A debate on partisan campaign rhetoric has emerged in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting in which six people were killed and thirteen wounded, including Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
The motives of the accused shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, are unclear, though evidence emerged that Loughner’s actions were premeditated.
Loughner’s MySpace account, which listed Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf among his favorite books, indicates the accused shooter’s anti-government persuasion.
Though Loughner does not appear to have been a supporter of the Tea Party or the Republican Party, the right has come under fire for perceived violent campaign rhetoric used during the 2010 midterm elections.
Several news outlets and bloggers uncovered an ad from Sarah Palin’s political action committee SarahPac, showing twenty Democratic congressional districts targeted during November’s midterm elections.
Each district on the graphic, which was posted on Facebook, is marked with cross-hairs resembling gun sights.
The ad’s header reads, “It’s time to take a stand.”
Giffords’s Republican 2010 congressional opponent, Jesse Kelly, also found criticism for heated rhetoric.
Last June, Kelly held an event billed on his website as: “Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly [sic].”
Giffords, appearing on MSNBC in March, criticized the campaign rhetoric leveled against her.
“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” she said. “But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the cross-hairs of a gun-sight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.”
Sarah Palin hit back against the criticism on January 12 of this year in a pre-recorded video distributed through her Facebook page.
In the eight minute video, Palin characterized her detractors’ concerns as “irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.”
“They claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently,” Palin said. “But when was it less heated? Back in those ‘calm days’ when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?”
Palin’s response elicited another round of controversy from the Anti-Defamation League for the usage of the term “blood libel,” which has historically had an anti-Semitic connotation.
“Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” Palin said.
The New York Times reported on Jan. 12 that “it was unclear whether Ms. Palin was aware of the historical meaning of the phrase.”
Sarah Palin was also criticized for releasing her remarks on the day set aside for the memorial of the shooting’s victims.
President Obama did not respond to Palin, nor did he mention her specifically in his memorial speech.
Instead, his speech focused on remembering the victims of the shooting.
Obama only briefly addressed the political debate, saying, “And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”
The speech propelled President Obama’s approval ratings to 54 percent, up five points from last month and his highest rating in a year.
Despite the fierce debate, a CBS poll conducted after the shooting showed that 57 percent of Americans do not believe that rhetoric was to blame for the shootings.
Michael Angelo Rumore can be reached at michaelangelorumore@gmail.com.