printer's mark like Palin used.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 10, 2011 at 01:11 PM
CaptH unless I'm missing something that Blog report is complete and undocumented hearsay. The blogger said in response to comments the documentation is not available to him and part of the FBI investigation. We'll see. It does sound plausible that the Sheriff's office downplayed these threats from a "YUTE" going through a "phase". If so, the Sheriff is in deep doodoo, and his political remarks will be shown to be political ass covering. If true, he'll wind up like Nfong -- or worse.
Posted by: NK | January 10, 2011 at 01:11 PM
Clarice, I assume the person who put that together has some backup (he might have been one of the bloggers threatened) and sources. If not he's leaving himself pretty open to ridicule and possible legal action. Given the sheriff's past selective enforcement of the law, the report doesn't seem far fetched.
When I saw Clyburn on FNS yesterday I felt sick to my stomach.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 01:13 PM
It does sound plausible that the Sheriff's office downplayed these threats from a "YUTE" going through a "phase".
I've seen a few cases where the police are reluctant to get involved with the obvious nutcases because then the nutcases fixate on THEM. Easier to ignore them and dodge their wrath.
Thankfully the other cases haven't ended in tragedy.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 10, 2011 at 01:14 PM
It wouldn't surprise me, the way all these events from Ft. Hood on, have turned on, the
suspects have been on the radar, yet they were
not diverted.
Posted by: narciso | January 10, 2011 at 01:16 PM
NK,
Great minds think alike. I thought of Mike Nifong immediately when this Sheriff started spouting off. Everytime we have a murder or Amber alert down here in Florida, our Sheriff's (real honest-to-God crackers) are always very cool and calm and cautious. This was so over the top I was immediately reminded of Duke Lacrosse and the way everyone over-reacted without any facts or evidence to support their reactions. Maybe this is another case for Professor K.C. Johnson to get his mitts on. If he elects to do this it would be best for Dupnik to resign now.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM
The blogger said in response to comments the documentation is not available to him and part of the FBI investigation.
I saw a comment he made that said he had an inside source in the sheriff's office.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 01:18 PM
Capt, I found it here
http://thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-is-a-product-of-sheriff-dupniks-office/>Nice story, let's see the evidence
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 01:20 PM
"IMO - he's too drug ravaged to have had anything that could actually be construed as an ideology."
this isn't the product of drugs, or rather, not the product of any drug i've seen mentioned so far. people don't turn into raving deconstructionist conscious-dream-stating anarcho-nutters because they smoke marijuana. now, it's distinctly possible, given his inclinations, that he may have taken psychedelics at some point; that class of drugs is known to bring latent psychosis to the surface in certain susceptible individuals, and his whole Matrix altered-states-of-consciousness thing reeks of rave-era psychedelia. but that could just be absorbed from the Zeitgeist, too. in any case, it doesn't seem that he needed drugs to make him insane; from everything people have said about him, he was what my sweetie would call a "loopy-lou" from when anyone could remember.
Posted by: macphisto | January 10, 2011 at 01:22 PM
lets not forget that shooter's mother also seems to have worked for the county. This could be a case of one county official turning a blind eye to protect another county employee's family.
Posted by: Ranger | January 10, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Cholla says his source(s) is inside the Sheriff's dept and he cannot get his hands on it. Classic hearsay. It may, of course, all be perfectly true, but I wouldn't publish something so weakly sourced.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 01:25 PM
Hmmm - to be fair, O'Reilly did joke about the decapitation of Dana Milbank in the course of criticizing one of his columns.
I am nowhere with the "shooting government officials" bit.
And of course, I don't know or want to know what Maddow and Olbermann joke about.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 10, 2011 at 01:27 PM
Cholla (James Kelley) has a fairly impressive bio. I would tend to trust his judgment on the source.
James Kelley is a native of Tucson, born here in 1961. A Navy veteran, he graduated twice from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey CA majoring in Albanian and Persian-Farsi. He was a Balkan area, Middle East North Africa, Southwest Asia, and Gulf Area analyst for the Naval Security Group and the National Security Agency. He received his Bachelor of Science in Sociology from the University of the State of New York, Albany. Since leaving the service he has worked as a premium cruise line representative, telecommunications specialist, real estate broker, and as a substitute teacher in local school districts.
Presently, Mr. Kelley is a contributing columnist for the Arizona News-Telegraph and the Executive Director of SocialNetworkingWatchdog.Org, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating youth and seniors on personal security while using social networking.
He is politically active supporting conservative causes and serves as a precinct committeeman in the 29th Legislative District for the Pima County Republican party and a State Committeeman for the Arizona GOP.
He is the father of 2, James and Victoria , and the grandfather of Essemai Sophia and Lucien Francisco.
Posted by: jwest | January 10, 2011 at 01:30 PM
It's just personal, not political:
By Ezra Klein
Nick Baumann spoke to Bryce Tierney, a friend of Jared Loughner's, about the nature of Loughner's grudge against Giffords:
Tierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges -- Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says -- but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?' "
Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."
You imagine that Giffords might have gone home that night and laughed with her husband about the bizarre questions you sometimes get at these constituent meetings. And Loughner went home and began to stew.
Posted by: MarkO | January 10, 2011 at 01:31 PM
JIB-- unlike Duke LAX, there really was a crime here, a crime of the most deadly and insane nature. But yes, if there is a grandstanding local pol, and it can be proven he is grandtanding this goes badly for them. Moreover, if the local Blogger's story is true, then this "Sheriff" may wind up worse than Nifong, because there were 6 murders -- at least-- and the Sheriff did nothing to protect the public from a yute who made serious threats. As Clarice said, let's see the evidence of what the Sheriff's office knew about this Loughner creature. PS: what about the parents? What did they know about their son?
Posted by: NK | January 10, 2011 at 01:31 PM
This could be a case of one county official turning a blind eye to protect another county employee's family.
That's what I'm wondering, Ranger. If true it would at least partially explain the parents' non-appearance on the MSM's radar, too - something I think is very odd.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 10, 2011 at 01:32 PM
According to the WaPo's Greg Sargent, the DHS denies any connection between Loughner and right wing groups.
And what was the source of this lie? FOX.
Really, I wish you guys would join me in contacting Fox and complaining about their coverage, To date only Megyn Kelly has been doing her job.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 01:36 PM
O/T I decided to visit KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland due in part to the Nifong references today; he's still pawning idiots's souls.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 10, 2011 at 01:37 PM
Thanks, jwest.
Posted by: clarice | January 10, 2011 at 01:37 PM
For all of the media people wringing their hands over the current rhetoric, I suggest they take a moment to investigate why it was so important *to them* to believe Palin and the tea partiers were responsible.
Why it was so important to them to believe the current rhetoric had anything to do with the murders.
Before they ask us to change our tone, they need to ask themselves a few questions.
Posted by: MayBee | January 10, 2011 at 01:40 PM