Pima County Sheriff's Department Finally Puts Muzzle on Mudslinging Sheriff Dupnik

It looks like someone finally put a muzzle on the verbose, left-leaning, mudslinging Sheriff Dupnik (emphasis mine):

The Pima County Sheriff's Department has suddenly turned off the flow of information in the January 8th mass shootings in Tucson. Shortly after noon Tuesday Sheriff's PIO Jason Ogan released this terse, one-line statement:

"Until further notice, due to a controversy between the Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney's office, no further information reference the January 8, 2011 shooting will be released."…

As KGUN9 News has reported, some critics have suggested that some statements from the Sheriff's Department -- particularly those from Sheriff Clarence Dupnik -- could serve to work against prosecutors. A legal expert that 9 On Your Side consulted did not share the concern. Whether LaWall has views on the subject, and if so, whether those views played into Wednesday's Sheriff's Department statement, is unknown.

Sheriff Dupnik has been taking full advantage of his 15 minutes of fame over the past week and a half and accusing everyone for the shooting including: Sarah Palin, the right, TEA Party, etc. Many in the conservative media have criticized him for this because the Loughner’s defense attorney’s could turn around and use what he said against the prosecution in his case.

He is the sheriff that is supposed to be investigating what really happened and why. He had no business guessing what Loughner’s motive was in the media before any evidence had been found, in the first place. This gag order on him is long overdue. He should have spent the time that he used pontificating investigating the shooting. That IS what he was elected to do. There will be hell to pay for Dupnik, if his politicization of the shooting costs the prosecution the case.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

New Poll Shows 53% Believe Media Is Exploiting Tuscon Tragedy to Hurt Conservatives

A new Gallup poll from USA Today shows that, despite Democrats and the media constant assertions that the right and (especially Palin) is to blame for the shooting in Tuscon, not only isn’t America not buying it, but they, also, see it for what it is, the left exploiting this tragedy to further their own political agenda:

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans dubious that the heated language used in politics today was a major factor that influenced the alleged gunman in last week's shootings in Tucson, Ariz. Twenty percent say such rhetoric was a major factor in the shootings, while 22% cite it as a minor factor; 42% say it was not a factor at all. Democrats are more likely than independents or Republicans to believe political debate played a role….


Most Americans reject that theory, with 53% agreeing that commentators who allege conservative rhetoric was responsible were mostly attempting to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. Roughly one in three, 35%, say the commentators were making a legitimate point about how dangerous the language used by conservatives can be.

This poll was done three days after the shooting, giving people plenty of time to make up their minds on the issue.

Of course, gun control has, also, been brought up by the Democrats in the wake of the shootings, but the people aren’t buying those tickets, either:

Most Americans, though, do not believe tougher gun laws in Arizona would have prevented these shootings. One in five say stricter laws would have prevented the tragedy, while 72% disagree. Democrats, who are more likely to support gun restrictions, are also more likely to believe the shootings could have been prevented if tougher gun laws were in place, but a majority of this group still says the shootings would have occurred regardless.

This is not going to help new gun control laws, like the one from Rep. King (R-NY) prohibiting guns within a 1,000 feet of any federal official, from gaining enough momentum to pass, especially in the heavily Republican House. New gun laws, probably, wouldn’t even pass the pro-2nd amendment Democrats in the Senate.

This meme is a dead issue for the Democrats, and they should give it up and move on.

Palin: Media Shouldn't "Manufacture a Blood Libel" That Only Incites Hate, Violence

Sarah Palin, finally, responded to the shooting of Rep. Giffords and others in Tuscon, Arizona (transctipt here):



She focused on not throwing blame around to score political points, when discussing the tragedy in Tuscon, and called it "irresponsible". She quoted Reagan saying that "society" wasn't guilty, when a mad man does something like this. The mad man is.

She, also, pointed out that Giffords and the other victims were exercising the same first amendment rights that Giffords recited, when the House read the Constitution aloud last week, and people shouldn't use this to stifle others from exercising the same free speech rights that they were enjoying that fateful morning.

This was a very good speech that made Palin look "above the fray" and, dare I say, presidential. She was calm the whole time, and she didn't go after anyone in particular. There was no lashing out at the media or Democrats that might have looked like she was getting back at them for their attacks on her and her character.

Ed Morrissey had a very good synopsis of how he felt about the speech and how she presented it:

Earlier this week, I told a reporter that a public response would be tricky for Palin. She needed to defend herself but without being seen as descending to the level of the debate as it stood at that moment. Plenty of others were defending conservatives already, but Palin needed to engage the debate on her own terms at some point in a manner that allowed her to rise above the accusatory morass that the media encouraged almost from the hour in which the shootings took place.

This video message affirms the wisdom of that approach. Palin does an excellent job in making her point without lashing out in anger over the attacks, and underscores the importance of personal responsibility rather than group guilt in a free society, the priority of free speech as an underpinning of democracy, and the determination of Palin and the rest of the conservatives to defend those principles. It’s precisely what Palin needed to say, and precisely the manner and forum in which she needed to say it.

Now, some have gone after her use of the term "blood libel":

Some are criticizing Palin’s use of “blood libel,” saying that it refers to a specific anti-semitic charge from centuries ago that Jews supposedly used the blood of Christian children in preparing ritual food. But as Glenn Reynolds points out to Politico’s Ben Smith, Israel uses “blood libel” today to rebut charges of deliberately killing Palestinians, and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murtha’s accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha. It’s a functional political term.

I think that it is a odd choice of words and could have chosen something better, but it is a minor gripe. She didn't use the term to mean what it might have meant regarding the Jews. I doubt that it had even been aware of that possible connotation.

If any one is focusing on those two words and totally ignoring the rest of the almost 8 minute speech, they are missing the forest for the trees. They should look at the speech as a whole, too, which was very thoughtful and insightful.