In fear of making the same points repeatedly, I will put a few points up on this then probably move on. We mostly agree.....
Thanks, it would be fair to say that it is a red flag, a cause for concern. Nothing definitive and Michelle's statement is certainly of no scientific value. Correlation is not causation.
I agree. As I said, there isn't a scientific correlation between the two events, Palin's speeches and the "sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama" but it does seem reasonable to assume the events are related.
It IS a red flag and I think that is the reason there is a lot of heat in this thread.
On one hand people seem to be saying that "Palin's words are going to lead to disaster". I think that has yet to be proven and might not come to fruition (I sure hope not).
On the other hand, RandFan, I think people see you as dismissing Palin's words as nothing but talk. You seem to be backing that up by saying we don't have proof of anything yet. My disagreement is that you seem to be discounting the power of her words from a rational standpoint but you fail to take into account that SOME of the people listening to her speeches are not rational.
A couple of concerns:
1 What do we make of protests in general? Marches on Washington? Picketers? Should we focus on the increased danger to others or the message?
Most of the time protests in general do not have a solid national figure in front of them. Palin, as inept as she is, was one of the main leaders for the GOP while campaigning. What she said was "the word" to many of these followers.
Did McCain and Palin truly wish harm to Obama and should any possibility that negative messages will lead to an increase in danger silence a speaker?
I don't think McCain wished harm on Obama. I DO however believe that Palin was oblivious of the potential danger, she never came to the realization that she was playing with fire while holding a gas can.
Palin doesn't have any experience at this level. All of her speaking engagements up to this point were to smaller groups. The "enemy" in most of her speaking career was not a single individual but an idea. I seriously question that she understood the mob she was dealing with and the potential for harm.
I'm sincerely not certain that the concern should rise to the level that it did. At what point does fear of the angry mob cause us to focus on that and not the message?
What "message" should we focus on? THAT is the point.
It was the message driving the angry mob. I said it above, when McCain's supporters (many of whom were ex-Military or STRONGLY relate to the military) hear the message "traitor" the knee-jerk reaction is to hang them.
I am not making that up, to the people who are of that mindset, to betray one's country is the highest crime and is deserving of the swiftest penalty.
I think you are overlooking that mindset, perhaps because it is so foreign to most of us but that does not discount the fact that it is an opinion held by some members of our society.
IMO, people were being led by the nose on this. Outraged at the behavior of Palin and McCain when all they were doing was exercising their right to speak. During the last 8 years there have been some very strong rhetoric directed at George Bush. It wouldn't surprise me that the danger to Bush increased because of that rhetoric. What then? Should we have focused on any increase in danger or the message? I could guess that we could first ask if the message is true or if it has any value but that I think is very problematic.
Again, you are COMPLETELY missing the point of the attack. Saying that GWB daughters were party animals while in school is NOT the same as saying "Obama is a traitor" to a group composed of many military families. There is a STARK difference between the message.
If Palin would have said "Obama didn't pay for his overdue library books" no one would have had a problem.
Unless there is clear and present danger I don't think this should be our focus. I see it as a red herring. Now, I have no problem, whatsoever, with folks calling on the speaker to be more responsible with his or her rhetoric. But using the danger as propaganda is in my opinion wrong headed.
I agree, I DO NOT think this should be used as propaganda for Obama's message. I honestly fear for his safety and Palin / McCain should do A WHOLE FREAK'N LOT more to tame the fires they created here.
Just because we have not heard from the lunitic fringe on this issue yet doesn't mean they are not out there still steaming about the things Palin said.
I'm hardly one to complain.