MSNBC talking head and former Biden White House press spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, true to form, has made disgusting comments in the wake of the Trump assassination attempt. Speaking on Meet the Press, Sunday, the day after the shooting, Psaki demanded that the Republicans-the Republicans- tone down the rhetoric in referring to the Republican convention that was set to begin the following day. This after years of demonization of Trump by her side. Just in the days and weeks leading up to Saturday's shooting, President Biden and his followers referred to Trump as a "Hitler", a dangerous man who would end democracy, an existential threat to America, a man who must be stopped however necessary. Is it any wonder that some deranged, 20-year-old like Thomas Matthew Crooks would decide to take out this "danger to American democracy"?
Psaki, who burst into prominence as a spokesperson for the Obama 2008 presidential campaign and was rewarded with an appointment as State Department press spokesperson before eventually becoming President Biden's White House spokesperson, has a long history as a partisan mouthpiece. She should know better, you would think. Apparently, however, Psaki needs to be reminded of a few facts.
It was not President Biden who was the target of an assassination attempt. It was not Biden who was shot. It was not a Biden supporter who was killed. The two people critically wounded were not Biden supporters.
It was the other side, Jen, the Republican candidate who was shot and wounded. It was a Trump supporter who was killed. It was two Trump supporters who were wounded.
And no, Jen, the Republicans are not recklessly talking about carrying out revenge against President Biden. They are not advocating assassinating anybody. They are not making reckless statements about putting Biden in the "bullseye", as Biden recently said about Trump. It is the Democrats who should lower the tone of their rhetoric.
But here we have hypocrites like Jen Psaki, who have the gumption to take a tragedy like this and turn it around and upside down on its head by insisting that it is the victims who must lower the tone of their rhetoric. What strange times we are living in.
11 comments:
"Just in the days and weeks leading up to Saturday's shooting, President Biden and his followers referred to Trump as a "Hitler", a dangerous man who would end democracy, an existential threat to America, a man who must be stopped however necessary."
True, there are Democrats who have referred to Trump as being like Hitler. Interestingly enough, his current VP pick also referred to him as "America's Hitler" before he decided to join team MAGA. I am also old enough to remember Obama's term. The "Hitler" word was thrown around a lot. It was a real favorite of Glen Beck. (What would happen if I comb through your old entries?) Also, there was all kinds of fear-driven propaganda. Remember, "death panels"?
Do you have an exact quote of any prominent Democrat saying that Trump must be stopped "however necessary"? I only hear about getting out the vote, but I'm willing to be convinced. Yes, the "bullseye" talking point was ill-phrased, especially after the fact.
" Is it any wonder that some deranged, 20-year-old like Thomas Matthew Crooks would decide to take out this "danger to American democracy"? "
And what do we know about this "deranged" killer? He's a registered Republican. People who knew him at school recall him always taking the conservative position. Yes, there is the thing about the donation to a "Get out the vote" organization led by Democrats, but there is some doubt as to whether that was actually him (because he would have been too young at the time as the organization only takes donations from those over 18 - as far as I understand.)
We do not know his motivation, but to point the fingers at the rhetoric from Democrats flies directly in the face of what we do know. Interesting how you don't mention any of that. I'm sure you would have mentioned if he was transgender, had ties to Antifa, etc.
"They are not advocating assassinating anybody."
Who are we talking about here? If by "they" you mean prominent Republicans, then as far as I can tell you're right. IF you're talking about various Trump supporters online then the evidence is pretty easy to find that's exactly what's happening.
As for Trump's rhetoric, let's take a look at that. Remember when Pelosi's husband was attacked? What did Trump do? Joke about it, that's what.
He also would frequently talk about inflicting violence on protesters at his events - even claiming that he'd pay the legal bills for those who did the deed.
And why is it, Gary, that Trump has to pick a new VP? What happened to the old one? I remember, do you? The crowd was calling to lynch him. And now Trump is talking about pardoning the January 6th rioters. He even plays their song at his rallies.
Let's also take a look at the gun-fetish culture of Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene - both of which featuring firearms in their promotional materials. The shooter was also somebody who fetishized guns (not saying that every gun owner is like this). That's not exactly a liberal/democrat kind of a thing, is it?
Continued...
I have no problem with Democrats and everybody looking inward and re-evaluating their language. But to use one of your favorite phrases: make no mistake, we have direct evidence of violent rhetoric on the part of Republicans leading to violent actions. (I haven't even mentioned the various hate crimes on the books where the perpetrators claimed to be doing it in the name of Trump. I'd provide a link, but you've already told me that you're not going to read them.)
The chickens are coming home to roost, Gary. I suggest you get out of the barn. I sincerely don't want to see you wind up like the poor man who died that day. (Interestingly enough, Biden called his widow to express his condolences. Trump has not.)
And can we be honest here - do you think that Trump would have made a similar speech regarding the shooting as Biden? What does his past behavior indicate? (He'd probably say something like "I like Presidential candidates who don't get shot in the ear" - to paraphrase what he said about John McCain.
I knew I'd be hearing from you eventually. Your response reads like, "So's your old man". Of course, there is reckless rhetoric going around on both sides, but we are dealing with this occasion. To repeat: It was Trump who got shot. Psaki's comments were bad timing to say the least.
So I could counter and remind you of Chuck Schumer's threat to Gorsuch and Cavanaugh after the Roe decision. Then it would be your turn, and we could go back and forth forever.
By the way, with your comments, I am now officially catching it from both sides. Read the New English Review link on my "The Secret Service" posting. Check out the reader comments I am getting from the conspiracy theorists on the right. I have to defend the Secret Service from accusations that they deliberately allowed the shooting to happen in order to kill Trump. Real Alex Jones stuff.
Speaking of Alex Jones, are you aware that he was recently floating the idea of how it would be a "good thing" if someone assassinated Trump?
No because I don't follow him. I consider him a crazy man.
A few things:
I saw your debate on the New English Review. I'm totally on your side. It reminds me of a debate I'm getting into with a person on the left who's saying the whole thing was "staged". Much like how you can't get your opponent to give specifics as to how that sort of a thing would even work out, I'm having the same problem. We'd make for a pretty good team if we were on the same side more often.
If your argument is solely that now's not the time to focus on violent right-wing rhetoric considering who got shot, that's fine. I don't agree, but that's a legitimate point. What I took issue with this notion that somehow left-wing rhetoric is strictly to blame when we have no evidence for that, and all circumstantial evidence (as of me writing this - things can change) points to the exact opposite. (It's come out that there were Trump signs in front of the family home. This proves nothing though, as plenty of kids disagree with their parents.)
I also don't deny that there are poor choices of words among the Dems. And fromm what I've seen, many Dems, Biden especially included, have acknowledged that. What I'm hearing from the right is nothing but finger-pointing. If you have counter-examples, please let me know.
Maybe we can do an endless tit-for-tat, but I bet that for every one example you give of a prominent Democrat saying something problematic, I can give you five from a prominent Republican. Not only that, but I bet I can give you even more examples of violence that occurred where the perpetrator is on-record as repeating right-wing talking points.
And while I'm glad that you consider Jones to be a madman, he appeals to many on the right. Trump was a vocal supporter of his. While I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, a possible scenario here is that this kid was an Alex Jones fan and took the notion of a Trump assassination "improving things" for the right very seriously.
Again, not saying that's what it is. However, it is a MUCH more likely scenario right now than him being some kind of left-wing idealogue who acted upon Biden's "bullseye" comment or feared that Trump was another Hitler.
My initial suspicion was that the shooter would turn out to be an Antifa type. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case. Was he really a political ideologue whose philosophy was so extreme it would drive him to do this? I doubt it, but if he was a right-wing ideologue, I doubt Trump would be his target. More than likely, he was simply a seriously disturbed person seeking notoriety. But we are still awaiting a full disclosure of his background and social media history etc. Motive remains unclear.
I recall a lady being interviewed who hands out Trump lawn signs in the neighborhood and she insisted she never saw any kind of sign there.
We can argue forever about which side uses the more inflammatory language, but the fact remains that it was TRump who was targeted, and the statements made about him are well-known and over the top. So my point about Jen Psaki still stands.
"We can argue forever about which side uses the more inflammatory language."
Sure we can, but only if you remain in total denial will you continue to insist that the Dems are worse - or even the same.
Is it too early to talk about how they were chanting "Fight! Fight! Fight!" at the RNC?
Lastly, don't know if you were keeping up, but it seems like the shooter was looking for somebody high profile to shoot. His search history included the royals, Biden, and Trump.
Looks like Trump was the one who took the bullet simply because he was the one who came to town. If that's the case, neither right-wing nor left-wing rhetoric is playing a part in this.
The Republicans have said that Biden is senile, corrupt, incompetent, weak, and his policies are wrong.
The Dems say that Trump is Hitler, a racist, an existential threat to democracy, and who must be stopped at all costs (maybe not by any means necessary).
You tell me which is worse.
What's wrong with chanting "fight fight fight"? Fight has different connotations. One of the talking heads at CNN or MSNBC criticized Trump for mouthing the words, "fight" when he was shot. Wow.
You may be right about the shooter's motive, but my criticism of Psaki still stands.
Your summary of the talking points is so selective and dishonest that I can't tell if you truly believe it or will say any absurdity necessary to win an argument.
And I'm sure that you'd have no problem if the Dems were shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight!" I also just bought a bridge.
No, I would have no problem if the dems were shouting "Fight, fight fight"-within that same context.
Enjoy your bridge. What are you going to name it? On second thought, best keep it anonymous.
Post a Comment