How about those violent Democrats?
What is it that has come over Democrats lately with their use of violent imagery?
First, it was Vice President Biden when he spoke before a Democratic Party fundraiser in Minnesota last Tuesday. During his remarks, the Vice President said he would “strangle” the next Republican who talked about balancing the federal budget.
The following day it was President Obama who said during a radio interview that the election of a Republican Congress in November would result in “hand-to-hand combat.”
Now we have West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin actually firing a rifle and putting a bullet into the heart of the cap and trade bill in a television political ad. Manchin finds himself staring down the barrel of an unexpectedly tough battle to hold onto the U.S. Senate seat that was vacated when Robert Byrd passed away last June.
Could you imagine the uproar that would ensue from the Left if Sarah Palin had said she would strangle a Democratic politician?
Could you imagine the howls of outrage from liberals if George W. Bush had said prior to the 2006 mid-term elections that a Democratic Congress would result in hand-to-hand combat?
Could you imagine indignation from Democrats if a sitting Republican governor running for the U.S. Senate had appeared in a political advertisement firing a rifle let alone carrying one?
Of course, we really don’t have to imagine any of these things at all. Remember last March when Sarah Palin’s Political Action Committee produced a map with crosshairs targeting twenty Democratic members of the House of Representatives who had voted for Obamacare? There was outrage from liberals across America.
“Sarah Palin is targeting — yes, with gun sights — House Democrats facing tough reelection fights who voted for health care reform,” huffed the Huffington Post.
Yet during the 2004 Presidential election campaign, the Democratic Leadership Council used a “Targeting Strategy” map against President Bush. The caption beneath the map read, “BEHIND ENEMY LINES: President Bush won nine states by single-digit margins. These states should be ripe targets for Democrats.”
Given that both a movie was made and a book was subsequently written about the assassination of President Bush it should come as no surprise that liberals did not object to the 43rd President being targeted with gun sights.
Or how about the headline that read, “Who’s palling around with terrorists now?” Jed Lewison of the Daily Kos wrote:
Of all the images to convey about her movement, it is revealing that Sarah Palin chose one associated with violence. Palin’s rhetoric comes amidst a surge in right-wing extremism, a time during which she should be urging cooler heads to prevail instead of fueling the most radical elements of her base.
Yet somehow I don’t think Lewison is going to take Obama and Biden to task for using images associated with violence. Nor do I expect Lewison to take a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate — even a conservative Democrat — for firing a gun in a political ad if it keeps a Republican from gaining the seat.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?