James Eric Fuller, Tucson Shooting Survivor, Arrested for Making Death Threats at 'American Conversation' Town Hall for ABC News

Yeah. How's that for conversation? Pretty much the kind of conversation we've been having all week on the progressive left.

Nice Deb call it the "irony of ironies."

But frankly, it's just more proof that the left's violent fantasies are driving their partisans to death threats and the politics of personal destruction. And it's sad too, since this guy simply needs to just take some time away for himself. Recover from the trauma. Man, that's a terrible experience to go through. Frankly, I was surprised to see him on Democracy Now!, although they're communists, so that explains how quickly events went down hill for him. See KGUN 9 Tucson, "Shooting Rampage Victim Arrested at ABC-TV Town Hall Meeting." And NYT, "Man Shot in Tucson Rampage Is Arrested at a TV Taping."

TUCSON — A victim of the shooting spree here that killed six people and wounded 13, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was arrested Saturday after he spoke threateningly at a televised forum intended to help this stricken city heal, the police and witnesses said.

The man, J. Eric Fuller, 63, a military veteran who supports Ms. Giffords, was “involuntarily committed for mental health evaluation,” said Jason Ogan, a spokesman for the Pima County sheriff’s office.

Mr. Fuller, who was shot in the left knee and back on Jan. 8, was among several victims, medical personnel and others who attended a special forum at St. Odilia Catholic Church hosted by Christiane Amanpour to be televised Sunday on ABC.

State Representative Terri Proud, a Republican, was sitting two rows behind Mr. Fuller. The topic of gun control came up in the forum, she said, and one of the speakers made a comment about a bill introduced recently in Arizona that would allow faculty members on college campuses with concealed weapons permits to carry guns.

Ms. Proud said she spoke up to clarify the bill’s language. Trent Humphries, the founder of the Tucson Tea Party, who was sitting one row behind her, rose to speak and suggested that discussion about gun legislation be postponed until after the funerals. He started to say that he had also been affected by the tragedy because a neighbor was a victim.

At that point, Ms. Proud said, Mr. Fuller blurted out to Mr. Humphries, “You’re dead.”

Mr. Fuller then began to “behave in a very odd manner,” she said. “He was making inappropriate comments.”

Ms. Proud said that after the forum ended, she went to one of the police officers providing security at the forum and asked him to file a report about Mr. Fuller’s remark to Mr. Humphries. The officer told her it was being investigated.

About five police officers surrounded Mr. Fuller and escorted him out. As he was leaving, Ms. Proud said, he turned and yelled, “You’re all whores!”

Actually, Fuller's not just a "Giffords supporter." He's a hardcore "Democratic activist," and progressives like Eric Boehlert have used his appearance on the communist Democracy Now! segment to taunt conservatives such as Michelle Malkin. Doc Zero has the details, and he adds:

Let me make this nice and clear for simple minds: getting shot does not confer either insight or sainthood, and neither does service in the military. I already know people like Bohlert understand the latter, since I don’t think you’ll see a “McCain-Palin” bumper sticker on his car. Every decent American should run like the wind from the creepy notion that certain people are completely above criticism, even when they question the very humanity of others.

Honorable military service is a strong point on any resume… but the military doesn’t stand for suppressing dissent through bloody slander. A lot of the people who think Eric Fuller’s military service make him impossible to disagree with usually have a much more… nuanced view of veterans, and their red-faced insistence on perfect virtue for their icons of the moment is very temporary. Ask Cindy Sheehan to read you the expiration date on her Absolute Moral Authority card.

Anyone who would go on the air to accuse Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, or John Boehner of having anything to do with Jared Loughner’s actions is a disgrace. Nothing they did earlier in life changes that, and their deeds earlier in life are not erased by their current willingness to become part of the most disgusting political narrative of the new century. It’s all part of the concept of free will, which implies the ability to choose badly, and be held accountable for it… no matter who you are. Despite the urging of fringe characters like Bohlert, the mainstream media might back away from Fuller because he’s such an obvious nut. Then again, certain networks might be unable to resist the temptation to lean forward.

And Jeff Goldstein piles on:

Right-wing extremism caused this violent outburst of left-wing extremism.

I eagerly await the breathless reports from CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC that tells us how Sarah Palin’s “eliminationist rhetoric” led to the Loughner shooting, which led to the wounding that directly led to a death threat issued against a TEA Party leader by a member of the left, whose crime seems to be his connection with the violent eliminationist rhetoric the left is so bravely fighting against.

By, you know, issuing death threats.

These people are who we knew them to be. And it’s been great to watch them try to hang themselves. Now, if only the establishment GOP will stop rushing over to cut the rope.

Democratic-Media Complex Fails Standards of Journalism in Tucson Reporting

At The New Republic, "How the Media Botched the Arizona Shooting" (via Instapundit):

When disaster strikes, journalists have to write something about it—and write it fast. That means they have to take mental shortcuts, calling up established narratives and laying them out like old wrapping paper for new and more ambiguous facts ...

But sometimes the shortcuts produce a journalistic stampede at the worst possible time. That’s what happened last weekend, when 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner shot six people to death at an Arizona Safeway and gravely wounded many more, including Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The dominant storyline in the press—one that persisted in the face of all the facts—was that right-wing hysteria and lunacy had given rise to Loughner’s atrocity. Only on Wednesday night, when President Obama delivered a speech that effectively told everyone to cut it out, was the stampede halted (one hopes). But it’s still worth reviewing how the nation’s leading periodicals descended into such mindlessness.

Let’s go back to this Saturday. When news of the incident first broke, bloggers began to speculate that this was a Tea Party-related incident. No evidence of that emerged. Once a little more information trickled out, The New York Times and other outlets linked Loughner to a far-right publication called American Renaissance. That likewise had no basis in fact. Over the next day or two, as Loughner turned out to give off numerous indications of mental illness but very few of right-wing ideology, the dominant analysis became, “Okay maybe this guy was nuts, but, still, he was at least indirectly a product of a climate of political hysteria.”

By Monday, The New York Times’ editorial page had kicked into action. It conceded that, sure, Loughner operated “well beyond usual ideological categories,” but, still, it was “legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.” The Los Angeles Times followed suit. It admitted that, sure, Loughner and “his own demons were primarily to blame,” but it still condemned the “increasingly incendiary and violent rhetoric that characterizes today's political debate,” for which “the right bears the brunt of responsibility.” Meanwhile, dozens of opinion writers were busily adding related but equally ethereal musings to the heap. Writing in the Guardian, blogger Jessica Valenti blamed a “country that sees masculinity—especially violent masculinity—as the ideal.”

Jessica Valenti? Somehow I missed the feminist angle all this week. Tired of #MooreandMe, I guess.

More at the link, in any case. (And now I won't be able to ignore the gender feminists, who've apparently blamed the shooting on "violent masculinity." Sheesh. What next?)

The Top 10 Most Ridiculous Left-Wing Attacks on U.S. Conservatives Following the Arizona Shootings

From Nile Gardiner, at Telegraph UK, "A Shameful Week for America's Liberal Elites":

This has been a hugely shameful week for sections of the American Left, who have exploited a horrific tragedy that claimed six lives, in order to advance political attacks upon some leading conservative politicians and media commentators, as well as an entire political movement in the form of the Tea Party. The vitriolic and hate-filled attacks have marked a low point for liberal media elites in America in the 21st century, even to the extent that President Obama himself, probably the most liberal US president of modern times, felt the need to rebuke this undignified and crass display of left-wing finger-pointing in his memorial speech in Tucson on Wednesday night.

And after all the accusations against an array of prominent public figures from Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, to Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, it emerged that the deranged shooter, Jared Loughner, was in no way influenced by political rhetoric, and indeed had no interest at all in politics. As Charles Krauthammer noted in The Washington Post, “rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence”.

I have compiled below a list of some of the most egregious examples of Leftist hysteria over the past week. It is by no means an exhaustive list – this list could easily be expanded to 20 or 30 further instances, especially crude statements from liberal politicians. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was among the very first to link the mass shooting to conservatives, and two of his hugely irresponsible pieces feature in the list below. The list also includes a major article from American Guardian writer Michael Tomasky, as an example of how the Left-wing vitriol of the last week emanated not only from the east and west coasts of the United States, but also in some cases from across the Atlantic.

So here is my top 10 list, which Telegraph readers will no doubt wish to add to in their comments ....

Check the link for the top ten. I actually missed a couple of these, so it's a great roundup. And Gardiner definitely nails it for the top spot. And thank goodness some folks across the pond aren't going bonkers. The Economist blames the 2nd Amendment guns for goodness sake.

And by the way, I think he worked up the Top 10 before last night's "Real Time." Otherwise, Bill Maher certainly would have made the cut: "The Lies of Bill Maher — And the Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11."

The Lies of Bill Maher — And the Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11

I saw this trending earlier on Memeorandum. But I caught the second half of last night's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO's 9:00am rebroadcast. It's even worse in full. Michael van der Galien has the essential background: "Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts."

The tea party bashing and atheist ravings are at the clip:

But early in the show Maher launched into a round of vicious blood libel:

"I thought the mantra of this administration coming in was never let a crisis go to waste. You know, if not now, when do we talk about this?," Bill Maher said on his HBO program.

"Are we going to do anything, are we going to use it?," he added.

"There is every way to connect this to partisan politics and talk radio and cable TV except evidence, there's just none of that," Democratic operative James Carville chimed in.

Maher said it should be politicized because the shooting was at a political rally with a politician speaking.

Maher continued his idea to "use" the shooting by blaming a certain ideology and political party.

"There is one side that deserves more blame. There is one side that has been fighting, has been fighting for the right of Americans to have assault rifles. That side deserves more blame," Maher declared.

God bless James Carville for attempting to slap some reality back into Bill Maher. But the "Real Time" host was having none of it. He's got his blood libel smear and he's going with it.

We've had this all week, and it's been debunked repeatedly. But blood libel is so powerful it's irresistable, and progressives will never acknowledge they were wrong from the start.

I can deal with that, as horrendous as it is.

But it's this second batch of lies this morning that's really loathsome, the libels against the faith of the Founders. Maher claims that the Founders "thought the Bible was mostly bullsh*t." Michael van der Galien calls him out:

I hate to break it to you, Bill, but the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. And those who weren’t orthodox in their beliefs, at least had a healthy respect and appreciation for religion.

Precisely.

But I want to elaborate a bit more on that. Readers should get a hold of Newt Gingrich's, Rediscovering God in America. The introduction is a powerful refudiation to the atheistic libels on the religiosity of the Founders, "Defending God in the Public Square":

There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s unending war against God in America’s public life ....

For two generations we have passively accepted this assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand the history and meaning of America as a country endowed by God.

The secular Left has been inventing law and grotesquely distorting the Constitution to achieve a goal that none of the Founding Fathers would have thought reasonable. History is vividly clear about the importance of God in the founding of our nation. To prove that our Creator is so central to understanding America, there is a walking tour of Washington, D.C. that shows how often the Founding Fathers and other great Americans, and the institutions they created, refer to God and call upon Him. Indeed, to study American history is to encounter God again and again. A tour like this should be part of every school class’s visit to Washington, D.C.

Religion is the fulcrum of American history. People came to America’s shores to be free to practice their religious beliefs. It brought the Pilgrims with their desire to create a “city on a hill” that would be a beacon of religious belief and piety. The Pilgrims were but one group that poured into the new colonies. Quakers in Pennsylvania were another, Catholics in Maryland yet a third. A religious revival, the Great Awakening in the 1730s, inspired many Americans to fight the Revolutionary War to secure their God-given freedoms. Another great religious revival in the nineteenth century inspired the abolitionists’ campaign against slavery.

It was no accident that the marching song of the Union Army during the Civil War included the line “as Christ died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” That phrase was later changed to “let us live to make men free.” But for the men in uniform who were literally placing their lives on the line to end slavery, they knew that the original line was the right one ....

At America’s Founding, religion was central. The very first Continental Congress in 1774 had invited the Reverend Jacob Duché to begin each session with a prayer. When the war against Britain began, the Continental Congress provided for chaplains to serve with the military and be paid at the same rate as majors in the Army.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin (often considered one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers) proposed that the Convention begin each day with a prayer. As the oldest delegate, at age eighty-one, Franklin insisted that “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the Affairs of Men.”

Because of their belief that power had come from God to the individual, they began the Constitution “we the people.” Note that the Founding Fathers did not write “we the states.” Nor did they write “we the government.” Nor did they write “we the lawyers and judges.”

These historic facts pose an enormous problem for secular liberals. How can they explain America without getting into the area of religion? If they dislike and in many cases fear religion, how then can they communicate the core nature of the people in America?

Look, even Charles Blow of the New York Times has denounced the left's relentless "witch hunt" in the wake of tragedy. And I've remained focused throughout the week on the left's blood libel especially as it goes against everything they claim to represent: human goodness and scientific truth, all bundled together in a benevolent "reality-based community."

Not.

It's the big lie of the new decade. I've cried at the losses, and we can never minimize the evils wrought last Saturday. And thinking about this, perhaps in some respects the scale of the Tucson massacre pales next to the monumental horrors of the September 11 attacks a decade ago. That said, of course an enormous comparison is to be made here to the left's politicization of both of these evils. Not only do progressives desecrate the lives and memories of the fallen, they dishonor Gabrielle Giffords' noble efforts at a politics of deliberative democracy. And if regular Americans can break through the lies and distortions of the mainstream (lamestream) press, we will be at a turning point that will consign progressive-Democrats to the dustbins of political relevance for a generation or more.

RELATED: "Accuracy, Civility, and the Violent Fantasies of the Progressive Left."

And check these search tags for more of my commentary: "Tucson, Arizona" and "Progressives."

Tunisia's Revolution

At WaPo, "Tunisia's President Flees the Country":

PARIS - After four weeks of steadily escalating riots across Tunisia, President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali lost his grip on power Friday. The country's prime minister announced that he was taking over to organize early elections and usher in a new government.

U.S. officials confirmed that Ben Ali, 74, had fled the North African country, but his whereabouts were not publicly known. Wherever he was hiding, the day's events suggested that his 23 years as Tunisia's ruler were over, submerged by a wave of unrest set off by economic deprivation, official corruption and political frustration in the mostly Sunni Muslim country.

The spectacle of the iron-fisted leader being swept from office was certain to resonate elsewhere in the Arab world. Smaller protests have erupted in Egypt, Jordan and Algeria in recent weeks as the region's many autocratic governments, often in power without the underpinning of democratic elections, have come under increasing pressure from similarly frustrated youths.

During a trip to the region this week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeatedly warned governments there that they must expand political and social freedoms or face unrest or worse. Clinton reacted Friday to Ben Ali's departure with a statement condemning government violence against protesters and calling for free elections.

"We look to the Tunisian government to build a stronger foundation for Tunisia's future with economic, social and political reforms," she said.

The United States has long considered Tunisia an important ally, in part because of Ben Ali's close cooperation with U.S. security officials in fighting al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. U.S. officials and regional experts say the United States has not been a target of the protests, which have focused mainly on economic issues and political freedoms.

A senior administration official who has closely followed events in Tunisia said the State Department has been quietly pressuring Ben Ali's government to undertake reforms.

The prime minister, Mohammed Ghannoushi, 69, in a solemn appearance on national television, vowed to abide by the constitution in laying the groundwork for a vote to choose a new government as soon as possible, in consultation with all political factions and social groups. He was not flanked by military officers and gave no explanation of Ben Ali's removal.

"Since the president is temporarily without the capacity to carry out his duties, it has been decided that the prime minister would exercise his functions," Ghannoushi said from the presidential palace in Carthage, near the capital, Tunis. "I call on Tunisians of all political and regional tendencies to show patriotism and unity."

President Obama condemned the use of violence against the protesters and urged the government to hold elections that "reflect the true will and aspirations" of Tunisians.

"The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold," Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

Also, at NYT, "Joy as Tunisian President Flees Offers Lesson to Arab Leaders." And, "Power Again Changes Hands in Tunisia as Chaos Remains." Plus, "Arab Bloggers Cheer on Tunisia’s Revolution."

And there's lots of good stuff at Foreign Policy, especially, Christopher Alexander, "Anatomy of an Autocracy, and Evgeny Morozov, "First thoughts on Tunisia and the role of the Internet." A slideshow as well, "The Tunisian Moment."

Some raw video here: "Tunisian Unrest: View from the Streets."

Nicole Kidman: The Interview

The Public Relations Office at Hearst Magazines sent me the cover image, and Nicole Kidman's one classy dame so here you go ...

At Harper's Bazaar:

And for the record, I've avoided celebrity blogging this past week while trying to learn about and report on the tragedy in Tucson. That said, Robert Stacy McCain's been keeping up with the hottie headlines, for example, "We Hate You, Jake Gyllenhaal."

Expect more on the celebrity side of things in upcoming days. It's been a sad week.

Cameras, Technology, and the Fight for Human Rights

At Reason.tv, a powerful discussion with Yvette Alberdingk Thijm, Executive Director of WITNESS, a Brooklyn-based human rights organization:

Gabrielle Giffords Faces Key Test in Ability to Speak

Didn't get chance to post this video earlier, of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords reading the First Amendment in Congress just days before being shot in Tucson.

And I will continue my prayers for her full recovery, so that she'll be able to deliver many more readings in Congress and in her community, and beyond.

Her ability to do so remains to be seen, of course, as the Wall Street Journal reports, "Doctors See Positive Signs as Key Test Looms":

TUCSON, Ariz. — Doctors said critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords continued "to make all the right moves in all the right directions," but the bigger challenge ahead was her ability to speak and write.


Ms. Giffords, who sustained a bullet wound to her brain last Saturday in a mass shooting outside a supermarket here, has been showing promising signs. One of her eyes was bandaged after being damaged by the bullet. On Wednesday, she first opened her unbandaged eye, and has opened the eye more often since.

When assisted, she has been able to sit up and dangle her legs over her bed, and has also been rubbing an eye and yawning.

"She is beginning to carry out more-complex sequences [of movement] in response to our commands, and even spontaneously," said Michael Lemole Jr., chief of neurosurgery at Tucson's University Medical Center, at a news briefing there Friday.

Neurologists who specialize in severe brain injuries such as Ms. Giffords's said each sign so far has been positive, demonstrating a general trajectory forward, yet not conclusive. But the true test will come, they said, when the breathing tube is removed.

Ms. Giffords's ability to speak hasn't yet been tested because of the tube, which could be removed very soon.

"She'll maybe say her first words and it could be a Neil Armstrong moment," said Stephan A. Mayer, chief of neuro-intensive care at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia Medical Center.

Lori A. Schutter, director of neuroscience intensive care at the University of Cincinnati Hospital, said that if Ms. Giffords "has limited speech, there could be damage to a section called Broca's area, or connections from there to other areas of the brain." Dr. Schutter said young adults and children have better chances to develop new brain pathways to improve speech and other functions, but that it might be possible for the 40-year-old lawmaker to do so as well.

It would be a key development "if we start getting signs that she is writing her husband notes," Dr. Schutter said.

RTWT, and be sure to check the graphic of the brain's critical speech production and comprehension areas.

Added: A report from this evening's PBS News Hour:

The Progressive Smear Machine Blames the Right — Again

Check Michelle's post, "Blame Righty: A Condensed History":

On Monday, as the progressive smear machine worked overtime to pin the horrific Tucson massacre on conservatives and to squelch political opposition by targeting Tea Party/limited-government rhetoric, I published “The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.”

Today’s column provides another primer for the amnesia-wracked blamestream media on just how widespread the Blame Righty meme has been over the past two years. Regular readers of this blog are well aware of this expanding litany outlined below. You are also well aware of the cunning ability of the Left to hinder exposure of this sordid history by accusing its chroniclers and whistle-blowers of “playing the victim.” Sarah Palin is the most prominent conservative to encounter this tactic, but she is by no means the first conservative public figure to experience it. Kabuki outrage over her use of the term “blood libel” is an intended distraction from the history outlined below that undergirds her message. The political speech suppressors have honed their craft long and well.

The solution isn’t to “tone it down” and turn the other cheek, but to confront them forcefully with the facts — and to fight back unapologetically against insidious efforts to diminish the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech and activism of the Right in the name of repressive “civility.”

Check the link for the full syndicated column.

Michelle links to my report from June 10, 2009: "Shooting at National Holocaust Museum - UPDATED!!" And reading that again is truly déjà vu all over again.

RELATED: Firedoglake is still hammering on this, fully one week after the shooting: "Gun Sight Ad Still Part of Palin’s YouTube Channel."

Sickening. But there'll be more, much more. I'm sure.

Gabrielle Giffords is Model of Deliberative Democracy

During my first few days of the semester this week I was afforded an unusual opportunity to engage in a discussion on "deliberative democracy," the theme of my textbook, from Joseph Bessette and John Pitney, American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy, and Citizenship. And as announced by the publisher, a key element of the the text is the focus on "thoughtful, selfless consideration of issues and on civic participation as essential components of good citizenship."

And it strikes me that while the "deliberative democracy" model outlined there is often quite idealistic, we do have many role models for the kind of elevated politics to which the model aspires. And while I'm about as partisan as they come, I noticed immediately that Gabrielle Giffords was a different kind of Democrat, a moderate "Blue Dog" with strong credentials on security and border control. So it's interesting that today's Los Angeles Times features a background report on Congresswoman Giffords stressing these key points, "Arizonans Praise Giffords as Politician Who Tried to Remain Above the Democrat-Republican Divide":

Outside the Tucson office of gravely wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the well-wishers bearing crumpled notes and pink roses are emblematic of the breadth of her support.

They are tattooed college students and flannel-clad construction workers. They are retirees who clutch their canes and weep. Giffords is Jewish, yet many leave candles depicting the Virgin Mary. Giffords is a Democrat, yet many are Republicans.

"I saw her as a voice of reason. In Arizona, they're real hard to find," said Sharon Baker, a 63-year-old Republican whose face fell at the sight of the cluster of red and blue balloons, greeting cards and stuffed animals.

In a state known for rhetoric gone wild, Arizonans are mourning more than Saturday's shooting, which killed six people and left Giffords battling a traumatic brain injury. The gunman's actions have, for the moment, silenced a rare voice of calm amid the political cacophony.

"She appealed to everyone and that's what we need. We need to elect more Gabby Giffordses," said Laura Walls, 47, a personal trainer who visited the roadside tribute this week. She voted for Giffords' "tea party" rival in November.

There's more at the link.

And I don't want to downplay partisan differences too much here. Rep. Giffords supported progressives on both ObamaCare and cap-and-trade (the one-time hot Democrat prioriorty item), but she certainly appeared as genuinely interested the process of governing itself --- and she has served as an especially dedicated representative of her constituents. And I admit to having a soft spot for her, given that she voted against Nancy Pelosi as the House Minority Leader.

I'll have more on Gabrielle Giffords in the days and weeks ahead. God bless her.

(The interview above is from January 7th, the day before she was shot --- i.e., her most recent television appearance.)

Tucson Survivor Claims Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Sharron Angle 'Got Their First Target'

At communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!, "Tucson Shooting Survivor: 'It Looks Like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the Rest Got Their First Target'." (Via Memeorandum.)

PREVIOUSLY: "Harvard's Jill Lepore Ties Jared Loughner to Tea Party 'Constitution Worship'."

RELATED: At Politico, "Tucson shooting victim blames Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle," and Jammie Wearing Fool, "Tucson Shooting Survivor Blood Libels Palin, Boehner, Beck and Angle."

Harvard's Jill Lepore Ties Jared Loughner to Tea Party 'Constitution Worship'

Jill Lepore is the David Woods Kemper ’41 Professor of American History and Chair of the History and Literature Program at Harvard University. She's also the author of The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History, a book that "offers a wry and bemused look at American history according to the far right" (published by Princeton University Press). And she's a staff writer at The New Yorker as well, where she's just published an intriguing article on the tea party's "worship" of the U.S. Constitution: "The Commandments."

It's an important article, to be fair, both reasonable and informative. While reading it I thought it might be a useful addition to the first week's readings on my syllabus for Introduction to American Government. (And, interestingly, others had roughly the same thoughts.) That said, I couldn't help noticing the graphic artwork accompanying the piece. I read this in hard copy while out for coffee, and the full 8 ½ by 11 image is quite dramatic. Notice the placement of the American eagle above "We the People." The wings are spread wide and at the breast is a coat-of-arms replicating the colors of the American flag. This isn't an image that's commonly seen at tea parties. In fact, it more closely resembles the Reichsadler, the national insignia of Nazi Germany. This makes sense if we keep in mind the far-left sensibilities of The New Yorker's elitist mindset and readership. That doesn't make it any less disingenuous and reprehensible.

But it gets worse. Noticing that the timing of her publication coincides with the shooting massacre in Tuscon, Lepore posted a blog entry at The New Yorker tying Jared Loughner's ravings on the Constitution to her thesis of the far-right's "cult of the Constitution." And the editors have illustrated the post with the same artistic misrepresentation of the tea parties (screencap here). Lepore of course offers the obligatory disclaimer, twice, that Jared Lee Loughner was clinically insane. And with that task complete, she deploys the same despicable blood libel to smear conservatives and the tea party movement, "Jared Lee Loughner and the Constitution":

Loughner had lost his mind. Early reports have it that he had also posted on his MySpace page a photograph of a U.S. history textbook with a gun on top of it. In September police had to remove him from a classroom at Pima Community College, after he called the syllabus “unconstitutional” and delivered what his professor called “a rant about the Constitution.” In December he posted on YouTube a statement reading, “The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America’s Constitution.”

Reading the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment, is what I happen to have written about in this week’s magazine. I started writing this essay in September, and finished it in December, because I was struck, all fall, by how American political rhetoric had been shifting from a battle over the memory of the Revolution to a contest over the Constitution.

No one knows why Jared Lee Loughner did what he did. Maybe no one will ever know. No one can explain madmen with guns. There’s a corridor at the John F. Kennedy Library where the walls are painted black and where television monitors play, night and day, a single scene: Walter Cronkite announcing Kennedy’s death. He takes his glasses off; he looks at the clock; he puts his glasses back on. He takes them off. He says not a word. And then, he puts his glasses back on.

Again, notice the rank dishonesty. "No one knows why" Loughner did what he did, but despite that Lepore and The New Yorker have gone above and beyond the left's call of duty to firmly place him within the ranks of the alleged tea party "cult of the Constitution."

And there's some additional background. It turns out that Lepore spoke at a panel discussion on the "Tea Party" at the 2010 New Yorker Festival at DGA Theater in October. The festival was cited at the Toronto Star in November, where Lepore is interviewed: "The U.S. Constitution as Celebrity." The piece shines additional light on the thinking of the progressives elites:

“What we're seeing at the Tea Party rallies is a comic-book, American heritage version of the past that comes in defiance of historical analysis,” says Jill Lepore, an award-winning Harvard University history professor and staff writer with The New Yorker.

“It is in some ways a religious revival for an America that simply never was. The founders, the framers of the Constitution, believed in skepticism and reason and inquiry, working with a set of ideas that came from the Enlightenment. It was reason against passion. And so to just sort of revere the Constitution with religious fervour, waving it around like a talisman, is antithetical to the document itself.”

Lepore tackles the issue head-on in her new book, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History, and comes away with considerable nuance. Combining interviews with Tea Partiers and her own scholarly study of America's founding era, she traces the Tea Party's roots to the bicentennial of the 1970s, when few Americans could agree on how to tell the messy story of the country's beginnings.

Then, as now, the U.S. roiled with divisions that Lepore believes are driving today's Tea Party movement.

“Vietnam, Kent Sate, Watergate, all those assassinations — it was a time when it felt really bad to be American, and a portion of our population never really got to the other side of the crisis,” Lepore told the Toronto Star in an interview this week.

“They've been looking all this time for a way to feel good about it again. And I find it heartbreaking that there are these people who felt they lost touch with the meaning of American until they found it in the Tea Party movement. It's sad because, as an historian, I do have a narrative of the meaning of America that I find very powerful — but I guess I and my colleagues haven't done a good enough job of sharing it.”

We've long seen how tea party envy has been a common theme for the Obama era (the "coffee party," for example), and in Lepore's interview we see the lament that academic elites have failed to tap the tea party's populist vibrancy. And so, when people and movements find themselves failing to be on the right side of history (like the progressives), they lash out. They attack and disparage. And they engage in libelous accusations that work to destroy any efforts at civil debate they purportedly claim to champion. All of this is hardly surprisingly, although it's certainly dispiriting, in one way after another.

Anyway, William Jacobson's got related thoughts, "The False Narrative Of Tea Party Violence Attempts Suicide." And Instapundit on "heated rhetoric." Plus, at American Spectator, "Mark Levin's $100,000 Challenge to Chris Matthews." (via Memeorandum).

Finally, at The Other McCain, "How to Talk to a Follower of the Zeitgeist Cult (If You Must)."

Jared Loughner's Troubles at Pima Community College

At NYT, "College’s Policy on Troubled Students Is Under Scrutiny."

And also, "‘Creepy,’ ‘Very Hostile’: A College Recorded Its Fears":

TUCSON — Officials at Pima Community College, where Jared L. Loughner was a student, believed that he might be mentally ill or under the influence of drugs after a series of bizarre classroom disruptions in which he unnerved instructors and fellow students, including one occasion when he insisted that the number 6 was actually the number 18, according to internal reports from the college.

In 51 pages of confidential police documents released by the college on Wednesday, various instructors, students and others described Mr. Loughner as “creepy,” “very hostile,” “suspicious” and someone who had a “dark personality.”

He sang to himself in the library. He spoke out of turn. And in an act the college finally decided merited his suspension, he made a bizarre posting on YouTube linking the college to genocide and the torture of students.

“This is my genocide school,” the narrator on the video said, describing the college as “one of the biggest scams in America.” “We are examining the torture of students,” the narrator said.

The documents offer vivid firsthand accounts of Mr. Loughner’s contacts with law enforcement officials in the months leading up to the shootings, and will inevitably be studied closely for answers to whether the college did everything it could have, and should have, with him.

The college overhauled its procedures for dealing with disruptive students last year. As part of a revision to the code of conduct, it introduced a Student Behavior Assessment Committee, a three-member team that includes the assistant vice chancellor for student development, the chief or deputy chief of the campus police and a clinical psychologist from outside the college.

The team meets as needed to respond to students who have acted violently or threatened violence, or who may pose a threat to themselves or others. It came into existence in September, the same month Mr. Loughner was suspended following the five disruptive incidents reported to campus police.

A campus official involved in setting up the behavior committee, Charlotte Fugett, president of one of the college’s five campuses, would not say whether the committee heard Mr. Loughner’s case.

RELATED: At Atlantic Wire, "Loughner's Descent Into Madness," and Wall Street Journal, "Postings of a Troubled Mind: Accused Shooter Wrote on Gaming Site of His Job Woes, Rejection by Women."

Sarah Palin is Right About 'Blood Libel' — UPDATE!! Jonah Goldberg Walks Back 'Very Modest Objection' to Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'

From Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, at WSJ, "Judaism Rejects the Idea of Collective Responsibility for Murder":

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel ....

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

Great piece.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: The Knoxville Metro Pulse is libeling Instapundit, "Is Glenn Reynolds Getting Sarah Palin in Trouble?":

... Reynolds is no stranger to overheated rhetoric himself. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, he famously called anti-war skeptics "objectively pro-Saddam." (And of course, if you're looking for rhetoric that did help lead to a whole lot of violence, all of the war-drum beating that people like Reynolds did in late 2002 and early 2003 is a fine example.)

All the war-drum beating that "people like Reynolds did" led to a "whole lot of violence"?

Well, there's some more collective guilt for you. Asshats. "Rhetoric" isn't to blame for the violence last weekend, or in 2003. See, "Tucson and the Failure of the Political Class" (via Glenn).

UPDATE: Here's Goldberg, "‘Blood Libel’ and Beyond" (via Memeorandum):

As for the “blood libel” flap, I’ve decided to ratchet down my already very modest objection to the term. While I still think it would have been better had she not used the phrase, so much of the criticism of it is in bad faith. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. Moreover, she’s hardly the first person to use the term outside the bounds of discussions of anti-Semitism. She wasn’t even talking about “the blood libel” but warning against the creation of “a blood libel,” which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing. The “controversy” was a red herring and little more.

And this just isn't going away. At Politico, "Some Say 'Blood Libel' Signaled Base":

Sarah Palin’s use of the charged term “blood libel” may not have been an accidental blunder, but a deliberate “‘dog whistle” appeal to her evangelical Christian supporters for whom the expression has meaning, commentators and others are saying.

Taegan Goddard, founder of nonpartisan news site Political Wire, floated the idea after the release of Palin’s video remarks Wednesday, writing that “… while it’s not entirely clear what Palin intended, it’s possible she was trying to use dog whistle politics to speak to her religious base who often feel they’re an oppressed minority.”

Commentators have adopted the phrase “dog whistle” to describe Palin’s use of certain words and ideas that will be immediately heard and understood by conservative Christians, but often will not be picked up on by the broader public.

Evangelicals relate to the phrase “blood libel” because they view themselves as a religiously persecuted minority - much like the Jews.

Well, I love the smell of desperation in the morning ... or the evening, be that as it may. The left's "dog whistle" is simply a dishonest ideological construction to facilitate racist smears when there is no real racism in the first place. In this case, I'm not quite sure what utility Palin would have in dog whistling: She is embattled. Before folks in Tucson even knew what happened the progressive-left erupted with despicable allegations of Palin's complicity to murder. It doesn't get more sick than that, and as Goldberg's walk-back indicates, some in the conservative Jewish community may be realizing that criticisms of Palin only work to embolden those who aren't their friends. It's pretty straightforward actually. Progressives are the new anti-Semites, and the right's pushback against Palin is having an enabling effect on the far-left. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Krauthammer updated some of his remarks in the near future. He certainly agreed Palin was libeled. He simply suggested that she'd have been better off remaining above the fray.

Christina Taylor Green Laid to Rest

At LAT, "Funeral Held for Christina Green, 9-Year-Old Victim of Tucson Shooting":

The U.S. flag that flew atop the World Trade Center is displayed at the service for Christina Taylor Green, who was born on Sept. 11, 2001. 'I felt I had to be here to pay my respects,' says a mourner outside the church.

Less than a week after the deadly mass shooting that left six dead and 13 injured, Tucson began to bury the dead on Thursday.

The first funeral from Saturday's shooting was for the youngest victim, Christina Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl who was born on Sept. 11, 2001, the day of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The U.S. flag that flew atop the World Trade Center was displayed at the funeral, linking the two tragedies that served as parentheses enclosing the brief span of the child who has become a symbol of how violence can shatter a life.

Hundreds of mourners lined the roadway leading to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton church, where the funeral began at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Many wore white and carried a single rose.

"I felt I had to be here to pay my respects," said David Johnson, 38, of Phoenix. "It was something I felt really strongly about. It hits really close to home."

According to the program, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas led the service, a Mass of resurrection. Readings included Psalm 23 and John 14:1-6.

The University of Arizona choir performed as did a piper, who played "Amazing Grace."

The front of the program had a picture of a smiling Christina wearing a tiara. On the back were the lyrics to Billy Joel's "Lullaby," with its haunting lyric, "Good night my angel, now it's time to sleep."

PREVIOUSLY: "Christina Taylor Green (Profiles of the Arizona Shooting Victims)."

RELATED: "Why Progressives Lost It."

Why Progressives Lost It

It's interesting, as Charles Krauthammer noted earlier, but by late Sunday (at least) it was beyond any doubt that Jared Loughner acted alone --- Loughner committed crimes of unimaginable evil on his own, without any impetus from Sarah Palin, conservatives, the Tea Party, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. But the charges of guilt by both allegation and implication continue, so it remains important to once again recall why the progressive left has been insistent on spreading hate and lies following the massacre. From Daniel Henninger, at WSJ (via Memeorandum):

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

The calculation flows from the shock of the midterm elections of November 2010. That was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation.

Only 24 months after Barack Obama's own historic election and a rising Democratic tide, the country flipped. Not just control of the U.S. House, but deep in the body politic. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

What elevated this transfer of power to historic status is that it came atop the birth of a genuine reform movement, the tea parties. Most of the time, election results are the product of complex and changeable sentiments or the candidates' personalities. What both sides fear most is a genuine movement with focused goals.

More at the link.

And more later ...

Obama's Address at Tucson Memorial

I shared my emotions previously, at the Daniel Hernandez essay, but I'm not to begrudge this too much. It was respectful. But it was Obama. He goes through the motions. He can't shake the mien of indifference. That, and the partisanship. I hate the Wellstonianism. The Democrats need a mass murder to get behind this president and rally the base. Sad. And despicable. (More commentary here.)

Charles Krauthammer: Palin's Statement on Tucson 'Unfortunate and Unnecessary'

Krauthammer responds to Jewish criticisms of Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel."

He mainly laments that Palin gave the speech at all. Sure, it might be a sensitive issue given that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish, and she's fighting for her life while the rest of the nation debates allegations of "blood libel"? I'm personally not bothered by the use of the term as it's applied to the libelous attacks on Palin and tea party conservatives. Frankly, Glenn Reynolds' essay at WSJ the other day has been one of the most penetrating: "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel." Harvard's Alan Dershowitz vigorously defended Palin today. And Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider writes that "Sarah Palin has finally weighed in with a long, thoughtful reaction to the Arizona tragedy and all the talk that it was somehow the result of 'heated rhetoric'." There's still lots more up on this at Memeorandum, but see the Los Angeles Times, "Sarah Palin Video on Giffords Aftermath Stays True to Who Palin Is":

The video had elements of a presidential-level address, with an American flag featured prominently in the frame. Palin spoke in a calm tone — noticeably different from her rousing "mama grizzly" style during last year's election campaign — about the democratic process and the need to condemn violence "if the republic is to endure." She appealed for a common response to the tragedy, saying, "We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate."

She released the video on the same day that President Obama traveled to Arizona to speak at a memorial service, and won a position opposite the president on many news outlets. By comparison, potential GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee this week issued statements on the shootings that went largely unnoticed.

Ken Khachigian, a former speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Reagan and a longtime GOP strategist in California, said he was struck by Palin's bearing in the video, saying he thought the former vice presidential nominee "appeared more grown-up."

"She captured some of what she did at the [Republican] convention in '08," he said. "She was more conversational, more dignified."

In her message, Palin did not refer directly to accusations that her use last year of a map showing Giffords' Arizona district, among others, targeted in crosshairs helped foster a climate of violence. Instead, she said, "After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern and now with sadness to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."

The resulting "blood libel" serves "only to incite the hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said. "That is reprehensible."

Jewish groups and others reacted swiftly, saying Palin had associated her political plight with centuries of anti-Semitic behavior. A "blood libel" is a term that dates back to the Middle Ages, when Jewish people were accused of using the blood of Christians in religious rituals.

"Palin's comments either show a complete ignorance of history or blatant anti-Semitism," said Jonathan Beeton, a spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who, like Giffords, is Jewish. "Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Rep. Giffords' faith and the events of the past week."

But Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, commenting Wednesday on the Big Government website operated by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, defended Palin's use of the term.

"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim," Dershowitz said.

More at the link.

And previously: "The Great Communicator: Sarah Palin Calls Out Despicable 'Blood Libel'."

And see Instapundit here and here.

Daniel Hernandez Speaks at Tucson Memorial --- UPDATED!!

Gabrielle Giffords' intern gave an excellent address, if not the best of the night. I'll have more commentary later. I was moved to tears at a couple of moments during the evening, when Gov. Brewer spoke so eloquently and when President Obama announced the Rep. Giffords had opened her eyes tonight for the first time since Saturday's massacre. But I think Mr. Hernandez's address will really stay with me as representing dignity and poise in the American tradition, and a maturity far beyond his years. He's a hero despite his best efforts to live down the honor:

Until later, see Michelle's live blog, "Branding the Tucson Massacre" (at Memeorandum).

Also, Lynn Sweet, "'Gabby Opened Her Eyes For The First Time:' Obama At Tucson Memorial." Plus, at New York Times, "Obama’s Remarks in Tucson" (via Memeorandum). And, "Obama Calls for New Era of Civility in U.S. Politics," and "Facing Challenge, Obama Returns to Unity Theme."

UPDATE: YouTube took down the video, but here's another from an audience member:

Plus, FWIW, Olby interviews Hernandez:

Progressives and 'Blood Libel'

Palin's statement is at the link: "The Great Communicator: Sarah Palin Calls Out Despicable 'Blood Libel'."

Progressives are going crazy over the meaning of "blood libel." See Media Matters, "Palin, Conservatives Invoke 'Blood Libel' Accusation to Attack Their Critics Over AZ Shooting."

Ben Smith notes the background:

The phrase "blood libel" was introduced into the debate this week by Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, and raised some eyebrows because it typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, and has been used more recently by Israeli's supporters to refer to accusations against the country. It's a powerful metaphor, and one that carries the sense of an oppressed minority.

Glenn has been responding, and he links to AoSHQ, who destroys progressive criticism:

I think many liberal commentators realize that the slime job isn't working. So they have decided to simply deflect and object to something else about Palin. Now they're claiming that there is an "uproar" that she used the term "blood libel".

First, there's no uproar. Yes, the objection appears in a NYTimes blog and all over Daily Kos. But that's it. Because even their own definition of "blood libel" includes the manner in which Palin used the term.

Here's the NYTimes; I have emphasized the key word:

By using the term “blood libel” to describe the criticism about political rhetoric after the shootings, Ms. Palin was inventing a new definition for an emotionally laden phrase. Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term has been used for centuries as the pretext for anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews.

Typically. Typically, but not exclusively, blood libels have been accusations against Jews. But blood libels have also been made historically against Christians -- including Catholics and the Knights Templar -- witches and pagans, and, more modernly, Satanists.

Liberals need something to mumble about, so goshdarnitow sometime between yesterday and today the term came to apply only to the Jews. They'd like you to believe this is "another" example of Palin's ignorance, even though, as I said, by their own definition her use of the term is appropriate. As with their response to the Arizona shooting, facts-be-damned they've got a story and they're sticking to it.

And see Alan Dershowitz:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Also, Yid With Lid (Jeff Dunetz), at Big Journalism, "What’s Wrong With Sarah Palin Using the Term Blood Libel?", and Pamela Geller, "A Conspiracy Against the Mind, Against Life, Against Man and the Virtue of Sarah" (also at Big Government).

More at Memeorandum.

The Great Communicator: Sarah Palin Calls Out Despicable 'Blood Libel'

It's Reaganesque.

The full text is here.

Additional commentary:

* The Hill, "Palin accuses media of 'blood libel' in Giffords shooting aftermath." (Via Memeorandum.)

* At LAT, "Sarah Palin unapologetic after criticism related to Arizona shootings‎."

Added: There's a debate over the origins and usage of "blood libel":

* Ben Smith, "The origins of ‘blood libel’."

* Jonah Goldberg, "“Blood Libel”."

And from Charles Krauthammer, "Massacre, followed by libel":

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

Obama Plans Call for Unity at Memorial for Tucson Victims

Is Tucson Obama's Oklahoma City?

Well, no actually. But the political similarities are fascinating, and it's certainly time for the president to make good on his pledge to heal the nation's partisan wounds. Those aren't metaphorical anymore. See Mara Liasson, "'Consoler In Chief': Tough Role In Partisan Times."

The White House is making plans for President Obama to visit Tuscon, Ariz., in the aftermath of the deadly shooting there, although a person familiar with the president's schedule tells NPR that the details of Wednesday's visit were still being worked out.

In the past, presidents have been able to unify the country during moments like these. But in today's hyperpartisan political climate, even those potentially unifying moments can be hard to pull off.

Many Americans look to the president for reassurance in times of tragedy. At these times, he is the "consoler in chief." Ronald Reagan, for example, performed this role beautifully in his speech honoring the astronauts who died when the space shuttle Challenger blew up in 1986.

"We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of Earth, to touch the face of God," he said.

George W. Bush had an impromptu but affective moment as he shouted through a bullhorn on top of a pile of rubble at the World Trade Center site in September 2001: "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

Reagan spoke after a terrible accident; Bush after coordinated terrorist attacks. But in 1995, President Bill Clinton faced a situation more similar to the one Obama faces today: an attack on federal employees at the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

"Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear," he said at the memorial service for the Oklahoma City bombing victims. "When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us honor life."

More at the link.

Laisson has more from McCurry, who suggests that an "Oklahoma City moment" is impossible "in a time when we chew up and spit out political ramifications more quickly than 16 years ago."

I don't quite buy that. The evidence is inconclusive that the political environment is more politically polarized than it was in the 1990s. I do think that the changing mass media environment has an amplification effect --- that the loudest and most vitriolic voices receive outsized airtime, and this is exacerbated by the reverberations of ideological cocooning. The feedback from the most strident voices in the MFM and netroots fever swamps gains a favorable hearing in the Democrat Party establishment, where we've seen a deep and lasting move to the ideological left in recent years (at the congressional level today the party is bolstered by a striking number of ideological socialists).

In any case, see also NYT, "Obama Speech to Focus on Serving Country."

RELATED: "Have You No Sense of Decency, Rachel Maddow, at Long Last? Have You Left No Sense of Decency?"