writing in the wsj, James Taranto has an excellent exegesis of the execrable calumny from Paul Krugman (and the Times'), that ignited the orgy of hate in the wake of the atrocity in Tucson. -- Big Lies and Little Ones Paul Krugman's only example turns out to have been fraudulent. By JAMES TARANTO Yesterday we noted that Paul Krugman, the New York Times's star columnist, had offered only one example to bolster his claim that "eliminationist rhetoric" is "coming, overwhelmingly, from the right." To quote Krugman's Monday column: 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. As we noted in yesterday's column, in October then-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, mused about assassinating a fellow politician. Not only was he not ostracized; he was rewarded with a spot yesterday on the op-ed page of Krugman's newspaper. But what about the Bachmann quote? We doubted whether these three words, presented without context, constituted "eliminationist rhetoric" as Krugman claimed they did. Our skepticism turned out to have been well founded. In March 2009, the left-wing site ThinkProgress attempted to present Bachmann in an unfavorable light by using a longer version of this comment. Blogger Dave Evers nonetheless found the site guilty of "selective quoting" and made his case by presenting the quote in its full context. It's not terribly interesting but is important to commit to the record. Here is what Bachmann said (Evers tells us that the ellipses reflect pauses, not omitted text): But you can get all the latest information on this event, this . . . a must-go-to event with this Chris Horner. People will learn . . . it will be fascinating. We met with Chris Horner last week, 20 members of Congress. It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wowed them. And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people--we the people--are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. So go to bachmann.house.gov and you can get all the information. Now, if Krugman had said the words "armed and dangerous" were ill-chosen, we would have agreed. If he had said they were irresponsible, that would be a legitimate opinion, albeit one we would be inclined to discount as partisan. But that is not what he said. Krugman, who recreationally burns politicians in effigy, described Bachmann's comment as "eliminationist rhetoric." That is flatly fraudulent. If the broader claim--that the "rhetoric" of Republican politicians and the nonliberal media was to blame for last Saturday's act of mass murder--is true, why can't it be presented without false factual assertions? Krugman's little lie undermines the big lie he and his newspaper are attempting to purvey. Krugman and his colleagues on the Times editorial board are not skilled enough to be effective liars. That is far from the worst thing you can say about newspapermen. But when did the people who run the New York Times forget that their job--their duty--is to tell the truth?
too bad you reject the idea that urging guns and violence as solutions to political problems is wrong. I'm sorry that suggesting inflammatory rhetoric and violence as a political solution is the wrong way to move forward is offensive to you. I hope you are able to eventually accept those ideas.
too bad you reject the idea that urging guns and violence as solutions to political problems is wrong. I'm sorry that suggesting inflammatory rhetoric and violence as a political solution is the wrong way to move forward is offensive to you. I hope you are able to eventually accept those ideas. I'm not talking about this thread alone but the rejection of the ideas that violence is not a suitable solution to political problems since it has been recently brought up. I believe B-Bob was correct that you are paid for the posts and threads you make here, so I guess it's kind of like work for you. Either way I hope you soon reject the idea that violence should play a part in politics just like advocating violence in politics should be rejected as well.
again- are you being willfully obtuse? did you read the OP? no one suggested using guns and violence as substitutes for politics.
Dumb choice of words for the topic of energy tax. Revolution? Armed and dangerous? Lose our country? Really?
so you'd agree then that Krugman's (and the Times') willful distortions of the truth were (are) dangerous? in as much as they served to ignite a virtual pogrom against Palin and the right, endangering the unity that is the norm in the wake of national tragedy...what do you suppose their motivation was?
I don't think the context of the quote (which proved to show even dumber language choices) changed Krugman's point at all.
The reason why Krugman and the rest of the JYT did this was to make you look like a fat-middle-aged jew-baiting toolbag, and hence obtain your bukkit. It worked.
All that S&W needs is a cross or "john 3:16" scrolled into the barrel and you could pretty well sum-up the entire conservatice agenda. The funny thing is, as a liberal or progressive or a socialist or whatever someone of Bachman's ilk would call me for being center left, I would REALLY like to have that there pistola in MY collection sans the cheesy flag grip and any biblical references.
Again, I'm not talking about just this thread. Tea party nominee Sharon Angle, and would be campaign manager Joyce Kaufman certainly did. So again... too bad you reject the idea that urging guns and violence as solutions to political problems is wrong. I'm sorry that suggesting inflammatory rhetoric and violence should not be a political solution is offensive to you. I hope you are able to eventually accept those ideas.
