The poll results show that the attempts by the left-blogosphere, mainstream media and some Democratic politicians to blame right-wing political speech and Sarah Palin for the shooting have not worked, so far, with most Americans:
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll....That even half of Democrats are not buying the smear is encouraging, but the fact that 42 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of Independents are buying into it is troubling. But then again, as of May 2007, 35% of Democrats and 18% of Independents believed George Bush had advanced knowledge of 9/11.
Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.
The longer-term success of the Democratic Tucson smear remains to be seen. Creating a false impression in the mind of the public sometimes takes time.
I would not be surprised if years from now the numbers of Democrats and Independents who believe that Sarah Palin caused Jared Loughner to commit murder roughly approximates the percentages who believe Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11. Fortunately, most Americans remain and will remain sane.
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
How many Republicans believe Obama isn't a US citizen?
ReplyDeleteYour tit-for-tat is quite thin.
Maybe call your blog tit-for-tat.
Think Brooks should target them?
ReplyDeleteThe numbers of those who think the shootings were a product of political "vitriol" are going to continue to go down as more is learned about Loughlin's psychotic existence and as his case work its way through the criminal justice system. In the end, this episode (not the shooting itself, but the moonbat-media fingerpointing that followed) may prove to be a plus for conservatives in that it helps to further educate the public about the left's deceitful and irresponsible tactics. The Dems are going to find it increasingly difficult to operate in an environment in which the average voter can recognize for himself or herself examples of "not letting a crisis go to waste," the Alinskyesque tactic of personally demonizing individual opponents, and flat-out hypocrisy and dishonesty. Obama may have come into office by appealing to people's sense of hopefulness, but he's quickly turning droves of Americans into cynics and skeptics as far as liberals are concerned.
ReplyDeleteGive me the party of birth conspiracies over mass murder conspiracies any day, Captain.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it's not surprising to hear, but it is depressing that the politically crazy will have another notch in their belt. Now when the conversation turns to politics at parties, I'll have to hear otherwise sensible neighbors go on about how "Bush caused 9/11 and Sarah caused the Tucson shooting." That'll be a fun night.
Like I said yesterday, the Tea Party ranks are about to swell further. The nuts keep chasing everyone into our camp.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we also know who "America's Dumbest Sheriff" is too!
The most interesting new facet about this case is not the political nuttiness but that Loughner's father is nuttier than he is. This is like something right out of "X-Files".
ReplyDelete"... the Democratic Tucson smear ..."
ReplyDeleteI submit 'tis more fruitful to designate a unique term for the passel of smug, nutty, anti-national, anti-social, drug-infested, self-centered, distempered supremacists in whose aura of menace the nation and world are in thrall, or so they would have us think.
The passel presently controls the Democratic Party of the US and groups and organizations throughout the US and other nations. But the
Democratic Party and the axes of evolution of those other nations are not that passel, which in itself is uni-typical, of one kind across the globe. See the string of adjectives in the foregoing paragraph. Where there is trouble those adjectives describe it maker.
As the unique term to reference the passel I suggest CHAOS, an acronym for Central Headquarters for Anarchy, Oligarchy and Supremacy. CHAOS denotes and includes leftists, socialists, progressives, jihadis and other proselytizers, liberals, anarchists, liars, self-promoters, racists, cheats and idlers. It also denotes what they love and do.
Instead of saying "leftist" or "liberal" or "terrorist," we say "CHAOS" because it includes them all and their associates and describes the lot to a tee.
The Age newspaper, a leftist rag, also had a poll on the subject. It seems that the leftists in Oz have the opposite viewpoint :). I voted in the poll and more than 60% of the respondents actually thought that Sarah was to blame.
ReplyDeleteI guess that since they have no clue about American politics, and that the DNC used the same kind of map, that these Oz leftists just showed more of their own stupidity and ignorance.
Bill Clinton is the latest fool to hop on the express train to political retirement. Maggie is right that there is an irreducible core of totally insane nitwits clustered on the farthest edge of the Left who cannot even speak without spewing foam all over the place. 60-30 is a little more than the ratio of 20% liberal, 42% conservative as they describe themselves, with the independents splitting 10 for libs and 20 for sanity. Not bad for a country whose media have collectively jumped off a cliff credibility-wise and are now beginning to melt into insignificance.
ReplyDeleteThe lemmings no longer follow their leaders over the cliff and Peter Pan's pipe doesn't affect the rodent population. Bad metaphors, but you can see what I'm getting at.