…don’t worry Susanna Fleetwood has the one stop post on the subject titled 4 Reasons Why the MSM Botched the Tucson Massacre, and Why they Owe the Victims and Sarah Palin an Apology.

You see, a lot of liberals have good intentions. They think that if they ban Happy Meals, then there won’t be anymore obese children. However, what they don’t realize (and what I learned on my pediatrics rotation in medical school) is that most obese children have obese parents, and consume the majority of their fatty foods at home.

Liberals also think that if they ban guns, then crime will automatically go down. However, what they don’t realize is that criminals still will find a way to get guns, and then 76 year old men will become defenseless prey to street gangs.

So therefore, it’s only natural for liberals to also think that if they can control what people, say, watch or listen to, then that will somehow stop paranoid schizophrenics from going on murder sprees.

That’s from reason #2 on the botched coverage but check out the entire essay and particularly the clip from the daily show about Happy Meals in San Francisco.

She also echos Micky Kaus’ statement concerning “meanness”.

I think that this has hurt the media and the far left long term. I also think that the left and the media deep down believes that Sarah Palin DOES have a chance to either become president or to influence the direction of the country for years. This, more than anything else is why the attacks never cease.

Update: Of course we could be all wrong and (via Glenn) it could have happened like this.

A week or so ago I wrote this concerning Stacy McCain’s Zeigest posts:

While the rest of us have been talking about the media Stacy McCain has been doing something interesting. Actually covering a possible motive and inspiration for the shooting in Arizona:

Today I’m looking at Bryon’s York’s latest and lo and behold guess what the topic is?

At a time when Loughner was increasingly unable to control his own mind, he apparently welcomed “Zeitgeist’s” message that there were sinister forces out there trying to control it for him. The meaning of “Zeitgeist’s” role in the Tucson violence is not that Loughner’s motive was political. It’s that the movie’s insane incoherence proved to be an awful stimulant for one dangerously incoherent mind.

When this eventually becomes the story of the shooting, lets not forget who was there before Byron, Before Rush and who kept on this story after ABC dropped it.

This is called “reporting”.

Tim Blair has a must read post today about how obsession, comparing the “Jewish conspiracy” fetishes in the Arab world with the Palin obsession of the left, it skewers all the right people and closes thus:

If Palin’s “extreme rhetoric” causes murders, perhaps we should be keeping an eye on media leftists, for they seem most taken by the popular Alaskan grandmother and Facebook pundit. Bizarrely, they also imagine that others – including 22-year-old drug-sucking gamer burnouts like Loughner – follow her with similar obsession.

More likely is that Loughner was simply a goon with a gun. Meanwhile, the broader case remains unexamined. If the “extreme rhetoric” of Palin and others leads to greater violence, we should see that reflected in homicide statistics. But the murder rate in the US keeps falling, according to the Washington Post last May: “For the third consecutive year, violent crime has declined in the United States, including a 7.2 per cent reduction in homicides.”

I blame Sarah Palin.

Meanwhile on our side of the Pacific Don Surber is mad as hell and isn’t going to take it anymore:

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

Don’t hold back Don tell me what you really think.

Meanwhile on the left we see the civility used when jealous of being unable to match the hits of a single law professor in Tennessee.

The myths of the left will likely continue but as facts continue to come out watch the mask continue to slip.

As you might recall Morning Joe went so over the top at the start of Friday’s show than I turned it off and watched the stooges all morning.

When the Eric Fuller statement came out and the left jumped all over it I was sure he would be the lead story on Monday, that was until he decided to publicly threaten a tea party person during the taping of ABC’s town hall on the Tuscon shootings.

Now I’m not a news director but I’d think that the irony of a shooting victim of Jared Zeitgeist Longhner threatening a tea party member, being arrested and involuntarily committed might actually be a story of interest that might bring discussion.

It would be interesting to see how they deal with this story, wouldn’t it? They have dealt with it all right. They’ve dealt it right out of the deck.

I have not seen a single mention of the event, not even a one liner in the base news segment. I’ve been watching since 6:04 and not a peep. Not a word.

Does anyone actually believe that if the roles had been reversed and the tea party person had been arrested it would have been the top story? How can these people actually justify this omission and is there anyone other than naive old me who expected better of them, that is actually surprised?

Let’s not pretend that the MSM is populated by “journalists” The MSM’s making Eric Fuller an unperson proves that it is now only populated by “journolist“.

Update: Nope not a word although I missed the “what have we learned today” segment but an inclusion there would be pretty lame. I’ve learned that MSNBC would rather protect their niche market than report news. I’ve also learned that Joe Scarborough was damn lucky not to be there to get a part of the blame today. Finally i’ve learned that an Instalanche is a great way to start the day. If you are a Glenn Reynolds fan who missed him on my show Saturday Night you can listen to it here. If you are one of those national advertisers that Glenn said is missing out on the 50,000 watts of my radio show, the ad rates are here.

Update 2: 24 hours later Way too early with Willie Geist discovers Eric Fuller reporting his apology. Will that rehabilitate him enough to make him the poster boy for the “blame the tea party” left? We will see.

Update 3: At least one reader was unclear on who Fuller was. This link explains it.

One of the dangers of demagoguery an issue is that if you are caught it’s hard to get your credibility back.

For several days the left decided that the Tea Party and Sarah Palin were responsible for the shootings in Arizona

Alas not only did the facts point elsewhere but the violent anger of the left was exposed

Then came the Palin attacks and the re-deification of president Obama alas reasonable people aren’t buying the Palin line when actually seeing her speech found it sincere and believable.

Meanwhile as the blogs (even media ones) continued to document the madness of the left (and the people continued to reject it) little bits of info came out that to take the luster off of the president’s event.

But the left thought they had hit the jackpot with Eric Fuller and a new narrative was born:.

Alas their hero managed to threaten a tea party member during the taping of a national broadcast and get himself committed.

And despite ABC’s downplaying the event it is at the top of Memeorandum although MSM sources don’t mention that it was a tea party member threatened.

Now the script for the Monday shows that was already written will need to be re-written again. Morning Joe should be fun.

The internet is just killing the left. When they expose themselves it just can’t be hidden anymore.

I feel bad for the people who were killed and wounded in Arizona, I really do, but the idea that a person who was shot, who never knew the shooter, who didn’t hear the shooter make any declaration knows what drove him is pretty loose.

I gave a pass to some of the friends of the victims on the day of the shooting. Their friends and/or family had been shot and/or killed and emotions were high, but as the evidence continues to show the shooter had absolutely no connection to anything remote resembling the tea party, Sarah Palin or the like, the media’s attempt to continue to assert this is frankly libelous. Then again this is from the actual day of the shooting when facts were not in evidence.

Of course as Aaron Worthing of Patterico’s Pontifications points out:

notice what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say he presently blames Palin, Beck, and so on for the attack. He is saying he did Saturday night. And of course that was the same night that Sheriff Nifong Dupnick was making his own intemperate remarks. So is it reasonable for the Mr. Fuller to have believed law enforcement on that issue on that night? Of course it is.

But you never hear them ask the obvious follow up question: do you still feel this way? And if you look at the rest of the report, created today, it is obvious that these people are completely dishonest. They have deliberately skewed every other piece of evidence to indict the right wing, leaving out every piece of evidence that might exonerate their targets. Why should we think they presented this man’s entire statement?

The use of “Democracy Now” (or as I like to call them ANSWER tv) as a primary source is always dubious to begin with but I guarantee you that will not stop the MSM for playing this for all its worth. This nearly guarantees that Morning Joe will be unwatchable for next week as politico is running with it and David Frum is already trying to weld it as a club. Way to go Dave, stand bravely cowering behind a man with a hole shot in him. Pretty low stuff.

The game is of course to play the Cindy Sheehan “Absolute moral authority” game. The left made Sheehan a national figure until she became a liability at which she was abandoned as a crazy. The goal of course is to bait us on the right to bait the right to hit the poor old fellow.

Bill Jacobson (who will be my guest on DaTechGuy on DaRadio on Feb 19th) gets it:

I wish you a speedy recovery, but you are wrong for all the reasons most of the rest of the world has come to understand in the last few days.

P.S., yes, you will be used by those who will hide behind your victim-status since they have no facts to support their theories

I feel really sorry for the man, the shooter used his blood to make himself famous and now the left and the media will use to try to salvage a meme they can’t support with facts. Disgraceful.

Meanwhile Stacy McCain, not taking the “attack the victim” bait, takes the trouble to use the shooters own words to make the case against:

  1. Jared Lee Loughner didn’t like ”illegal wars,” which are “unconstitutional,” an opinion you might have heard a lot circa 2002-2006 if you were hanging out with smelly peaceniks at International A.N.S.W.E.R. marches or Ned Lamont rallies.
  2. Jared Lee Loughner habitually used the term “genocide” to describe anything he was against – “Mom, this broccoli-and-cheese casserole tastes like genocide!” — just like every Chomsky-spouting punk who ever protested an Ann Coulter speech on a college campus.
  3. Jared Lee Loughner’s interpretation of the Constitution is nearly as crazy as the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
  4. Jared Lee Loughner hates cops, considers grammar a form of “mind control,” and felt that getting a “B” in class was a violation of his First Amendment rights. If he hadn’t become a mass murderer, he might have had a promising future as an ACLU lawyer.

You can find the video here.

The irony of course is the wars and genocide stuff would fit perfectly within the program schedule of Democracy Now.

Funny old world isn’t it?

Update: Apparently he isn’t being used, he is apparently out there bigtime:

Toward the end of the town hall meeting Saturday morning, one of the shooting victims, J. Eric Fuller, took exception to comments by two of the speakers: Ariz. state Rep. Terri Proud, a Dist. 26 Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

According to sheriff’s deputies at the scene, Fuller took a photo of Humphries and said, “You’re Dead.”

Deputies immediately escorted Fuller from the room.

Pima County Sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said later Saturday that Fuller has been charged with threats and intimidation and he also will be charged with disorderly conduct.

I think the left’s script for Monday has just changed.

Update 2: Stacy Reports that the left is playing the “Post Traumatic” card. In terms of my personal feelings, I’m willing to give him more of a break in culpability, but in terms of the law, that pity is irrelevant you can’t just let stuff like that go. Or as Spock once said: “I do not approve, I understand.”

While the rest of us have been talking about the media Stacy McCain has been doing something interesting. Actually covering a possible motive and inspiration for the shooting in Arizona:

Loughner’s favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change” as well as bigger studio productions with cult followings and themes of brainwashing, science fiction and altered states of consciousness,

Stacy has been all over this angle that has been largely ignored. Today he linked to the movie itself

ABC quoted the friend of Loughner concerning this obsession and was quickly threatened with legal action. Stacy continues:

Yeah, “considering legal action” is one of those wonderful phrases, isn’t it? There are entire blogs devoted to denouncing the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project as a cult or a scam or some combination of both, and yet the director is “considering legal action” because TV networks interviewed a friend who said Loughner was into watching Zeitgeist.

And it’s all because he’s challenging the “status quo” of the “Social System” which, of course, the real villain. Also, Peter Joseph/Merola wants you to know that he is a persecuted humanitarian. So if you criticize him, you’re just like those people who called Martin Luther King a commie.

Eventually there will be a trial and when it happens Stacy’s stories are going to be very linkable. Let the record show he was first.

After a tough drive and an afternoon of shoveling I was dead tired so I hit the sack early so I didn’t hear the president’s speech or read it yet.

The clips on the TV are OK. On Morning Joe they are giving it the Gettysburg Address treatment but I suspect if his entire speech was “I like cheeseburgers” they would find a reason to be complementing him but they have seen the speech and I have not so I’m at a disadvantage.

I still resent Joe’s statement that both sides were trying to make hay of this. One side attacked and the other defended.

I’ll withhold my own judgment on the speech until I read it and check some reviews. Anything I do before I take the kid to school will likely be here, after that I’ll put it on a new post.

Update: From what I’m seeing the speech was pretty good. Michelle Malkin notes it was a good speech.

If you missed last weeks show with Val Prieto or the one hour special about the Arizona shooting, have no fear you can listen to it here.

DaTechGuy show 8 PLUS our Arizona Special with John Weston, Roxeanne DeLuca, Val Prieto, Robert Stacy McCain and Barbara Espinosa

And remember all our episodes are available off the blog.

On facebook Sarah Palin puts out a video that first talks about the victims:

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Then quoting Ronald Reagan

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Then hits the media about responsibility:

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

And quotes some history:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?

And celebrates America:

Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

And a defense of liberty:

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

A thought provoking speech so how does Morning Joe react? They attack her for the use of the words “BlOOD LIBEL”. Ignoring that for two days the phrase has been used in this context:

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

That’s Glenn Reynolds (my guest this Saturday) on the media and the shootings. One of the most important bloggers in the world two days ago in the Wall Street Journal. It was quoted widely, but I didn’t remember the media hitting him over it.

But this is Sarah Palin, she who must be stopped. Apparently like the gift of flowers there is no occasion where attacking Sarah Palin is not proper, additionally the media had hit her for saying nothing, now they say she should be quiet.

Morning Joe followed up with Tim Pawlenty who failed to reject the “target” nonsense. This unwillingness to reject this meme has not only confirmed that I will not support him, but also means I will happily work against him. That’s not what a leader does.

Does this surprise me? No, I’m not surprised. Anyone watching the full statement can describe it in one word Presidential. President Obama’s statement will be held in comparison against it and it will be a tough act to follow.

And here is my conclusion/opinion. The “No Labels” crowd Morning Joe, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan crowd is using this incident and the blood of the dead and wounded to attempt to silence and put conservative voices that they consider “dangerous” on the defensive, voices they can’t beat in the court of public opinion or in the ballot box. I would call that Blood Libel.

If they are not ashamed of themselves they ought to be if they are capable.

Update: Tell me: if an unapologetic liberal lawyer who is also Jewish says Sarah Palin’s use of the term Blood Libel isn’t inappropriate can we let it go?

I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Will that do?