Shooting opens divide on inflamed rhetoric

Mon, Jan 10 2011

By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a town where politics never rests, the shooting of U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords quickly opened a sharp divide on the role of inflamed rhetoric in the assault and on the proper response to its growth.

The Arizona attack ignited a flood of finger-pointing and pontificating on the sometimes overheated state of U.S. political discourse, even as politicians largely vowed at least a temporary halt to the battle of words in Washington.

The motives of suspect Jared Lee Loughner, 22, remain unclear in Saturday's shooting, which killed six people and left Giffords in critical condition. Those who knew him said he was troubled and had a history of disruptive behavior.

Some liberal commentators and bloggers questioned whether last year's election rhetoric from conservative Republicans like Sarah Palin and Tea Party candidates created a climate that bred violence.

Palin, the 2008 vice presidential candidate and a potential White House contender, urged conservatives to "reload," not retreat, after a fierce debate over President Obama's plans to overhaul the hugely expensive healthcare system.

She posted a map with gunsight cross-hairs on the districts of 20 Democrats -- including Giffords -- to be targeted in November's elections.

"It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be," said James Fallows in the Atlantic.

Conservatives said the left was trying to gain a political edge from the tragedy and limit the gains of newly ascendant Republicans and the conservative Tea Party movement.

The left is "accusing people who had nothing whatsoever to do with this sordid, unfortunate event," right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on Monday. "What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it."

GUN IMAGERY COMMON

The use of violent and gun-related imagery is common in politics in the United States, where gun control is frequently the subject of heated debate and gun violence is not unusual. It became even more prominent in last year's contentious congressional elections.

Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, a Nevada Republican Senate candidate, threatened "Second Amendment remedies" against Congress if it did not change its ways -- a reference to the constitutional amendment on the right to bear arms.

"We talk about the air war, the bombshells, targeting politicians, knocking them off ... so we shouldn't be shocked when politicians do the same thing," said Howard Kurtz of the online publication, The Daily Beast.

"But it's a long stretch from such excessive language and symbols to holding a public official accountable for a murderer who opens fire on a political gathering."

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Arizona's Pima County, where the assault occurred, opened the debate just hours after Saturday's shooting when he condemned the growing vitriol in U.S. politics and declared free speech is "not without consequences."

Republican Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said the sheriff's comments were politically motivated in a border district where illegal immigration has been a heated issue.

Arizona earned the spotlight in the national debate on immigration when it enacted a law last year cracking down on illegal immigrants.

"He has been heavily involved in the whole debate around the immigration issue," Franks said of Dupnik. "I think he's sort of carrying on that debate in this tragic moment and it's probably inappropriate."

Some liberal commentators said the Arizona shooting incident was the culmination of a rise in political hatred that started during Obama's 2008 campaign that made him the first black U.S. president.

"There has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials," said Paul Krugman in the New York Times. "One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has."

But any move to inhibit the most inflamed political speech would draw opposition from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

Jack Shafer, a media critic at online magazine Slate, said "any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."

(Editing by David Storey)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7095H120110110?pageNumber=2