Dana Milbank: Governor Palin Had Nothing to do With the Arizona Tragedy, But She Should Be Held to Account or Something

We’ve been treated to a lot of idiotic columns by liberals trying to link the actions of a deranged lunatic to conservatives in general and Governor Palin in particular these past four days. However, this latest farce from liberal imbecile Dana Milbank may well be the most doltish yet, and that’s quite a distinction given the competition. In his piece, which Milbank wrote as a counterpoint op-ed for Investor’s Business Daily, the logical inconsistencies and outright nonsense piles up faster than snow in Buffalo. Let’s take a look, shall we. Milbank begins his piece by taking us back to William McKinley’s assassination in 1901:

If any good can come of the horror in Tucson, it will be that this becomes a McKinley moment for Sarah Palin and her chief spokesman, Glenn Beck.

One hundred and ten years ago, during another low point in the nation’s political discourse, newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst — who was angling for a presidential run in 1904 — published a pair of columns fantasizing about violence against President William McKinley.

[…]

A few months later, a deranged man named Leon Czolgosz assassinated McKinley.

I know what you’re thinking. What, if anything, does this have to do with the tragic events in Arizona? Well, nothing really, but Milbank’s on a roll (emphasis mine):

The killer claimed he was inspired by an anarchist, not by Hearst — but that didn’t stop opponents from falsely claiming that Czolgosz had a copy of Hearst’s New York Journal in his pocket when he did the deed.

Hmmmm. So Milbank’s “point”, such as it is, is that Hearst’s opponents falsely (his word) claimed that Czolgosz was inspired to assassinate President McKinley even though that was not the case, but rather he (Czolgosz) was inspired by an anarchist, not Hearst. Get it.  Milbank continues:

Secretary of State Elihu Root later accused Hearst of driving the “weak and excitable brain of Czolgosz” to murder. The outcry against Hearst’s incitement — there were boycotts and a burning in effigy — dashed his presidential ambitions.

So here Milbank, after acknowledging in the previous paragraph that the charges against Hearst were false, now writes that Hearst incited the assassination? Am I missing something, or is logical consistency not required of liberal writers? This contrariety is one of many in Milbank’s piece. My guess is that he employed it, laughably awkward as it is, because it was the only segue he could think of to tie the events of 1901 to Saturday’s Arizona massacre:

A similar, and long overdue, outcry has followed the Tucson killings. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who blamed the “vitriol we hear inflaming the American public” for the massacre, mentioned Palin by name and generally denounced conservative TV and radio commentary.

Where to begin. He cites a sheriff with a rather obvious political axe to grind as a credible source, which is cockeyed on its face. Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t the erstwhile Sheriff Dupnik be occupied with getting to the bottom of a mass murder rather than making multiple appearances on liberal talk shows to push his political agenda in order to divert attention from his own incompetence?  It’s not like he hasn’t admitted that he has not one shred of evidence to back up his moronic musings. It seems to me that it’s high time for Sheriff Dupnik to consider retirement…or for voters to force the issue. Milbank next imparts this pearl of wisdom:

Some in the media have fingered Beck, too.

I am not here to defend Glenn Beck. As I understand it, he did a fine job of that himself. But to claim that this phony narrative concocted by Milbank’s fellow travelers on the left is in any way legitimate because “some in the media” say it is strikes me as ludicrous on it’s face. Of course they do…they’re liberals looking for a way, any way, to resurrect the sagging political fortunes of the incompetent ex-community organizer they helped elect President. In effect, Milbank is citing himself as a credible source for his opinion. Unbelievable. Milbank’s next pronouncement is even sillier:

While the accusations sometimes go too far — there’s no evidence that either Palin or Beck inspired the Tucson suspect — the heat is well-deserved. Both are finally being held to account for recklessly playing with violent images in a way that is bound to incite the unstable. In Beck’s case, as I reported last year, it already has — repeatedly.

Palin’s now-famous offense was her tweet last March telling conservatives: “Don’t Retreat, Instead — RELOAD!” The tweet referred people to her Facebook “target” map showing the districts of Gabrielle Giffords and other House Democrats in a rifle’s cross hairs.

So much nonsense, so little time. There’s “no evidence” that Gov Palin (or Beck) had anything to do with this, but the heat they’re getting from their opportunistic political enemies (like Milbank) is “well-deserved”. Huh? That a writer for a national publication has to resort to such hokum in furtherance of his narrative says more about the state of journalism today than anything I can add. Milbank next refers to “violent images? You mean like this?

Oh wait, Democrats created that map so, evidently, that’s all OK. This is all nonsense, of course, and both Governor Palin’s map and the one above are quite common…and innocuous. Using standard mapping symbols such as crosshairs, bullseyes, or myriad other symbols to denote the location of a political race is as old as politics itself. It’s not like conservatives hung a political opponent in effigy…only Democrats can do that, I guess. I suspect even Milbank, despite his obvious shortcomings, is well aware of this, making him nothing more than a liar. And a rather bad one at that.

Milbank’s feigned outrage over Governor Palin’s ‘don’t retreat, reload’ axiom is equally absurd. I’ve heard almost identical admonitions ever since I was seven or eight years old from pee-wee football coaches, basketball coaches, t-ball coaches and others. Unlike Milbank (apparently), I never took it to mean I was to go out and shoot a bunch of innocent people. Even a second grader knows it’s nothing more than a tool to motivate people to not give up, to keep playing, to give it your all until the fat lady sings. Of course, if his piece is any guide, the average 2nd grader may well have more on the ball than Milbank, but I digress…

The rest of Milbank’s piece is equally tedious and predictable. I’ll sum it up for you: Palin and other conservatives bad, liberals good. There is another amusing contradiction in Milbank’s piece that caused me to laugh out loud. In about the middle of the piece, Milbank gravely observes the following:

Palin has been uncharacteristically quiet since Saturday’s slayings.

Then, at the end of his piece, Milbank leaves us with this:

Maybe Beck and Palin will be good enough to show us what a real moment of silence is — by having themselves a nice long one.

So, she’s been quiet but should sit down and shut up or something. The liberal brain is truly something to behold, heh! When I first read Milbank’s piece in Investor’s Business Daily, I was somewhat taken aback. Why, I thought, would a quality publication like IBD publish this steaming pile of bat guano? Milbank, of course, normally writes for the Washington Post, where idiocy (such as his column) is the norm. Then it hit me: IBD likely subscribes to the age old idiom “give a moron enough rope and he’ll hang himself”, and Milbank has done just that, though I doubt his regular readers are bright enough to know.



(18853 Posts)

Leave a Reply