The New York Times continues to fan the political flames under the front page headline, “In Giffords’s District, a Long History of Tension”:
…tensions have long run high in the Eighth Congressional District of Arizona, a classic swing district that shares a 114-mile border with Mexico. Protesters chained themselves to the desks of Ms. Giffords’s Republican predecessor, Jim Kolbe, 12 years ago. And over the past year, Ms. Giffords struggled in a brutal re-election campaign during which her opponent appeared in a Web advertisement holding an assault weapon. The district has become a caldron of divisions over government spending, immigration, health care and Barack Obama.
Today, the Eighth District stands apart as one of the most emotionally and politically polarized in the nation.
The rampage on Saturday that left six dead and Ms. Giffords gravely wounded may prove to be an isolated act of violence by a mentally disturbed man. The suspect attended at least one of Ms. Giffords’s town meetings before the event Saturday.
Still, the shootings came after a disconcerting run of episodes in this district of mountains and desert, raising temperatures here in a way that some of Ms. Giffords’s friends argue fed an atmosphere that might encourage violence…
All of the above is politically contentious opinion masquerading as “analysis.”
The Times also implies that Ms. Gifford’s owning and carrying a gun had something to do with the “climate” in Tuscon:
…Ms. Giffords made no secret at that time of saying she owned a handgun.
…“She was extremely concerned about it,” said Thomas Warne, a friend and fund-raiser. “She was concerned about various threats that the office had received: they were general threats on the office itself, on her life.” …
I know it’s hard for the sophists at the Times to imagine a woman, particularly a Jewish Democrat like Giffords, actually liking guns as the Congresswoman does. Still, it’s extremely dishonest to strongly imply that she was forced to carry a weapon because of the “tension” in Arizona.
Apparently the left thinks that their opponents have cornered the market on paranoia and vitriol. But since the Kennedy assassination, the left has left the right wing in the dust on that score.
It was the left which refused to accept the fact that a Marxist Castro supporter killed the Democratic president and proclaimed Kennedy to be a victim of “hate” and a martyr for civil rights. Oswald, inconveniently, supported civil rights; it was Kennedy’s anti-communism, particularly directed toward Castro, that motivated him. The successful campaign to transform Kennedy into a civil rights martyr, despite all facts to the contrary, gave birth to the left-wing conspiracy theorists who are still peddling their nonsense almost a half-century after Kennedy’s murder.
More recently, ask yourself which political persuasion decided George Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks and/or that Israelis had something to do with it, and that Jews were told not to report to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11? Not Sarah, not Rush, not the Tea Party. And which side claims that Bush/Cheney and company knew in advance of the war that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction despite not a single shred of evidence to support that claim? Indeed, the left cannot produce a single intelligence agency in the world that believed he didn’t have such weapons.
Since the Kennedy assassination, the left has produced more paranoia and hate than Joe McCarthy ever did, and there actually was reason to fear communist subversion (as we now know with certainty) even if the senator himself was a clueless buffoon.
…This McCarthyism of the left—devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data—is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.