Grayson blames Palin for Arizona shooting

[Still a Democrat]

Former Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) blamed Sarah Palin for the Arizona shooting that severely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in an email Wednesday.

Rep. Grayson, who was one of the more fiery House Democrats until he lost reelection in 2010, said in an email to supporters today that former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) had provoked the shooting that resulted in six deaths and thirteen wounded including Rep. Giffords who suffered a gunshot to the head, the Orlando Sentinel reported.

...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/138867-former-rep-grayson-blames-palin-for-arizona-shooting

[madokie]

1. I'm inclined to agree with him

[jaysunb]

3. Me too n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. Here is the actual email

Dear ,
When I opened my web browser yesterday, at yahoo.com, there was Sarah Palin, smiling at me.
“Oh, God,” I said to myself, “what has she done now?”
The headline was “Palin Defends ‘Blood Libel’”. That’s interesting, I thought. What else might Palin be defending? Cannibalism, maybe?
Well, it turned out to be a report on Palin’s disjointed remarks on Sean Hannity’s show, regarding the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I then watched the report. Let me summarize it for you:
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
Hannity: I am so misunderstood.
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
But there was one person who seemed to understand Sarah Palin quite well. Gabby Giffords, herself, during the health care debate. Discussing threats against Democratic Members of Congress. After the door to her office was shattered. This is what Gabby said:
“You know, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is the way that she has depicted it is the crosshairs of a gun-sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action.”
And here is Palin’s blithe response, on Hannity’s show: “That map wasn’t an original graphic.”
What is that remark supposed to be, Sarah? An exculpanation?
Even before I heard earlier Palin’s whining about “misguided finger-pointing” and “irresponsible statements from people who are apportioning blame,” I thought about this:
Palin came to my district, and told her people to “take me out.”
Palin told people again and again, “don’t retreat, reload.”
The day before the health care vote, one of my five-year-old twins received a telephone death threat intended for me.
A right-wing commentator offered anyone $100 to punch me in the nose.
We received so many threats of violence from teabaggers that we started a file.
And the day before Gabby was shot, I received a postcard saying “you better get some personal protection. You could very well be getting your ass kicked soon.”
Cause and effect. As Gabby put it, “there are consequences.”
Of course, I wasn’t the only target of these threats.
Gabby’s tea party opponent held fundraisers in which he invited contributors to fire an automatic weapon.
Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s opponent conducted target practice on her initials.
Democrat Ron Klein’s opponent told his supporters to make sure that Klein was “afraid to leave his house.”
Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy.
Democrat Tom Perriello was burned in effigy. And the gas line to his brother’s house was cut.
Democrat Emanuel Cleaver – a minister – was spat on.
Democrat Russ Carnahan had a coffin left at his home.
I could go on, but you get the point. Cause and effect. “There are consequences.”
And the Republicans? The shot supposedly fired at Republican Eric Cantor’s office was quickly exposed as a hoax.
As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: “We can’t stand for this.” We have to stand against it.
Courage,
Alan Grayson

[bobbolink]

18. Excellently worded email.

This is one Democrat who actually knows how to use the language to good effect..... he includes a spine in his words.

If he would only take such a strong stand against poverty and homelessness, I could be a whole-hearted supporter of his.

[DonCoquixote]

38. is there a case where he does not

as he is one of the few willing to actually attack the rich

[bobbolink]

41. Since you didn't say so, I'm guessing your are talking about my comment that he doesn't talk about

poverty and homelessness.

I would appreciate it if you would find some quotes from him, and post them here.

Thank you.

[DonCoquixote]

42. here you go

http://blog.graysonforcongress.com/?tag=/homeless+veterans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCylyNv-RHw
http://blog.rockforhunger.org/2009/04/learning-about-grants-with-alan-grayson.html

[bobbolink]

43. I would certainly hope that Grayson would vote for funding for homeless vets! Wouldn't that be

pathetic if he didn't?! Isn't that the least that *any* Dem can do?

Giving a speech on government grants constitutes advocating for poor people? Really? That is really weak.

And, yes..... he did a lot of talking about middleclass people, and assisting them to keep from falling into poverty. That was the bulk of his talk about people... the middleclass. He never really addressed poverty per se.

Being in that category myself, I was profoundly disappointed. He has a great voice, he knows how to use language, and NOT to speak out for us added to my sense of hopelessness. I kept thinking he would, but he is all about the middleclass.

I have a feeling that you will not be willing to hear that pain. I have a feeling you will brush me aside, as is common to do with poor people. Doing so is what is weakening this party further, and is the same as telling people their lives don't matter, and neither do their votes.

[DonCoquixote]

44. no I wont

actually the big ticket item was where he helped homeless advocate actually get grants, which is one of the kinks I sent. That is actually practical. That money is what actually makes shelters. The rest was gravy.

[bobbolink]

45. I hope you have read enough of my posts to know that I do NOT advocate building more shelters.

We already have a glut of "shelters".

What is needed is HOUSING.

Can you please share with me a speech or action on Grayson promoting low-income housing?

I would like to see that.

You skipped right over what I said about his emphasis being on the middleclass.. he said it over and over and over and over. He didn't talk about poor people.

I realize that it doesn't matter to you, because Grayson is a hero for you, but there is PAIN in being ignored.

And that silence and that pain reflects at elections.

[DonCoquixote]

46. here you go again

http://www.wftv.com/news/18993396/detail.html (about low income housing)
http://170.97.167.13/local/fl/news/pr2009-10-13.cfm (low income housing again)
http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=6264 (again)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20113568/LEGISLATIVE-OPTIONS-FOR-PRESERVING-FEDERALLY--AND-STATE-ASSISTED-AFFORDABLE-HOUSING-AND-PREVENTING-DISPLACEMENT-OF-LOW-I

[bobbolink]

52. As I said, I get that he is your hero, and you don't wish to hear anything to the contrary.

I don't see that continuing this is of any benefit.... you simply cannot hear the pain in my words, or in my situation. You are more concerned with defending him than with hearing another person's pain.

This is my last attempt, as I don't see this going anywhere, and you can choose to make an effort to understand, or you can throw me (and others) under the bus. It is your choice.

"Renovation"--putting in railing and enclosing garbage, is NOT creating more housing. That should be obvious to you and everyone. With a growing number of homeless seniors, to be willing to overlook the crying need for NEW HOUSING is clearly ignoring us.

Providing "counseling" is NOT the same as providing HOUSING. That should also be clear. What should also be clear is that I pointed out to you that an effort like this is aimed at MIDDLECLASS people who are just now facing the problem. There are MILLIONS WHO HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR YEARS. Why do you insist on ignoring that? Or do you really NOT understand the difference between people who have lost their homes that they OWNED because of foreclosure, and people who simply cannot afford ANY home? Do you truly not get that?

Your third one, about "vouchers", is also a red herring. It is like school vouchers... it doesn't address the problem. Again, if you were willing to hear the actual problem, rather than throwing defences at me, we could actually communicate.

I will repeat now for the 3rd time what you keep ignoring... Grayson repeats over and over and over the phrase "HELP THE MIDDLECLASS". Period. That is his clear priority. I have come to the point of wondering if he even KNOWS that there are people who are poorer than the middleclass.

I have asked you to walk in my shoes, and understand what it feels like to be so totally invisible. To NEVER be spoken about as even worthy of consideration. To be left out of EVERY conversation. When you refuse to even hear that, you are clearly not interested in anything other than your own view.

This morning I heard Bernie Sanders on the radio, and he did the same thing... repeating over and over and over and over... "HELPING THE MIDDLECLASS". I was to the point of tears... here are two men I admire, and see as very good men, who CANNOT SEE ME.

If you are ever able to come back to me and let me know you can hear that pain, then we have something to talk about that. Until then, you are only one more person trying to overcome with power your own view on someone who you consider beneath you, and who you refuse to consider. THEN you will turn around and blame us for giving up on the political process... which we have been left out of.

Open you heart, please.

Bye.

[DonCoquixote]

53. Sorry you feel this way

When I gave an example of him saying we need to help the homeless, I thought that would help. You spoke, and I agreed, I needed to get something toothier. When I saw him actually help get low income housing built in Orlando, I thought that could be a concrete, toothy, non shelter example of what we needed to see. However, at best, he is a drop in the bucket, and we all know that if he talked as much about the poor as he did the middle class, he would be hated, because, even among the so called "working class heroes" on this site, they believe that people are poor because they are lazy and EVIL. I see people talk about Unions here, and yes, Unions are important, yes, we need unions to ensure that people can have a decent living, but I still remember that up north, the Unions used to hate Hispanics with a passion, and they considered poor people lazy. Many of them were happy to be racist, keeping brown people out, which meant that the brown people could be lumped into the "unskilled labor" which ensures a life of poverty.

However, I did defend Grayson, because he dared actually support low income housing, because he did use the "h" word, and was surely and deliberately punished for it down here in central Florida. I do not know what part of the Nation you live in, but as someone who lives in Florida, I can tell you that the media machine was full blast, and they did speak of him supporting lazy homeless people, and that analogy did stick hard enough to get him out of office. The comments were thick, especially from these middle class "independent" voters who thought that if Grayson spent as much time helping middle class people as much as he did "those" people, he would possibly win. Now,I do not need to tell you what they meant by "those" people; hell, you are the one on DU who schools people on what that really means, and get hated for it.

Granted, if we were wiser as a society, we would see that the difference between poor and middle class is a missed paycheck, something that most middle class people cannot and will not see, because America believes that people are poor because people are bad or cursed, thus they do not want to see people like you, or for that matter, people like me who would be homeless save for the disability everyone (including many people who think of themselves as middle class) want to gut. I will not pretend to know what you feel, but I can tell you that I( have survived enough brushes with homelessness to know that the only thing that makes the difference is sheer luck, and not the false idols of "hard work" or "education" or "union membership" or "class solidarity" (which means to most people that they identify with their class and tell everyone that is supposedly below them to go to hell.

I am not saying he is perfect, but I defended him because he was one of the few that dared say the word homeless, and he got pilloried for it. However, the truth is, we do not need more graysons, nor do we need any of the "class consciousness" some here tend to sell as a cure all. When the middle, and yes, even the working classes get a little bit of good, they tend to say "i'm all right jack" and hit the poor harder just to stay ahead. What we need is an actual destruction of the very notion of class as it exists in this country, because truth be told, unless you are one of the bluebloods, everybody is a paycheck away from being poor, which means that the full force of modern society, the society that believes that hard work and education is a cure for anything, will bear down on you because you are the living embodiment of the fact that is antithetical to existence.

Was that a slight improvement at least? No snark meant, because frankly, regardless of whether you believe me or not Bobbo, you are one of the few people I actually respect here. Note, we disagree sometimes, but I would hope that is because we both try to be honest as we can be.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. Sanders and Grayson are great, but you are right they tend to talk mainly about

the middle class. Is it because that's where the bulk of voters or donations come from? I'm not sure. Or maybe it's that many people identify with being middle class, even if they don't actually qualify as being such. (I am one of those people, myself, I guess, because I have a college degree. But financially I don't think I qualify.)

The lack of housing and homelessness are the elephant in the room, politically speaking. No one's really talking about it. No one's _really_ talking about the lower class, the working poor, the long-term unemployed, the disabled and the homeless. They might mention them in passing, but no one is digging in hard and really working on a solution. Heck, you hardly even hear about the problem in the media, so why would they report on attempts at solutions??

I mentioned in a thread earlier this week that I am working on a letter to my representatives and to media figures concerning the housing crisis. I'll be posting it when I get it ready, in the hopes that I can get other people to jump on the bandwagon and do a little of that DU activism. :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

55. I'm glad you noticed the glaring omission. ^_^ Here is the self-fulling

prophecy..... if they don't talk about poverty because they don't SEE that poor people do the obvious, they VOTE, then by ignoring us, they are turning us off and WILL lose our votes. Can they really afford to lose one more constituency?

Yes, saying that poor people don't have the money to contribute to campaigns is true, and usually obvious, although we all know that poor people give more proportionately than do affluent people. They also contribute a lot of time and effort and passion to campaigns..... is this worth losing? That is beside the moral imperative to take care of ALL citizens... they are elected to represent EVERYONE, not just those who contribute to their campaigns!

One more thing about poor people voting, that gets ignored... remember in 2000 and '04, when so much voter suppression was going on? Remember that much of it occurred in inner cities? Why do you suppose that was?

Because: Poor. People. Vote. Democratic!

Poor people stood in lines for 3 hours, 5 hours, 7 hours... even 9 hours just to vote? Can you imagine affluent people doing that?

Yet, then the claim is made that poor people don't vote.

Shame!

[tavalon]

24. Gee, that's a lot different than the insinuation on The Hill

[DCKit]

4. She had LOTS of help. nt

[jdlh8894]

5. What' a "fiery" ?n/t

[Taitertots]

6. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

There is nothing to support that position except that one (crosshairs) happened before the other (Arizona Shooting).

[EFerrari]

12. And that Sarah's stump speech had people screaming

"kill him" "off with his head" and "terrorist".

Yes, that's incitement and she knew it, and kept going.

[Taitertots]

19. It is still, Post hoc ergo propter hoc n/t

[EFerrari]

31. Only if you ignore the entire context, which means

not bringing all the information to bear.

[Taitertots]

36. Only if you ignore the use of logical reasoning

There is nothing to support your position except that those events were sequential.

[Zoeisright]

28. Bull. Shit.

There is a connection. Otherwise, why did the shooter shoot someone who had literally been targeted? He could have killed anyone in the entire city, but he went after the ONE WOMAN who had a rifle scope aimed at her.

[Taitertots]

29. Why did the shooter do it? You don't know

You have no evidence that the rifle scope image had anything to do with his motivations. It is a logical fallacy, you have no evidence aside from the fact that one came before the other.

[JuniperLea]

33. This wasn't his first Giffords event either...

Interesting how that is being left out of the news and so many conversations here.

[no limit]

7. Did he really say that? If he did the guy must like being treated like a clown

nobody knows what provoked this shooting.

[emulatorloo]

10. no he didn't say that -- see actual email posted above.

[no limit]

13. Thanks. You would think the hill would have some better standards for what they post

shit, who am I kidding. This is what they do.

[Divine Discontent]

8. love Grayson! her comments certainly were very well released around the USA, and her rhetoric was

some of the most charged of all the blathering violence-seeking fools...

[DesertFlower]

9. she didn't pull the trigger, but

i hold her responsible.

[no limit]

16. You hold her responsible based on what?

[DesertFlower]

35. here's one example:

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/sarah-palins-hit-list/

how about "don't retreat, reload".

[cali]

48. oh, please. that's some thin evidence.

[emulatorloo]

11. That's a really poorly written headline by thehill. Email does not say that.

[sabrina 1]

21. True, I received the email also and would not have

characterized his words that way.

He is correct in pointing out that Rep. Giffords had expressed concerns about the rhetoric directed at Democrats by Palin et al and as a result of imagery, such as the 'crosshairs' map.

It's true that the shooter cannot be said to have been influenced by that particular map. But that doesn't excuse Palin at all.

And she is still attempting to defend the use of the vitriol that we KNOW instigated others to go after Democrats.

It is shameful that she cannot simply make a statement now saying that in light of the fact that so many Democrats, including Giffords, were threatened as a result of the climate of violence created by the right, that she will no longer engage in it. There are better ways to get your message across.

They just can't do that. They are bullies and authoritarians and they have for so long been taught to attack 'liberals' as the enemies of this country that they would be lost if they could not continue to do so.

[emulatorloo]

26. Without demonizing/violent rhetoric, they have nothing.

Their ideas are bad. They only way they can sell them is by convincing people that Democrats are evil, so evil that they are worth killing.

[louis-t]

14. The email was so good, I saved it.

[JuniperLea]

15. Giffords' previous statements on the issue...

Remind me very much of Nicole Brown Simpson's journals and photos showing the spousal abuse she endured. She said if she turned up dead, OJ did it. Giffords clearly felt stalked... and this guy attended more than this one event.

As Queen of the TeaBaggers, Palin's mouth utters vile crap that incites. There's no question about that, none at all.

That said, we really don't know one way or the other... we don't know what was in that guy's head. No one does.

THAT said, I don't blame Grayson for trying to use this as an example. The violent speak crap needs to stop.

[no limit]

22. Then why did Giffords say she didn't fear for her safety in any way?

Was she lying?

[JuniperLea]

30. Where did she say that?

What was the context?

The only thing I can recall in that vein is when she said she wouldn't stop doing these events.

[no limit]

34. In the very same interview you just referenced:

http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2011/01/08/rep-gabrielle-giffords-in-march-interview-with-msnbc-re-palins-targeting/

About a minute in Chuck asks her if she is in any way fearful for her safety. She says she is not.

[JuniperLea]

37. So she's not 100% psychic...

She is turning it around and getting it away from being about her, saying, "it's important to focus on the Democratic process."

[no limit]

39. You claimed hearing her talk in that interview reminded you of Nicole Simpson

Nicole Simpson was scared. Nicole Simpson blamed OJ for any potential harm to her. Rep. Giffords did no such thing and as she said in the interview she was not fearful.

[JuniperLea]

40. You can't dictate what my mind thinks about...

She said words have consequences. Clearly.

[no limit]

47. And you can't pretend that she didn't say what she clearly said

that she was not fearful.

[JuniperLea]

49. I never did pretend that...

I'm thinking from a Rep's perspective. She's reciting a long list of issues that are quite frightful, but is it in the best interest of said Rep to state she's actually afraid? Hell no. That would make her unfit for the position. If there were no fear factor at all, why mention the ridiculousness?

I know, without question, that words have consequences. I make my living with words; more to the point, the effect words have.

Try telling a PR or ad person that words and images have no effect.

[no limit]

50. I don't want to get in to a huge argument with you because I know what you are saying

but I don't agree with the characterization that Giffords was in any way comparable to Nicole Simpson. From her interviews she clearly wasn't. The only point that she was making was that putting crosshairs on districts is not a good thing to do, which she is absolutely right about. We have no way to know if that's the reason she was shot, but even without knowing that we know that's something that shouldn't be done.

[JuniperLea]

51. I'm saying her videotaped words were quite prophetic...

As were Simpson's writings. That is comparable.

[Angry Dragon]

17. No one has the right to call her a former Governor

She was elected to a job she wanted, she decided that she did not want to do that any more.
She failed to live up to her obligation.
For that reason she is not a former governor

[JuniperLea]

32. True...

She never fully served as governor.

[Tx4obama]

20. Here's Alan Grayson's post on his FB page - the email text with embedded links in it

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/alan-grayson/gabby-was-right-palin-is-wrong/183975068292147

[tavalon]

23. Not that I needed the confirmation that "the hill" is a rightwing rag,

but the comments below certainly make the case that it is.

Alan Grayson is hardly a has been. He'll actually be back, whereas Sarah Palin will not.

[malaise]

25. I love Grayson

Hey Alan :yourock:

[Kingofalldems]

27. He's an expert wordsmith who handled a sneaky freeper

quite well recently.