Well not really. But according to a controversial image of gun sights from Palin's 2010 congressional campaign, people believe Palin planned the recent Arizona shootings that left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. Rebecca Mansour, Palin's political aide, calls this ordeal "appalling" as people all over Twitter actually believe Palin had part in such a horrific incident. Some nasty critics even believe that Palin was trying to distance herself away from the crime so it didn't seem like she had anything to do with it.
Ironically enough, the 2010 congressional campaign website "Take Back the 20," which was originally supposed to be an effort to defeat Democrats who voted for health care reform and that represented the congressional districts won by Palin and McCain in the '08 elections, never meant to post such images. Rather, these gun sights were supposed to be symbols of surveyor symbols. The symbols were supposed to represent the Republicans targeting certain congressional districts they needed to win in 2010 midterm elections. Mansour explains that they never wanted to create the sense of violence towards the Congresswoman in any way.
Palin has issued an apology to Giffords' family as proof that she had nothing to do with the shootings. Palin's aide also cannot understand how anyone could do such an act of injustice.
Are people just taking things too seriously? Or are these people right in being overly cautious about what they believe in? How do you think this will affect Palin and her reputation in the future as a governor, and as a possible future presidential candidate?
7 comments:
I find this to be ridiculous that anyone would think that one politician would organize an attempt on another's life. Even though I stated, in my post about the original shootings, that it is not crazy to see violence occur despite political differences, I find this just ridiculous. I know the subject in question is Sarah Palin, who is perhaps the most polarizing person in America right now, but I believe people are blowing things out of proportion and are just trying to grasp at some answers for an event that has no answers right now at the expense of the reputation of another person.
This is completely ridiculous...this is turning into a "Let's blame everyting completely horrific or stupid on Palin and get a laugh out of it" kind of thing. I'm tired of hearing about her and her reality show already as it is, I don't need her to be mentioned or blamed for publicity in anything else. She had nothing to do with this...and it is going too far to say that she did!
I do not see how Palin can be blamed for the shooting when there is no evidence and really no incentive. This accusation sounds ridiculous from all angles. An extreme conservative would only be giving Palin bad publicity and an extreme liberal would only be giving Palin more publicity. Who in the world fabricated that connection anyway?
While I disapprove of Palin, I agree with everybody else; this is stupid. Using a gun as a symbol may not have been a smart idea but it's ridiculous to connect that to the recent Arizona shootings. Palin's critics are just using her as a scapegoat. I seriously doubt that she would kill, or somehow be involved in the deaths of six innocent people, for political reasons.
Three of the four people who posted above me described this with "ridiculous." My thoughts exactly. Looks like extreme rhetoric isn't just confined to one party.
Sorry merely to echo what others have already said - but yes, it's just sad when it seems that partisan mudslinging drowns out all consideration for the recently deceased.
Although I agree that the claim that Palin planned the shooting is ridiculous, I do think that the use of the target symbol was uncalled for. Symbols and rhetoric such as this are what have contributed to our highly charged political atmosphere. The OP states that the symbols on the map were supposed to be "surveyor symbols," but this contradicts what Palin had said earlier about the symbol being a "bullseye icon." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110110/ts_yblog_theticket/giffords-tragedy-could-be-a-defining-moment-for-palin) The point is that rhetoric and symbolism such as Palin's has downplayed the seriousness of violence in politics. In response to the OP's last question, even though Palin may have not have had anything to do with the shootings, the way she responds to the accusations will probably have an effect in her political future.
Post a Comment