Ugh.  Am I some kind of sicko?  The very first thought that went through my mind when I heard a Congresswoman was shot was I hope it was a Republican.  I knew, just knew, that if it was a Democrat the nasty left would sure as hell try to make some political hay out of it.  Sure enough.

Almost before ambulances arrived on the scene prominent lefties blamed the right wing climate of hate in general, and Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh in particular, for the actions of a lunatic.  These wild accusations were based on absolutely nothing but their fevered imaginations worst opinions about the evil right wing.

If nothing else the left sure is predictable and the rhetorical bile that ensued followed is an exclamation point on the rule.  An exception would have been so much more welcome, giving us more time to digest and grieve, but no such luxury was afforded once the opportunity to score political points presented itself.  As we saw, truth had no bearing on the matter.  Their respect for truth was as present as their respect for decorum at the memorial service.  (Great Speech, terrible audience, shades of the Wellstone service a few years back)

So as the week wore on the charges appeared flakier by the day, finally to the point where President Obama himself had to disavow the nonsense personally at the pep rally memorial service.  What are the motivations of people who fling groundless accusations around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade?   I'm not sure, and hold out hope they do not represent the majority.  Or do they? 

I recall Ann Coulter answering a question about why her campus appearances bring out the worst of the left.  Tongue only partly in cheek she opined that perhaps it's because they get so frustrated at their inability to articulate a coherent argument they resort to throwing food, a reference to a pie-throwing incident at one of her events.  She may have been on to something, since throwing food has all the maturity displayed by Krugman et al. 

To some people, Paul Krugman and the New York Times for example, the mere existence of conservatives is ample and sufficient explanation for all things evil and wrong in the world.  Some of Krugman's deep wisdom on the subject: 

"Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment."

and this
"So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe."

and, since is such a rich vein to tap... 

"Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

Oh wait a minute, those quotes weren't from this week, they were lifted from a June  2009 column called The Big Hate .  Why, it's almost as though the Pulitzer prize winner is working from a predetermined narrative.
 
YA THINK???

What Loughner did was give aid and comfort to Krugman.  Unfortunately for Krugman the only thing less abundant than Loughners sanity was any hint of political motivation for his actions. 

The more I observe the public debate the more it becomes apparent that the basis for much of what I hear from that end of the spectrum is nothing more than pure animus toward the the other end.  They are so entirely convinced on the evil of conservatism that not only can they do no right, but everything wrong is somehow their fault.   

The word prejudice is derived from prejudgement, the arrival at a conclusion before any facts are determined.  Another is, per Webster c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.  

A bigot, is a practitioner of prejudice or as Webster would say:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. 

I have always been curious about the drive behind the animus the left holds for the right.  I mean I think the left is wrong, but I don't think they are evil.  Prejudice and bigotry are two of the most incendiary and volatile words you could come up with but I'm afraid you couldn't find any more accurate terms to describe how they responded to a genuine national tragedy.  If it happened to a Democrat a Republican was at fault, true or not, they were compelled to barf their bigotry as though it was well considered and should be taken seriously.

The irony was the political watching bigot bemoan the lack of civility - - apparently clueless to the idea that accusing a group of being an accessory to murder is about as uncivil as it gets.  Are they so comfortable with their double standard that this wouldn't even occur to them? How does THAT work exactly? 

Looks like Orwell's adage that only a liberal can hold 2 opposing thoughts at the same time while believing both to be true was at play here.  In watching the reaction I was also reminded of the phrases putting out fire with gasoline, and the old standby boy who cried wolf.

The speed, ferocity, and volume of the response to the bogus charges was quite impressive. 

The silver lining is the alternative media makes fast work of denouncing and calling the media out on its bullshit.  Note the rights response was not an effort to shut anyone up or chill speech.  It was simply giving notice to the left that their double standard franchise has expired along with their monopoly on the public narrative.

The days of the right passively accepting lectures on tolerance from intolerable hypocrites are over.  The alternative media brought them to heel in short order, and it's a good thing.  If we are to have an open dialogue, for a change, they had better get used to having their opinions challenged.  We are not going away, and we will not shut up.   

Blogger and columnist Don Surber  put it another way:

"The left wants us to be civil after being so uncivil for a decade.
Bite me.
 I have been screamed at for 10 years. Its my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say." 

John Hayward, a.k.a. Dr Zero, now writing at Human Events sees this as a sign of the ultimate demise of the left in his Jan.14 column .  From his keyboard to God's inbox...

The blood libel is a wail of desperation from a dying movement furiously trying to claw its way from the grave of history.  They’re screeching at Middle America to ignore the devastating arguments against them, because the people making those arguments are evil.

I am not sure who coined the phrase but think I saw it first in James Taranto's Best of the Web Wall Street Journal column years ago
" Save free speech, it makes it easier to spot the idiots"

Ron Radosh at Pajamas media offers a milder more thoughtful rebuke....
"So yes, civility and dialogue is necessary. But so is honesty. And that is something we can no longer expect from the liberal and left columnists at the New York Times."

Honesty is something I haven't credited on the New York Times since they decided it was to Democrat electoral advantage to publish state secrets despite the Bush White House admonishments to refrain. 

Yes, America had a really tough week.  Instead of letting her grieve and mend, the left were compelled, as always, to demonize, without hesitation, facts, or class.  In other words, they lived up to their stereotype.