Roy Sekoff appeared on "The Ed Show" Thursday to discuss the Tea Party's response to the tragic shootings in Tucson last weekend.
When host Ed Schultz referenced a statement from Tucson's Tea Party leader, which suggested Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords should have been more prepared for the attack by bringing security to her event, Sekoff replied, "The one-word response is wince."
"What we've seen from the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is that they excel at playing the victim," Sekoff said. "The danger there is that since they feel so victimized, they're just going to get louder, and they're going to ratchet it out, and they're going to make more outrageous comments like we've seen right there."
Sekoff explained that the popularity of the Tea Party movement exemplifies the divide between traditional conservative values and the radical right currently at work within the Republican party. "This really speaks to the identity crisis the GOP is facing right now," he said.
Sekoff continued, "The energy and the dynamism is really with the Tea Party, but so is all the crazy and the outrage. And that's where the danger lies."
WATCH:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
There is no comparison between the "heated" rhetoric of the left and that of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, etc., etc., etc. The Tea Party lives in a mythological world underwritten by billionaires like the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife. The Republicans have used the Tea Party to get elected, but since Republicans despise any form of government, they are not capable of actually leading. They can get laws passed to help the wealthy and to maintain an overpaid military-industrial complex, but Republicans have never been interested in government that actually helps a majority of Americans.
But, what is most sad about the recent events in Tucson is that nothing will change, really.
The discourse may be civil for a couple of weeks, then back to demonizing the Progressive movement.
It isn't progressives that are stoking the flames of hatred? Really? All progressives DO is stoke the flames of hatred. They (you?) expect to win debates over legitimate issues by doing nothing except defiining the other side in insulting terms. "Teabaggers" support the 2nd Amendment because they're "gun nuts." If they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and want strong border control it's because they "hate Mexicans." If they oppose the welfare state it's because they "hate poor people." If they oppose Obama Care it's because "they're happy to see people die." If they oppose Obama on ANY issue it's because "they're racist." I could go on and on...
The video on this page proves my point as does your own comment. When this supposed "Tea Party leader" makes a pretty simple and obvious point about Giffords perhaps bringing along security after she began recieving threats, this progressive talking head labels it "despicable" and then the conversation centers around insulting conservatives (as usual.) Nevermind the fact that Giffords only began recieving threats (from LEFTIES!!) after she opposed the Dream Act, and nevermind the fact that Loughner was a disgruntled LEFTY himself. Progressives are absolutely determined to use this tragedy as a tool to demonize conservatives and libertarians, facts be damned! Why? Because they (you?) aren't interested in actually discussing facts, you're only interested in using your own hatred for conservatives as a tool to shut down debate.
'Shepard Smith Calls Out "More and More Frightening" Fox E-mailers'
'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI&playnext=1&list=PLA35E20FFF1876037&index=1'
When you use personal attacks against me for asking a very pertinent question, are you intelligent enough to realize that you are only serving to prove what we have been saying about you in the Tea Party? If you can not back up your assertions then they are meaningless drivel and nothing more, but when you can only attack anyone who simply asks you to back up your assertions, you are only serving to prove just how weak your arguments really are.
Where is the data.
For if they are only making claims then....well....
Assertions are not the same as constructing arguments.
This would seem obvious.
But apparently just shouting something, over and over, is good enough for some.
So, yes, funny, I called for the same thing, several hours ago.
Again, please cite your sources.
Simply asserting something is true, is not the same thing as demonstrating that a thing is true.
Are you interested in constructing an argument, or simply winning one?
There is a difference, you know.
ain't that the truth!
'fd and f'd for brevity, which is the soul of wit.
Assertion 1, concerning the Kennedy assassination: President Reagan and his entourage *were* surrounded by Secret Service agents when an attempt was made on his life. Even though no one died, I think we can both agree that the injuries were severe enough.
Assertion 2, concerning firearms in the crowd: An armed civilian arrived during the calamity, and he - by his own admission - was about a hair's width away from shooting the wrong person. Does it not also seem more likely that an individual without extensive combat experience would become more of a liability when thrown into a panicked, confusing situation like that with a firearm, even if you only consider the ratio of bystanders (none of whom would be standing still) to perpetrators? Look at the incidence rate of friendly fire in the military, and consider that those are people *trained* to deal with that kind of stuff and go into a situation expecting hostility.
There's definitely merit in contemplating the "what-ifs," but the "what-is" speaks pretty strongly against what some gun advocates would like to see happen here.
It's a vicious negative cycle with tragically inevitable outcomes, unless we consciously choose to break it by extending peace to those who would persecute us.
Most of the major funder's, "leaders" are simply puppet masters pulling the strings as needed, and the players, the Palin, Beck, Rush et al are simply there for the money, and perhaps some delusion of power. The right lost with Swift Boaters after they were exposed and the Moral Right's leaders have taken some hits and not popular with commoners now days. So we get the "grassroots" etc which is well but quietly financed from the puppet masters and gives the media, "experts-pundits" a lot to say about very little.
Least we forget, this whole thing about "government" really is not, rather it is now a huge for profit industry that views the nation/commoners as income sources and objected to be statistically grouped and targeted by their various marketing depts. There is no longer a "government" rather a huge for profits conglomeration of Corps/LLC's, elected/appointed officials and financial barons which comprise the upper 1-4/5% incomes.
The "Great experiment in democracy did not die, it was simply incorporated as a for profit for few nation.
And then your last sentence just zings home the message...and it made me feel oddly sad.
And then I realized why.
A corporatized gov.'t, replete only with various officials and the barons of finance, does seem like a lonely place after all...no one's really there, and those that are there are relatively alike, not much differenct one to another. Which is a kind of poverty as well.
Thanks for the powerfully written post. I didn't mean to get all over-concerned about the style part of what you wrote, it just struck me, like I said and was what was leading me as I read...oh, yes, f'd and f'd.
That said, there are real victims who need and deserve help. Anyone who is set upon by those whose method of seeming superior by degrading others deserves the support of all who knows that a human life, well lived, yields someone different, The exclusivist pundits--on every side--deserve to be ignored and called to task for their vitriol.
It is time for the moderate middle and those on both ends who celebrate the dignity of every human life, no matter their cultural views, to eradicate the bigotry if every shade from American life by both active and passive non-violent means.
So, compassion in any form only applies if you agree with the person's belief?