Now that earlier attempts to define the narrative have apparently collapsed (even regular Democratic voters aren't willing to blame the Right for the Tucson shooting), let us take this moment to discover what we have learned about stereotypical reactions to tragedies and atrocities. And what is the most important thing that we have learned? It's that the blogosphere and the pundit class can be neatly divided into two groups:
- When one group heard of the Tucson shooting, they rightly prayed for the victims.
- When the other group heard of the shooting, they prayed for the 'right' victims.
I will leave it to the individual reader to pick his or her 'favorite' examples of each - and to decide for him or herself just Who these groups are praying to.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: This is a free observation to the media: I am given to understand that there is about to be quite a bit of hand-wringing over rhetoric, due to the CBS poll a renewed sense of needed decency. My suggestion? The reason why there's such awful rhetoric is because various minions of the Left are permitted to say, write, draw, and film the most appalling things, yet still be invited onto your media programs to spout their opinions and flog their books. Stop inviting them on, and they will swiftly modify their behavior. It's called 'negative reinforcement:' also, 'Parenting 101.'
And no, they do not have to worry about having similar standards for various minions of the Right. Frankly, if they imposed the same standards of outside behavior for liberal pundits that they do for conservative ones there would be nobody on who'd be more controversial than either Mr. Rogers, or the guy who used to paint "happy trees."