Mission Not Accomplished: 57% of Americans Don't Blame Political Rhetoric For Gifford's Shooting

Seconds after the Giffords' shooting, the left immediately proceeded to blame the right, Sarah Palin and the TEA Party most of all, for shooting by claiming that their rhetoric creates a violent aura in government. Despite all of the political mudslinging from the left, the majority of Americans aren't buying what the media is selling, according to a new CBS poll:

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.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn't connecting the shooting to politics.....

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.

I'm ecstatic to see that people are seeing this huffing and puffing by the left for exactly what it is: BS. All evidence shows that he couldn't have cared less about Palin or the TEA Party. He was apolitical. His rants just seemed to be just rants of a madman, who had held a grudge since Giffords became US Representative in 2007. That was way before the rise of Palin or the TEA Party.

Democrats were hoping to not to "waste this crisis" and villanize and bully the right into silence and obscurity, so they could further their anti-2nd amendment agenda and more, but they failed big time.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

Reid: TEA Party Will Disappear, After Economy Improves

This came out yesterday, but I was out-and-about and on my phone all day. I couldn’t get to a PC, where I could pull up the embed link to add to the post. Fortunately, I was, finally, able to pull the embed link, once I got home.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will be on Meet the Press tomorrow, and part of the interview has already been released, where he made a very interesting prediction about the future of the TEA Party:



Under normal circumstances, a third-party, independent movements do tend to fizzle over time, see Perotmania back in the mid-90’s. However, if Bernacke is right and it takes 4-5 years for us to see real improvement in the unemployment numbers, that could give the grassroots conservative movment some time to grow roots and become a sustainable lobby for many years to come.

Saying this will only further enrage those that are already upset at how he has governed this country, the TEA Party, and ensure that they have the desire to stick around longer. There was nothing to be gained for him to antagonize them. So, why did he do it? What was he thinking? He, arrogantly, was trying to trivialize them in the eyes of the electorate, but more people are sympathetic to the issues that are important to the TEA Party than are not. So, as long as the issues of high deficits, big government, high federal spending, and high unemployment are important, the TEA Party will be an important force to be reckoned with in the American political scene.

Reid: If Republicans or Anyone Else Opposes DREAM Act Than They're Insane or Something

If you could get past all of the all-too nauseating fluff piece from the New York Times that all-but expressed their undying love for Senator Harry Reid, (I barely could. I throw up a little in my mouth. Umm...forget that I said that.) You would've found something: a very noteworthy quote from the Senate Majority leader, which they conveniently hid down at the bottom of the love letter....I mean the totally unbiased, right down the middle news article.....Yeah, that's it:

For his part, Mr. Reid predicted, “We’ll get some things done,” naming comprehensive immigration legislation as one possibility.

If Republicans’ vulnerability among Hispanic voters does not persuade them to compromise, he noted, “they have real problems with their mental capacity.”

So, basically, all those that disagree with him are insane, he is the sane one. Of course, what was I thinking?

Of course, the New York Times reporter glossed right over this and would rather tell you what a swell guy Reid is. I'm shocked....shocked. I tell you.

Michelle Obama: We Can’t Just Leave (Feeding Kids) Up to Parents

At the ceremony where President Obama signed of the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act”, Michelle Obama has, once again, put her foot in her mouth. This time she did it by taking a shot at all parents:

Speaking at Monday's signing ceremony for the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act”-- a law that will subsidize and regulate what children eat before school, at lunch, after school, and during summer vacations in federally funded school-based feeding programs -- First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: “We can’t just leave it up to the parents."

The law gives the federal government for the first time the authority to regulate the food sold at local schools, including in vending machines.

This is just another example of Democrats thinking that they know better than everyone else and that we need the government to be our nanny and care-takers. Parents have every right to determine what their kids should eat.

I don't have a huge problem with them giving the children better, healthier choices, but they shouldn't try and usurp decisions away from parents and force their children to eat a certain way.

Pelosi Buries Head in Sand: Red Tsunami Wasn't My Fault

More proof that Pelosi doesn't get it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has the “overwhelming support” of fellow Democrats in her bid to become minority leader in the next Congress, and says she’s not to blame for the Democrats’ mid-term debacle.

“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning. “Our members do not accept that.”

Instead, the California Democrat attributes the loss of at least 60 seats to high unemployment and “$100 million of outside, unidentified funding.”

“Any party that cannot turn (9.5% unemployment) into political gains should hang up the gloves,” she said.

Even though many political ads used Pelosi as a albatross around the neck of Democrats across the country, Pelosi's approval rating is around 6% nationally, and the bills that she rammed through are extremely unpopular, it still isn't her fault. It must be Bush's fault. Mmmmk.

Among those rooting for Ms. Pelosi to stick around are Republicans, who are giddy at the prospect of reprising in 2012 the attacks they used in the past election cycle, tying Democratic incumbents around the country to the liberal from San Francisco.

Ms. Pelosi’s reply: Bring it on. “The reason they had to take me down is because I’ve been effective in fighting special interests in Washington, D.C.,” Ms. Pelosi said, citing the health insurance and financial services industries. “I’m effective. They had to take me out. I’m also the most significant attractor to support for the Democrats.”

“So, I’m not looking back on this,” Ms. Pelosi said. “They asked me to run, I’m running. We don’t let the Republicans choose our leaders, and again, our members understand, they made me a target because I’m effective, politically and policy-wise.”

She was "effective" because she had such a huge majority in the House. Will she have as much of a hold on the blue dogs that are left? No, the few blue dogs that survived the election will be scared to death to back anything that would be even close to liberal.

The only shot she has is if she can move to the center and work with the Republican majority. Unfortunately, I don't think that she has it in her. She doesn't even think that she does anything wrong. So, she won't feel any need at all to change course.

Considering that the Democrats that are left are hugely liberal, I could see her winning the post, again, but it would not be wise for the Democrats to repeat history because they haven't learned from it.