11
Jan
11

double standards

Washington Monthly: RIGHT FOCUSES ON DUPNIK…. On Saturday night in Tucson, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik lamented societal factors — most notably, the toxicity of our political discourse — that he fears may have contributed to the day’s violence.

….It appears many conservatives believed the sheriff was referring to them, and began responding in kind.

…Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he didn’t think the sheriff’s words “had any part in a law enforcement briefing.” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said he was “disappointed” in the sheriff. Conservative talk show host Neal Boortz said Dupnik was looking for political gain, and Fox News anchor — in an interview with the sheriff — wondered aloud why he would “inject political speculation” into the story.

And that’s really just the start. Dupnik has also drawn fire from Malkin, Red State, one of the Breitbart outlets, and National Review, among others.

It’s not entirely surprising the right wouldn’t care for the sheriff’s concerns, but (a) they hardly seemed excessive, under the circumstances and they weren’t partisan in the slightest; and (b) if conservatives are really concerned about intemperate rhetoric from Arizona sheriffs, Dupnik is hardly Exhibit A.

As John Cole noted, “Oddly enough, I’ve never seen wingnuts react this way to any of Joe Arpaio’s briefings.”

What’s more, as Media Matters noted, conservative outlets have “repeatedly praised a different Arizona sheriff, Paul Babeu, who regularly engages in vitriolic attacks against President Obama and Democrats.”

Read the full article here

Thank you Ladyhawke for the link


25 Responses to “double standards”


  1. 1 hopefruit2
    January 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Apparently, the “mugshot” photo of the shooter that the media has been using since yesterday is NOT the actual mugshot, but a picture that was probably taken some time ago before the shooting incident. The media is so desperately trying to portray this guy as some “schizophrenic” lunatic, that they are fraudulently using a picture to push a desired narrative with the public. They are using his smiling image in the photo to suggest that his emotions are inappropriate to the situation (a common trait associated with psychosis), yet this directly contradicts a CNN reporter’s description of the young man’s affect, speech and behavior (none of which seemed inappropriate) during his court appearance. While one can reasonably assume that this young man is emotionally unstable, it is downright irresponsible for the media to give him a psychiatric diagnosis by virtue of a stock photograph, falsely depicted as his mugshot. The media selectively choses which photographs they will will post, any of which will divert attention from a young man obsessed with politics, but unduly influenced by hateful violence rhetoric enabled and encouraged by the right and corporate media – from first trying to push a “leftist hippie” image, to now a “schizophrenic.”

    I admire this Sherrif and his words have never rang truer. This “schizophrenia” narrative is nothing but another media coverup and CYA strategy pushed by their corporate lords on the right.

    • 2 Little Lulu
      January 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm

      I totally agree with everything you’ve just stated. Totally. I’m hopeful that President Obama will take this opportunity to address the hate speech and the violence it engenders in this country and to raise the standards of our country once again. I don’t believe there is another person on this planet who is better suited to this task than this man right now.

      Live long and strong, President Obama! This country needs your skills and intelligence and diplomacy and leadership now more than ever.

      • 3 Sue in Minnesota
        January 11, 2011 at 12:45 pm

        I trust President Obama will once again demonstrate to all those willing to see, true leadership, and inspire in us our resolve to effect meaningful change. I echo your prayer, Live long and strong President Obama. Everyday I am grateful for the enormous gifts, dedication and grace of our President.

    • 4 Sue in Minnesota
      January 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm

      Excellent observation. America is squandering an opportunity to really get to the heart/truth of this atrocity. It is repulsive to see so many attempting to leverage political gains at the expense of honest reflection, healing and the opportunity presented to learn and grow from our failings. Guns, Mental Health, Political Discourse, Public Service, Professional and Personal standards of responsibility, Media exploitation – all areas of weakness, now highlighted in the wake of this tragedy that need our attention and our resolve to improve upon.

    • 5 majii
      January 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm

      When I first discovered that he had refused to speak to law enforcement officials after he was arrested, I began to think that he wasn’t as “out of it” as some are wanting to claim that he is. I also read the responses he gave in court, and it seems to me that he was very lucid. I saw a pic of his court appearance, and he appeared to be in control of himself. You’re right, hopefruit2. The MSM is engaged in shaping the public’s perception of this guy as being very mentally unstable due to his being a “schizophrenic lunatic.” None of them are psychiatrists/psychologists, and none of them have had the opportunity to interact with him because, according to news sources, he has refused all interviews with the media. Even his parents are refusing to comment publicly.

    • January 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      This photo will also help in his defense. He looks like some crazed maniac. Rachel Maddow specifically said last night that this was not his mugshot. A large percentage of Americans can be told anything, shown anything and they will believe it.I am sure Linda Clarke (The same attorney that defended the Unabomber and the Smith woman who drowned her little boys.), his attorney, is happy the media is using this photograph. It makes her insanity plea easier because he surely looks Off. She got both the Unabomber and Smith prison and no death penalty.

  2. 7 Little Lulu
    January 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Methinks the righties doth protest too much.

    • 8 Ladyhawke
      January 11, 2011 at 12:40 pm

      Right, and what about the scurry to scrub websites of any telltale evidence of their toxic rhetoric and blog posts. That just says volumes.

      • 9 SharonS
        January 11, 2011 at 1:09 pm

        Yes, indeed it does, Ladyhawke. And as concerns that so-called mugshot, I wondered why that photo was so different from the artist’s drawing of Loughner in court.
        I say again that America and Americans have a hard time facing facts about ourselves. I believe the media and how it holds up a mirror to show us to ourselves is a big part of the problem…

  3. 10 majii
    January 11, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    My dearly departed parents were right–a hurt dog WILL holler. Sheriff Dupnik made a general statement about the violence used in political rhetoric. He didn’t politicize it, but the rw went on defense immediately. If what Sheriff Dupnik didn’t apply to them, they wouldn’t be so “offended” by it. By attacking him, they are revealing their guilt and admitting that they know they use violent rhetoric. I notice that not one democrat has suggested attacking/condemning Sheriff Dupnik about what he said. The rw dogs sure are hollering.

    They did the same thing when the Department of Homeland Security report was release in 2009 on the danger of rw extremism in America. The report said nothing about mainstream republicans, but all of them attacked the report, and it has turned out that the contents of the report were accurate. If they weren’t, the massacre in AZ would most likely never have occurred. Yep, they’re guilty, and they know it. These are attempts to de-legitimize the impact of Sheriff Dupnik’s words, and I am so glad that he is standing firm. My parents also taught me that there is no need to change anything when you know you’re right.

    • 11 majii
      January 11, 2011 at 1:27 pm

      If what Sheriff Dupnik *said*

      • 12 Asher in Boston
        January 11, 2011 at 6:55 pm

        They are reacting to the saying of, THE GUILTY ARE ALWAYS AFRAID. Trust me, deep inside, they know they are the guilty culprits of this vitriolic rhetoric. Otherwise, why are they so defensive?

  4. 13 Asher in Boston
    January 11, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Sheriff Dupnick, you have the support of the majority of well meaning people Let the wingnuts scream all they want. You were just doing your job, of looking out for every one of the people in your jurisdiction, regardless of their background/ethinicity. And pointing out when wrong is wrong. Period. Thank you again.

  5. 14 Hachikō
    January 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    IOKIYR.

  6. January 11, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    I signed the petition supporting the sheriff, but I wonder if there is any other way we can give him more support. Can we contribute, for instance, toward a lawyer? It seems these people — as is usual with anyone they dislike — are slandering the man. Do we have to accept this kind of cut-throat behavior constantly, without striking back with a well-placed civil suit?

  7. 16 Dakota
    January 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    In 100% agreement with Asher

  8. January 11, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    As a follow up to the post above a petition for Sheriff Dupnik is found at

    http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sheriff&autologin=true

    He seems to be holding his own pretty well when you see him on TV, he is speaking clearly, repeating his position and saying what needs to be said.

    A video clip I saw that was very helpful to me was President Clinton’s remarks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12168021

    • 18 Theo67
      January 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm

      I don’t agree with this part of former President Clinton’s remarks: “”No one intends to do anything that encourages this sort of behaviour and I think it is wrong for anyone to suggest that,” he said”. I think Glenn Beck,Sarah Palin and Rep. Bachmann have very clear intentions when they do and say what they do and say. I think the Republicans have very defined intentions when they use the Frank Luntz talking points, or stand on the balcony of the Capitol and participate in Tea Party rallies where the President of the United States is being maligned and threatened. I think those intentions are very clear.

      • 19 louc1
        January 11, 2011 at 6:09 pm

        Tell the truth!!!! They are who we thought they were. When people show you who they are you should believe them and that gang has showed us over and over who they are!!! God please keep our POTUS and his family safe!

        • 20 Sue in Minnesota
          January 11, 2011 at 7:44 pm

          Exactly. I constantly remind myself that an expressed opinion reflects the speaker more clearly than the subject.
          Sarah Palin owns her statements, and actions……however, she the perpetual victim, refuses to accept or practice personal responsibility. Four days have passed and yet she has not publically presented herself to offer condolences, apologies, or an explanation for her conduct. Her window of opportunity to do so, has in my book, passed. She is as I suspect truly a coward, or recovering from her most recent round of plastic surgery…..Loser!

      • 21 majii
        January 11, 2011 at 6:52 pm

        I see you saw the same flaw in Clinton’s comments that I did, Theo. I was wondering why he didn’t just tell the truth about the republicans. He knows that the republicans will throw rocks and hide their hands when they get caught. For example, one of the first things Tom DeLay said when he was found guilty was that someone was “trying to take away his rights.” He refused to acknowledge that he was found guilty by a jury of political corruption.

        • 22 Theo67
          January 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm

          The other offensive part of this display by President Clinton is that he was targeted by these same people for their merciless persecution. Granted, he ended up doing his own damage by lying under oath (not to mention the cheating – although that part is between him and his wife). It surprises me that he’s running to defend these people, and provide them cover when he knows what they’re about, and how dangerous they are to a person’s reputation and sanity.

          • 23 avpmom
            January 12, 2011 at 6:10 am

            That’s why I’d rather hear from President Jimmy Carter~
            Bill Clinton, not so much; never been much of an honest broker in my opinion and especially has no interest in seeing President Obama succeed – heaven forbid his star shines brighter than Clinton’s. Quite a shame actually ~

      • 24 Kelly
        January 11, 2011 at 7:14 pm

        I agree very much.

    • 25 Kelly
      January 11, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      Interesting words from the former President.


Comments are currently closed.

@POTUS

@BarackObama

@WhiteHouse

@FLOTUS

@MichelleObama

@PeteSouza

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

@TheObamaDiary

@NerdyWonka

RSS Obama White House.gov

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS WH Tumblr

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Categories

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 41,262,047 hits
January 2011
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

%d bloggers like this: