• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Why the Left Hates Debate (and Always Has!)

    Many leftist journalists, bloggers, and talking heads are shamelessly exploiting last weekend’s tragedy in Tucson, Arizona. To them, there is a lesson to be learned in this senseless act of violence by an undeniably troubled man. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman says he was even “at some level, expecting something like this atrocity” to happen. Krugman concludes: “If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.”

    This fear-inducing argument is a tired and worn-out Progressive prescription, one that rejects the reality of the American political tradition and the ultimate benefits of having a citizenry that embraces a strong spirit of self-government.

    Despite all the calls for a more polite public discourse, history reveals precious few such models. Since the founding of the United States, the political scene has been anything but serene. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 1, anticipated the intensity of many public debates in America when he noted that:

    We have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

    The presidential campaign of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams was one of the most divisive in American history, in which Jefferson was labeled a “Jacobin” and  Adams called a “monarchist,” the 18th century equivalents of “anarchist” and “socialist.”

    Let us also not forget that during the debate over the Jay Treaty in 1793, there was a discordant and explosive political environment between the pro-French and pro-British factions. Partisan strife was dividing the country, and tensions were high in the capital city of Philadelphia, where President George Washington was residing at the time. John Adams described the pro-French demonstrations vividly: “ten thousand people in the streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government, or compel it to declare war in favor of the French Revolution and against England.” Such actions were certainly not the epitome of civility, but they were not viewed as a failure of politics either.

    The Founders’ understanding of human nature and the nature of politics allowed them to accept conflict and strong disagreements in the public square, and accommodate it through the structure of the American constitutional order. Throughout American history, the sentiments and passions of the people sometime lead to distasteful and vitriolic debates.

    Modern Progressives may feel that it is messy to engage in vigorous debate and that public officials need not deign to engage with the feelings of ordinary Americans. Indeed, the original Progressives attempted to project the brilliance of their policy solutions on what they wished were the blank screen of American politics. But this is not the American way.

    James Madison could have been speaking to Krugman and other Progressives when he offered this timeless advice about the essential nature of American politics in Federalist 46:

    The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject… These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone… Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

    The tragedy in Tucson is a crime against us all. But crime is crime; and debate is debate. The blurring of this distinction and the wish to attenuate public debate in favor of one political perspective is a truly toxic addition to American politics, and makes for irresponsible journalism.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    35 Responses to Why the Left Hates Debate (and Always Has!)

    1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Why the Left Hates Debate (and Always Has!) | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    2. Matt C., Crystal, MN says:

      Are you really going to make me go through and list all the times Republicans have literally blocked debate in recent years? Unbelievable.

      The Bush administration actually went as far to say "you are either with us, or you are with the enemy.", labeling anyone who dared try to debate on things like, ohhhhhh, let's say WMDs, which there were none, they were "with the terrorists".

      You people absolutely make me want to rip my hair out.

      The denial and plain ignorance is sickening.

    3. O_Henry says:

      Free speech has its price. However, free speech isn't "free" in today's economy. If a purchasing/consuming public refuses patronage to ALL media sponsors they deem "wreckless" the marketplace and not the government will rapidly put the offenders out of business. Would you like to consider the products you purchase more closely?

    4. John Clancy says:

      If we exposed our children to real debating (classical) in educating them, we would raise the quality of debates in our civil discourse. As a nation we have lost this tool of civility as witnessed by our major networks when they conduct "debates" for the election of our president.

      We don't have classical debates because truth is considered relative by too many of our educators.

      Fortunately, there are indications that we are beginning to see that we need radical reform in the way we educate our children. Learning how to think, to distinguish, to relate ideas will be central in our approach to education.

    5. Jeanne Stotler,Woodb says:

      Jumping to a unproven fact is dangerous, this man who commited this autracity, is mentally ill, he seems to have no political alliance, today a former friend of his told of the initial meeting, Jared had with the Congress woman, he sad Jared asked a question which was full of ramblings and didn't even sound coherent, then fumed because Gabby couldn't answer his ramblings, this was in 2007,before the Tea Party or Palin. I have a big question, as a health proffessional I would have recommended a mental evauluation, seems the college did, why wasn't it done and WHY did the parents turn a blind eye to this young man sinking furthur and furthur into this black hole??

    6. Norma in Nebraska says:

      I think there has been plenty of "fuel for the fire" from both sides of the isle, and it is really hard to keep track of who is ahead. What I have a problem with is the lack of decency to at least give grieving families at least a short period of time before the "blame game" takes place! Shame on those citizens, some who are leaders of our country, who are pointing fingers (with several pointing right back at themselves) and trying to gain political advantage from this tragedy.

      However, the real problem with the discourse taking place RIGHT NOW has absolutely nothing to do with vigorous political debate between Americans in this country . It has to do with a basic problem that we have had since the beginning of time: what can we do and what should we do when an ADULT'S mental health is in question, and that person continues to deteriorate? Do we have to WAIT until that person injures or kills someone else before we have some reason to intervene? Until we are willing to have THIS tough conversation, we will continue to deal with the aftermath of these seemingly senseless acts.

      Here's the bottom line: perhaps it is time for all of us to accept the fact that this is a horrific act committed by ONE INDIVIDUAL, a sad event that could have taken place ANYWHERE in America, and there is NOTHING any of us can do now to undo it. No new law will stop it, no new law will change it, and no new law will make the mentally challenged whole again – there are just some things laws cannot fix. Bad things happen to good people every single day, a fact of life that we have to accept because we are NOT in charge of our own destiny . . . be sad that it happened, pray for the effected families (including the shooter), offer condolences and help, accept what we can't change and then continue to do our jobs and live our lives with a better intent. I have a feeling that is what Rep. Giffords would want all of us to do.

      I cannot imagine for a single second that Rep. Giffords would approve of the recriminations being spewed nor would she wish to hold a grudge, both of which are non-productive. She would be more interested in positive solutions with positive results so we can do a better job in keeping American citizens as safe as we can. Living in anger and fear is NOT the answer!

      Nothing good can come from this kind of "vitriolic" conversation as so many on the Left has pointed out!

    7. Kenneth E. MacAliste says:

      This is very easy to understand. The loons on the left prefer bullying & ad-hominem. They do not understand debating in the least. Debate requires maturity & level-headedness, not to mention intelligence. The left are fellings-driven & intellectually & morally bankrupt. Debating is a skill the left will never master because they don't possess the qualities necessary to debate successfully. GOD gave everyone those skills, but those on the left rejected those skills & in some cases GOD Himself too when they became leftists.

    8. Jacee says:

      Gosh, Matt C., I read the article twice and I don't remember this being about one party or another. He did mention "modern progressives" of which there are some in both parties. He only mentioned them because they are the ones who are using this tragedy to "force" more of their liberty limiting, progressive laws on Americans, like the progressive RINO from New York and Ms. Louise Slaughter who wants to limit our "violent speech" (who's very name is violent speech!). It seems "anti-Republicans" are so knee-jerk . . .

    9. West Texan says:

      It's funny Marion would quote Hamilton. Alexander was complaining about American patriots, like today's Tea Party, who opposed his undermining efforts to duplicate Britain's aristocracy here in the United States. Those same patriots were also adversarial to the proposed constitution that Madison erroneously misjudged as being tyrant proof. He finally relented by adding the Bill of Rights as a guarantee to individuals and states that such overreaching abuses would not occur. So much for our current political mess.

    10. Martin Jones Grand J says:

      Matt C, where was the debate on healthcare? Where was there any debate in the past 2 years? There was debate on WMDs and both sides voted for the attack on IRAQ. Or was that before they voted against it.

    11. Bobbie says:

      Matt C., writes: "The Bush administration actually went as far to say “you are either with us, or you are with the enemy.”, labeling anyone who dared try to debate on things like, ohhhhhh, let’s say WMDs, which there were none, they were “with the terrorists”."

      Matt C., why don't you want to protect this country? Respect the fact the potential WMDs will always exist, intelligence ran high as to where they were. Why wouldn't you want to be certain when the time is reasonable?

      Matt C. writes:"The bush administration made a statement. Labeling anyone who dared try to debate…?"

      Matt, What happened to whoever dared? And if they took the dare to debate than the statement must have been to make a point. In America there are plenty of enemies. Some people might not know and all are safe in America, if they commit no crime.

    12. Bobbie says:

      Matt C., writes: "The Bush administration actually went as far to say “you are either with us, or you are with the enemy.”, labeling anyone who dared try to debate on things like, ohhhhhh, let’s say WMDs, which there were none, they were “with the terrorists”."

      Matt C., why don't you want to protect this country? Respect the fact the potential WMDs will always exist, intelligence ran high as to where they were. Why wouldn't you want to be certain when the time is reasonable?

      Matt C. writes:"The bush administration made a statement. Labeling anyone who dared try to debate…"

      Matt, What happened to whoever dared? And if they took the dare to debate than the statement must have been to make a point. In America there are plenty of enemies. Some people might not know but all are safe in America, if they commit no crime, of course today's administration lessens the punishment to civil crime so enemies get away with more in today's America and too much is being made exception to..

    13. TR says:

      This display is absurd by the crowd and Obama in Tucson tonight. Cheering at a funeral. I told my wife if I am assassinated by a madman while standing next to a congressman to not let the President speak at my funeral.

    14. Gabriel from Virgini says:

      For Heritage and Conservatives to say that the "Left Hates Debate" is absurd in itself. This recent shooting is a prime example. Why are conservative so quick to defend the media as if it was impossible for politics to have anything to do with this event? This is what is happening all over the Conservative airwaves- (they say a man that has read at least 5 political books, a man that is anti-government, a man that calls "abortion terrorism" that shoot a woman involved in politics couldn't have anything to do with politics. Conservatives across the country are excluding the very idea that it was politically motivated. How absurd! Am I crazy? Am I not getting something here? Why are conservatives so defensive? The sheriff never mentioned conservative or tea-party is his first response anyways? Why are conservatives calling this shooter Liberal? They are doing the very same thing that they accuse liberals of doing? You take idiot remarks from Krugman and a few other liberals and place the blame on the entire Liberal Democrat Party for blaming Conservatives for this event. That didn't happen. These accusations are being inflamed by conservative media. It seems to be Conservatives making this tragedy political.

      Now as far as debate I would like a chance to debate the writer of this blog-Marion Smith, oh would I love to!

      -Matt C. is correct in everything he said. What about Palin telling us "i will not answer the questions you want me to answer" or Boehner when asked which programs to cut he said "i cant think of anything right now" or when any conservative politician is asked how do you keep tax cuts and lower the deficit at the same time they respond with "tax cuts create jobs" or "why not apologize for rifle targets on a map over the victims district, or "don't retreat, reload" or "use your second ammendment rights" or "lock and load" or just about every single thing that is asked of conservatives is never answered. It is just as dangerous for the President to say "you bring a knife, we bring a gun" It goes both ways, im man enough to admit that. Why are liberals telling us that rhetoric is violent on both sides and conservative excluding it 100%? Why so defensive?

      - The FACT is rhetoric can lead to violence, no question. Was this shooter motivated by it? Who knows, but are we not allowed to consider it or discuss it or DEBATE it?

      Sorry Heritage, that blog couldn't be more hypocritical!

    15. Gabriel from Virgini says:

      Also,

      Conservative republicans in congress have a legislative history of blocking more debates and passing more legislation without sub-commitee or bi-partisan sponsorship and having more presidential veto's, excluding super-majority votes. All of this is numerically recorded from the 86th-111th congress. Have you ever heard Fox News or conservative radio letting liberals speak anyways, please! Do your own research. This blog is desperate at best.

    16. Mary says:

      Gabriel has a point. Maps with crosshairs and language including “setting your sights”, ads encouraging people to “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16?… I will, in fact, tell you or anyone that using words like ‘targeting’ ‘setting sights upon’ and the like IS violent rhetoric…especially when combined with symbols such as a target commonly used in relation to weapons. Those of us who have been trained in NVC (non-violent communication) and other forms of conscious communication can assure you (or anyone) that language is not inherently violent – the only violence in language comes from a conscious or non-conscious choice on the part of the speaker/writer. The former is not an acceptable means of expressing political energy. It is debasing (at best) and is part of what has led to a cheapening of the entire political process. And, need I explain that people follow those who lead? If an influential “leader” such as Sarah Palin employs a language of violence & oppression as part of her platform, her fans & followers will kindle a belief-system in kind. Some of those people will, no doubt, take those beliefs to the realm of action. Such is how it’s been since time immemorial. Better words used against one’s political opponent are Facts & Statistics. Of course, we use emotionally persuasive words – but none of them have to incorporate the tone of violence & threat. Emotional rhetoric by the right has influenced debate, bringing a true lack of substace to get any point across.

    17. Daniel says:

      "The tragedy in Tucson is a crime against us all. But crime is crime; and debate is debate. The blurring of this distinction and the wish to attenuate public debate in favor of one political perspective is a truly toxic addition to American politics, and makes for irresponsible journalism"

      HAHAHAHAHAHA!. Did Heritage actually post this!? Sure, conservative journalism has proven to be responsible.

    18. As with all points, the beginning stage is essential. It is like taking a highway and not understanding the direction in which you would like to travel should you do not use a beginning stage. For me, the starting stage is understanding which market I am aiming for.

    19. Bobbie says:

      Gabriel, you are desperate at best. You believe what you believe and don't give truth a chance. You'd fault everything else but the sole actions of this individual murderer who does have a mind of his own and did make his own choice. The reason behind his choice to murder is IRRELEVANT. You and Daniel make a great couple of misinformed, narrow minded individuals. You and all the like minded base facts on assumption, which means truth is of no significance and drowns your ability to reason and or accept.

    20. Gabriel says:

      Bobbie,

      Why the hostility and name calling? Such anger from you. Desperate? Why? You are calling me narrow minded for accepting the fact that hatred in this country driven by politics might possibly have an effect on peoples actions? I would think excluding that fact 100% seems to be narrow minded. Why are you excluding that fact? Yes the man is accountable for his own actions, everyone knows that, but when led him to what he did? It is "irrelevant" to find out what was behind this? Why? Should we not investigate things like this to gain a better understanding of why this came to be?

      Thank you Mary for being rational. It's seems many people here are not.

    21. Bobbie says:

      What hostility, Gabriel? Don't think you can feel for me, Gabriel. I'm not in the least bit angry. My reaction to you calling heritage desperate? What name calling Gabriel? It is irrelevant to put speculation on this matter as that speculation is causing defamation and wasting valuable time. I don't doubt "hatred" may be of significance but it didn't show as much as it does now after this ugly act and it's being demonstrated by you and the like-minded in your's and the like minded's own words! Did you talk to the murderer?

      Investigation is important but it isn't your job. Nor is it your job to put in whatever "hatred" you call on that didn't exist. Your's and Daniel's narrow mindedness is nothing but accusations. No facts and no basis to accuse using the same words of your narrow minded fellow man.

      Anyone who wildly jumps to conclusions (you, Daniel, the like-minded), simply sees truth as insignificant. They'd rather shoot their mouths off to cause chaos than respect their fellowman and the truth.

    22. Bobbie says:

      And Mary, why did you have to be trained in "non-violent communication?" are you that easily influenced into becoming violent? Government make-work?

      Sarah Palin? Let me humble you, Mary. Those that share the same idea of America are not the violent ones. But because for ignorant reasons and out of the clear blue, they're being accused. I commend their defense.

      We are women Mary and Gabreil, why wouldn't you see the strength and courage in Sarah Palin? Why do you dismiss her dignity and integrity? Why are you so jealous?

      I can't believe what some mothers put their daughters through to defame Sarah Palin during the last campaign era! What I witnessed these children, little girls with the backing of their mothers, made me sick! Ashamed and embarrassed to be a woman.You both need to investigate and ACCEPT the facts.

      Common sense intimidates those who have none. Common sense is easy to learn. I suggest you both absorb it.

    23. Gabriel says:

      I have read a few comments on different Heritage Blogs today. What I see is anger over many things that don't exist. I can understand the need for limited government, but some of the comments seem to enforce my opinion regarding hatred and violent rhetoric in this country. I see people that follow these blogs to be emotionally unhinged from the fact that websites like this are the very problem. I will include Liberal media too. With all media, it's constant attacks and fear mongering with no end. The very title of this blog is clear hypocracy.

      What I can't seem to understand is all the time and energy being used by people here to defend media, in particular conservative media. Mary defines violent rhetoric is this clear and tangible example-

      "Maps with crosshairs and language including “setting your sights”, ads encouraging people to “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16?… I will, in fact, tell you or anyone that using words like ‘targeting’ ‘setting sights upon’ and the like…"

      Is it that hard to say that things need to "calm down" on BOTH sides? Apparently so.

    24. Bobbie says:

      Dear Gabriel and Mary, the comments of people you see "emotionally unhinged" are people who attack this site. People who defend ONLY WHAT THEY hear instead of taking a step further to see if those government words are truth and match the government actions taken. Words sound good but the actions of government continue to remove what this country stands for.

      I agree with Mary's assertion regarding words of rhetoric, but who sees this? And who brought these exact words into the reasons of the killer? Or this blog site alone? These words are usually contained where only "some' who are adult enough, use. Why take freedom of speech away? Because some people are overly sensitive? Tolerance helps them overcome their sensitivities. I deal with foul mouthes all the time, it's beyond my control. Tolerance gets me through.

      Who's defending medial? This is where your mind was wrongly influenced. We defend the truth. Wherever that source of truth is, we defend. Heritage is a good source of truth. Don't take the words of others (Daniel) and assume like Daniel.

      Please try to open your OWN mind to everything instead of the repetition of those that defend government. Government isn't here to take care of our lifes troubles or health. That is our freedom and our diligence as PEOPLE, HUMAN BEINGS!

      Heritage investigates the actions and words of government. Heritage addresses the consequences that government actions has and will continue to be put on the people. Common sense!

      Heritage reveals this for protection of this country and for those who only see the surface,. This government ignorance is deeper than their words.

      Because people attack this site, concludes their will to defend the words that will consequentially destroy this country. Please consider more to see everything through,

      The Constitution of this country is the limit of government. When government goes beyond their limit, it's a direct threat to everyone's freedom and liberties which many have already been unconstitutionally removed.

      The truth is productive and deserving to all.

      I apologize Mary, for the demeaning question I posed. No answer necessary.

    25. Gabriel says:

      Bobbie,

      I can tell that you are unable to have a rational discussion so let me ask you this…

      Could these comments below influence somone to take it for real?

      “setting your sights” and “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, Shoot a fully automatic M16?" -Sarah Palin

      "lock and load" -Sarah Palin

      "use your second ammendment rights"-Jan Brewer

      "you bring a knife, we bring a gun" -President Obama

      "shoot them in their head" -Glen Beck

      What about all the people that say the President is a Communist, Socialist, Anti-Christ, trying to destroy the country, trying to take away your freedom and liberty. This is all partisan and destructive garbage.

      The Heritage Foundation is a partisan website that spins information and facts the way they want to, do you really not know that?

      Your comment was akward, confusing and loaded with double standards.

    26. Bobbie says:

      Gabriel, in your words, define "rational."

      Sure, weak minded people will always have an excuse for their uncivil behavior. But the weaker of people who know no facts and grab at anything defaming the character of others they don't like, just to assume his actions, are lowly, underhanded and ignorant and will potentially aid in his defense. Still doesn't justify his actions!

      Politicians have always used these words and if people can't tell the difference between a metaphor and lliteracy, they need to help themselves, Gabriel.

      You pointed out 5 different quotes, what makes you and those you were influenced by are so certain he heard any of them? I mean talk about ignorant!

      The president's actions do not promote anything American. I saw it when he first became president as he insisted by race of people, who he would help. There was no mention of any specific race crying for help? The President identified people by race, as weak. If he would've said "I will help America" I would've seen him in a different light. But this was beyond insulting! Watching him throughout clearly states he is not in favor of America's value or principles. You call it partisan? I call it observation.

      I don't necessarily call the president names or anti Christ- but he claimed to be Christian and shows no reflection of it. If you know Jesus Christ, you would know He builds the inner strength of mankind. He didn't reveal people to need help. Jesus helped those who came and asked. Obama is convincing people they can't do it for themselves. Jesus, non-white and from the middle east, taught people how.

      Heritage is partisan on truth and honesty and an America reflecting her principles.

      Heritage spins nothing. The people that comment do all the spin.

      I'm sorry you found my comment to be awkward and confusing, I am interested in the double standards you claim. Please address?

    27. Gabreil says:

      Rational is looking at both sides and not excluding the fact 100%, that violent rhetoric in the media couldn't possibly lead to any violent action. Your comment is not rational or reasonable.

      Defaming Palin? Her entire political has been defaming the character of others, mostly President Obama. She defamed herself with her own words and her own map with rifle targets. Who blamed her directly for what happened, not me. The issue is the violent rhetoric in the media, thats all it ever was about. Many people think her words are destructive to this countries civility, not just me. I gave you quotes that were actually said. Do you not think that those quotes can cause damage and create anger which could lead to violence?

      When did I ever say that the shooter heard any of the quotes I mentioned? Again with the name calling. Your calling me ignorant for something I never said ….akward….

      You asked me to address a double standard, so here you go- you just said and I quote "The president’s actions do not promote anything American" and "he claimed to be Christian and shows no reflection of it" and "Watching him throughout clearly states he is not in favor of America’s value or principles"

      Is that not "defaming the character of others you don't like"? You do nothing but defame the President in just about every single comment you make. That is the double standard I mentioned in my last comment. So you can defame the President everyday on this website, but you attack anyone that defames her?

      And what's with all the "race" statements in your comment? What does race have anything to do with this subject? Why are you bringing up race regarding the President? Can you back up any of those claims that you mentioned about the President favoring one race over another? Also, when did "Jesus" become part of this debate?….akward….

      You also mentioned and I quote "Heritage spins nothing" Do you actually believe that? Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are on the coverpage of this website and Heritage promotes itself as a "conservative think tank" and you telling me they spin nothing? That's like me telling you that MSNBC never spins anything to their favor but I assume you would say yes they do, but Heritage never does and therein lies the lack of credibility with your argument. Its the typical "im right and your wrong no matter what" mentality and that mentality seems to be spreading like an infection throughout this country.

      So you are basically telling me(excluding any connection to the shooter and Palin) that this quote ("setting your sights” and “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, Shoot a fully automatic M16?”) could not possibly drive somebody to turn thoughts into action? Your telling me it is 100% impossible for media to influence somebodys actions in a violent way regardless if the choice is on the person themself? Also, if violent and destructive rhetoric in the media is telling people (symbolically or not) to remove an elected offical from office by shooting an M16, she still holds zero accountability? She came out and said that she had no connection with that shooting and anyone that attacked her is making it political. By the way, Both parties made it political. I heard many conservatives in the media pinning this on Liberal views, and also calling the shooter a Liberal with no evidence to back it up.

      I heard her response. It was all about her. Everything is always about her. She is always playing the vindictive roll about getting attacked in the media when all she ever does is attack the media. She owns a massive double standard everytime she opens her mouth, does she not? Why couldn't she say that maybe her map on CPAC was inappropriate? Was it impossible for her to mention that? She could say she is not at fault but maybe the map was a little too much, no? I assume to you, she shouldn't have to right?

      You seem to get very emotional and attack prone in your comments. It would be alot easier to back up your words with evidence about the president and not spend so much time defending a woman like Palin who I can say has no interest in anyone's well being but her own. She is a politician out to make money, that's it. Is that defaming her?

    28. Bobbie says:

      Gabriel, why do you come here if you won't understand the words written?

      What did I write to imply I'm not looking at both sides? The President wasn't defamed, his actions speak for him. And truth of action can never be defamed. You're not looking at both sides. Here's evidence you will accept or deny. If you are knowledgeable of America, you will know it to be true. He's abusing his position by promising things America can not sustain. America was a country to make what you wanted of yourself by using your own abilities at your free will. The freedom of people is what makes this country strong., The President doesn't encourage this, his policies reflect depletion of opportunities in the private sector.

      Does Sarah speak with violent rage when she says these things? She defends herself when she's attacked and when she's attacked, it isn't with tender words. I've seen and heard the "high strung give me a gun" Joy Behar, she acts and sounds like she'd take action and would influence others with her like mindedness of Sarah Palin. Joy Behar is NOT a woman I would EVER have my little girl look up to. And look at the guys that attack her! My Lord! What happened to America's manhood? They are weak and easily feared. My boys won't be following in their chauvinist, intimidated by a woman, footsteps! Media is a choice to watch and we don't watch it that much. It's ironic that the little bit I watch t.v. and that loud mouth (not defamation because she is) Joy Behar is attacking an American FEMALE role model.

      Women's groups today cut down what they should be inspiring. Women's freedom, liberty, strength, courage. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Michelle Malkin etc, exemplify (what I'd like to see) today's woman of America.

      Sarah Palin attacked out of the clear blue over the cruelest of crimes and you fail to consider her side. Gosh Gabriel, It's NOT all about her and she always made that clear. One person in defense of herself and you think I'm going to believe what I don't see in her? That's you! not me.

      Failing to live up to your definition of rational, the other side of both and reason, makes you a hypocrite. Do you know what that is? And because you are a hypocrite, defamation does not apply.

      I'm sure it wasn't a conservative that accused this killer of being a conservative and that was the first accusation I heard. You follow like sheep. No reference to violence. Sheep are very soft and cuddly and peaceful and a metaphor for follower it's just that sheep can't think for themselves that's why they have to follow. Is that what you are metaphorically speaking, Gabriel? Have to take the words from bad influences? Can't think for yourself. In with the blood libel crowd?

      You fail to recognize your own faults and then use your faults to falsely accuse others. I pray for you as it has become a mental derangement of many.

    29. Gabriel says:

      It's a darn shame that you have kids. I can't imagine the verbal garbage you feed them everyday. What a pitiful person you are.

    30. Gabriel says:

      Until you can answer these questions, you will have gained no respect or credibility for everything you have said so far. Let me try this again. All you have to do is answer. It's easy, read and then respond, but with answers and not deflections, defense and spin. Just answer the questions below….

      I gave you quotes that were actually said. Do you not think that those quotes can cause damage and create anger which could lead to violence?

      When did I ever say that the shooter heard any of the quotes I mentioned?

      So you can defame the President everyday on this website, but you attack anyone that defames her?

      And what’s with all the “race” statements in your comment?

      What does race have anything to do with this subject?

      Why are you bringing up race regarding the President?

      Can you back up any of those claims that you mentioned about the President favoring one race over another?

      Also, when did “Jesus” become part of this debate?

      So you are basically telling me(excluding any connection to the shooter and Palin) that this quote (“setting your sights” and “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, Shoot a fully automatic M16?”) could not possibly drive somebody to turn thoughts into action?

      Your telling me it is 100% impossible for media to influence somebodys actions in a violent way regardless if the choice is on the person themself?

      Also, if violent and destructive rhetoric in the media is telling people (symbolically or not) to remove an elected offical from office by shooting an M16, she still holds zero accountability?

      She is always playing the vindictive roll about getting attacked in the media when all she ever does is attack the media. She owns a massive double standard everytime she opens her mouth, does she not?

      Why couldn’t she say that maybe her map on CPAC was inappropriate?

      Was it impossible for her to mention that?

      She could say she is not at fault but maybe the map was a little too much, no? I assume to you, she shouldn’t have to right?

      Unless you can answer every single question I asked you have no room to comment. Waiting….

    31. Gabriel says:

      By the way, Sarah Palin went through 5 college's before graduation. Does that now show her lack of commitment?

      She also quit her job as Governer and left her entire State behind to chase politics and make money. Does that not show lack of leadership?

      She tell everyone that she is "one of us" but now she is a Fox News contributer. How is a politician on Fox News "one of us"

      She couldn't apologize for a map with crosshairs over the shooting victim, even is she is not at fault. Does that not show a lack of integrity?

    32. Bobbie says:

      Gabriel, why don't you give it a rest? You're mind thinks narrowly and won't allow another way of thinking.

      I will respond to your questions:

      By the way, Sarah Palin went through 5 college’s before graduation. Does that now show her lack of commitment? It shows she's very intelligent. And I bet, paid off all costs. How does this of her past show lack of commitment?

      She also quit her job as Governor and left her entire State behind to chase politics and make money. Does that not show lack of leadership?

      She left her job in good hands. Her state isn't filled with pathetic people looking for a hand out! The media was intruding in her daily life. Digging anything up they could to distort and defame her character. She did it for good and practical reason.

      She tells everyone that she is “one of us” but now she is a Fox News contributer. How is a politician on Fox News “one of us”

      Do you see any of us on fox news? I appreciate the opportunity she found to share the message of America.

      She couldn’t apologize for a map with crosshairs over the shooting victim, even is she is not at fault. Does that not show a lack of integrity? Why would it?

      To be honest with you, I don't understand what you are trying to make sense of?

      "she couldn't apologize for a map with crosshairs over the shooting victim? Apologize to who?

      Gabriel, if you are a good person, you'll expand what you are accustomed to listening to or watching. You talk about Rush and Sean when what they do is address the events of the day. No lies. Yet you follow everyone elses lead to accuse and distort. These two guys worked for their individual American dream hard enough to live it. Anyone has an opportunity to challenge them by calling.

      With our own individual dreams ANYONE was once able to do the same.

      Gabriel, you have to stop listening to the main stream or START listening to everyone and stop pointing the fingers you are influenced to. Gather all information. Figure out who the real liars are and where the danger really is for yourself. God Bless!

    33. Pingback: that hero » Old-Timey Civility

    34. Gabriel says:

      I answered your questions once again. Can you do the same…

      So you are basically telling me(excluding any connection to the shooter and Palin) that this quote (“setting your sights” and “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, Shoot a fully automatic M16?”) could not possibly drive somebody to turn thoughts into action?

      Your telling me it is 100% impossible for media to influence somebodys actions in a violent way regardless if the choice is on the person themself?

      Also, if violent and destructive rhetoric in the media is telling people (symbolically or not) to remove an elected offical from office by shooting an M16, she still holds zero accountability?

      She is always playing the vindictive roll about getting attacked in the media when all she ever does is attack the media. She owns a massive double standard everytime she opens her mouth, does she not?

      Why couldn’t she say that maybe her map on CPAC was inappropriate?

      Was it impossible for her to mention that?

      She could say she is not at fault but maybe the map was a little too much, no? I assume to you, she shouldn’t have to right?

    35. Katherine- Outside U says:

      Since when did leaning to the left become an "ism"? That one must have passed me by.

      I remember being taught debating in high school. We were told by our English teacher to choose a subject we felt very strongly about- then argue the other side. Not only did we learn the ways in which to debate, but also increased our knowledge and tolerance for those who did have different beliefs.

      I love a good debate. But if you try to see from the other side, not only can you argue your case better, but you tend to learn respect for the beliefs and values of others.

      The gap between liberals and conservatives is not so big in my country. Most of the people fall somewhere in the middle- as do our political parties. But I can't see how violent rhetoric should ever be acceptable from a political party. Obviously the actions of a mentally ill man cannot be solely attributed to the rhetoric from any political party, or the media. But I can't see how violent rhetoric helps anyone.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×