« Rep. Luján Statement on Arizona Shooting Involving Rep. Gabrielle Giffords | Main |
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Senators Jeff Bingman and Tom Udall; DPNM Chairman Respond to Attack on Rep. Giffords, Others
U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman issued the following statement, following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona:
“This is a tragic assault on Congresswoman Giffords, her staff and her constituents. Like all Americans, I extend my sympathies to the families who lost loved ones in this tragedy, and hope that Congresswoman Giffords and everyone who was injured in this terrible incident can recover.”
U.S. Senator Tom Udall released the following statement on the tragic shooting that included U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona today:
"Gabby has been my friend and colleague for years. Not only is she remarkably intelligent, Gabby is a warm and compassionate individual. Today, she was answering her call to public service when these unspeakable acts of violence took place. Gabby, her staff and all of the victims of this horrific act are my family’s thoughts and prayers."
Javier M. Gonzales, Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico released the following statement regarding the attack on a constituent event being hosted by Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords earlier today in Tuscon:
"I ask all New Mexicans to keep Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her family, staff and the victims of this tragedy in their thoughts and prayers as they struggle through this difficult time. We are a nation based on laws and discourse and this act is both unconsionable and tragically heartbreaking."
"I am truly heartbroken from today's events and pray for the victims of this senseless act, both the deceased and those fighting for their lives."
January 8, 2011 at 04:39 PM in Crime, Democratic Party, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Sen. Tom Udall | Permalink
Comments
Sarah Palin and her supporters have fomented and aided in the creation of American Terrorists that will take power with the power of "lead". Don't forget Sharon Angles "second amendment remedies? She kept saying if things did not turn out the way she wanted that they should use "second amendment remedies". Sarah Palin and her supporters will never be able to walk away from this. She is a monster and deserves to be excoriated for her constant and hateful rhetoric since she entered the National political arena in 2008. Extreme rhetoric has been allowed to go on unchecked for too many years. The 450 Right Wing Talkers in the Radio world nearly monopolize the airwaves and we don't even have to argue about FOX News. The silence and purported concern over angry rhetoric has been deafening if not completely absent.
Posted by: Margarita Mercure Hibbs | Jan 8, 2011 5:32:07 PM
Posted by: nancy | Jan 8, 2011 5:35:40 PM
In the coming days, there needs to be strong calls by our elected leadership to address the violent rhetoric on the part of those who do not take the connection between flirting with violence and the eventual action by someone out there seriously enough. It isn't funny at all. This assassination in Tucscon is the inevitable, direct result.
There has been a lot of nudge, nudge, wink, wink rhetoric in which shooting has been hinted at. There should be a lot of people on the right pointing out that this is wrong, apologizing and backpedaling.
I certainly hope that people who want to call themselves Christians will stop to consider how the lust for apocalypse that is becoming more a part of Christian culture than the Sermon on the Mount is contributing to an increasing potential for violence.
I am with Keith Olbermann. This has to stop.
Posted by: Stuart Heady | Jan 9, 2011 12:45:28 AM
Here is the core of this issue. Violence and assassinations are the hallmark of third world banana republics. Governance via violence is the philosophy taught by the School of the Americas since renamed but unchanged. This violence was carried out by some fringe group this time but how far is our nation from having political violence become business as usual. That is the danger and that is what is at stake by tolerating violent rhetoric in our political discourse. Is this only the start or are we going to put a stop to it before it is too late? I don't mean putting a stop to it by permitting an ever tightening authoritarian state. I mean can we make uncivilized discourse unpopular and socially unacceptable? When is the Left going to take the rhetorical reins? This is an opportunity for this nation to pull back on becoming the School of the Americas dream state otherwise known as Neo-Liberalism worldwide. This sort of nonsense needs to stop now.
Posted by: qofdisks | Jan 9, 2011 12:49:15 PM
Let's not forget this one from the DLC, just with archery targets instead of crosshairs:
https://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
I'm no supporter of Sarah Palin, unless the alternative in the 2012 election is Pres. Obama, but saying that "we're going to get out there and kill them" in terms of sporting events has been used for years, and no one saying it actually intended to mean it.
As noted in the "ADDING" on Rachel Maddow's blog, "... there's no indication that the alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. ..."
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Jan 9, 2011 1:00:57 PM
Regardless of whether or not any connection can be documented between right-wing hate rhetoric and bigotry and the shooter, this is the time to say enough is enough and for right wingers who allegedly don't support the extremist, violence-promoting messaging of Palin and Beck and Limbaugh, Villanucci of KKOB hate radio and others to step forward and publicly condemn such speech in no uncertain terms.
I take the word of the Pima County sheriff who lamented that Arizona has become a mecca for bigotry and hate thanks to right-wing radio and the bigoted actions and speech of right-wing politicos. How did this happen? We know it is just one part of the national fearmongering and hate mongering that has become a central tenet of the right wing strategy.
Right wing violence map, 3/15-9/1510 during health care debate: https://bit.ly/hwo2Z6
""For more than 2 years, sensible people have been pleading with fellow Americans to tone down rhetoric, to quit with demonizing, to end fear-mongering.
"In what kind of country, sensible people asked, do political leaders across the board not condemn a rally sign that reads: “We left our guns at home-this time”?
"In what kind of country do people show up at presidential speeches with guns on their hips?
"In what kind of a country do callers to radio shows routinely smear those with whom they disagree — beginning with our president — as “traitors” and “un-American,” while pandering hosts say only, “Thanks for the call.”
"If we continue this way, the sensible people warned, something will happen."
https://www.suntimes.com/3220146-417/giffords-cannot-tucson-ariz-saturday.html
Posted by: barb | Jan 9, 2011 2:04:27 PM
I missed the public condemnation of Kos for suggesting bulls eyes on specific congressmen (one of which was Rep Giffords):
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568
In case Kos deletes the page:
https://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png
Is it somehow okay if a person advocates targeting someone in their own party?
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Jan 9, 2011 5:26:54 PM
Paul: Straw man argument. The calculated strategy of the right wing is to create an atmosphere of hate, bigotry and violence, using gun imagery and more. It's not some stray oddity, as you well know if you'd be honest. In fact, the right wing has used this calculated strategy ever since the civil rights era. The targets of bigotry and fear mongering sometimes change, but the strategy remains the same. It is evident to anyone looking with an honest eye. Did you look at the mapping of incidents of right-wing violence during the period of the health care bill debate? You should.
Posted by: barb | Jan 9, 2011 5:37:25 PM
PS: A bulls eye is not a gun sight, and there are no Dems walking around with signs portraying our President in a manner to promote racial hate. You are so off base, it's almost surreal. Either you are in complete denial or you advocate the right-wing strategy to foment hatred.
Posted by: barb | Jan 9, 2011 5:40:25 PM
Yes, I looked at the google map. I disagree that I am making a strawman argument. I try very hard not to post a ready-fire-aim comment. I'm simply making the point that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who are using the target/crosshairs/bullseye terms. Even Pres. Obama inappropriately used the word "enemies" when he should have used "opponents". Keith Olbermann pushes the "bushitler" line and equates Pres Obama with Nazi appeasement for the Dec tax cut deal.
There are literal "death to ..." statements in the bible, but reasonable, sane people do not act upon them. When someone says, "I should shoot this stupid car", only a nut with a Dirty Harry complex whips out their Magnum-44 and does it.
ABC News is playing this pretty even-handedly.
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Jan 9, 2011 6:08:24 PM
Sorry Barb, you posted your PS while I was writing my own comment.
A bullseye or target is exactly equal to a gunsight. It means the same thing, an aimpoint. Both sides could use a snowflake or some other symbol, except they would have to put a legend on their powerpoint.
I defy you to find any post in which I have advocated a racist or hateful position, here or on Topix, where I post under my real name. Try this one, and follow the thread: https://www.topix.com/forum/source/las-cruces-sun-news/TAHSEIQUKLBR5VR23/post1391
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Jan 9, 2011 6:44:09 PM
First off, I'm not really accusing you personally of advocating racist or hateful positions. As I've witnessed here, you debate with restraint. What I'm saying is that if you don't see how the GOP/right wing has used that kind of rhetoric quite purposefully for quite some time, you must be in denial. Or agree with it. Those are the two choices,
I think you're arguing in a rather disingenuous manner, pretending that there is some sort of equivalency between the political strategy, tactics and targeting of the left and right, i.e. purposeful denial. Ever since the civil rights days, right wing/GOP messaging has primarily been about fear of the other and stopping change. Certainly in the last two election cycles this has been the very core of right-wing messaging.
When a gun sight is used by someone like Palin, who has long relied on similar rhetoric and symbolism, and by the GOP/right wing, it has very different connotations than a stray comment by Obama etc. because the right-wing strategy since the civil rights era has been to use rhetoric and other messaging to create and nurture fear, bigotry and even violence. It's part of a pattern, a concerted effort to appeal to base instincts within a certain demographic. You see that, don't you?
As anyone who has studied the use of messaging by the right wing knows, untold millions have been spent on messaging that appeals to our baser instincts, and creating a network of radio stations and other media to repeatedly use the messaging. The Dems are way behind in this area, with most Dems talking policy points and trying to use logic to win arguments. The right, on the other hand, uses messaging that's about emotions and values, not logical programmatic points. This is very evident, I think you'd agree.
The Palin gun sight is not an isolated or random case, in other words. It's part of a very organized and concerted effort to appeal to certain people. It is of a piece with the rest of the right's messaging and thus should be seen as part of that campaign to engender fear and loathing. Come on, for the most part, Dems are not into doing things like attending a presidential rally with a gun holstered on their hip, or holding a rally in Alamogordo where everyone wears their weaponry for all to see.
Just tune in KKOB "talk" radio here if you don't know what I mean about the preponderance of angry, violence tinged, ad hominem rhetoric on the right.
Posted by: barb | Jan 9, 2011 8:04:14 PM
Paul - I opened up both of your links you pasted above to Kos. The one that is the diary is clearly a diary and I do not see the bullseye there, I read about bullseye in the diary. And the other link, the screen shot, which you took in case the bullseye went away. The bullseye on that screen shot and the image of the representative seem to be photoshopped in. Is that true? So in reality there was never a graphic bullseye on the diary right?? It does make a difference and i am just checking.
Posted by: mary ellen | Jan 10, 2011 5:46:03 PM
Mary Ellen - no, there was never a bulls eye on Kos' diary. The Hillbuzz blog just snipped the list of congressmen and the paragraph below the list, and added the graphic. To me, there is a negligible difference between saying that you are putting a target on someone and drawing a target on a map. If it's that important to you, then the link to the DLC web page used archery targets: https://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
My point all along is that it is disingenuous for either side to say that the other side uses words/symbols that imply targeting someone, but our side doesn't.
I can't get KKOB down here in Las Cruces, but I'm sure that it's not much different from Michael Savage. This morning as I drove into town, I tuned to America Left on XM and listened to Stephanie Miller be just as obnoxious. (Probably worse, because satellite radio does not have to meet FCC broadcast rules.)
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Jan 10, 2011 6:31:21 PM
Barb - I prepared a big response to your post, and then IE8 crashed, so I'll just cut to the chase. I don't agree with most of your "the right wing did it first or more" argument, because all anyone needs to do is go back to 2000 post-Florida or 2004 Dan Rather's forged LTC Killian Texas ANG letter. https://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526
To date, there has been nothing that links or points the shooter to one political party or splinter group or another, but there have been lots of people who have been getting plenty of exercise jumping to conclusions. Maybe there will be, and maybe not, but right now, we know more about why the chimpanzee ripped a woman's face off than why the shooter did the awful things that he did.
For people to profess that they wish there was more civility in politics and then engage in this current farce is simply throwing gasoline on the fire.
I have no problem sitting down with people or discussing issues with you, just as I was able to have civil conversation with Sen Fischmann and former Rep Nate Cote (who I voted for) on Saturday at a fete for Nate at the Butterfield Park Community Center.
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Jan 10, 2011 8:07:03 PM
Paul if you can say what you are saying with a straight face, congratulations. You must be one hell of a poker player. The right wing hate speech and calls to violence have been overwhelming ever since Obama was elected. Does that kind of thing make mentally disturbed people do what they do? You can't prove it but it sure doesn't help. Even if it doesn't I think the way the right has been inciting and feeding violent tendencies is irresponsible and off the deep end.
Posted by: Old Dem | Jan 10, 2011 10:01:13 PM
I agree with Paul Krugman:
Excerpt:
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
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.
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.
Posted by: barb | Jan 10, 2011 10:16:02 PM
Paul: Here's the actual post on Kos that is being distorted by right wing sources:
I hardly think it's violent no matter how much those in the right-wing echo chamber try to stretch it.
Posted by: barb | Jan 11, 2011 11:19:24 AM
