Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) is a disgrace

January 26, 2011

In the past she’s been a shameless race-baiter; now she’s revealed to the nation, her district, and her caucus just how dumb she is:

Behind closed doors, California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez has proposed removing Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) until she recovers from injuries sustained after being shot in the head on Jan. 8 in Tucson, The Daily Caller has learned.

The proposal sparked an outrage, according to those in the room — including from those in Sanchez’s own party.

“It’s not appropriate,” Texas Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes told The Daily Caller, adding that there was outrage among some members in the room when Sanchez made the suggestion. “It’s bad for morale during her recovery period.”

Reyes and Rep. Adam Smith of Washington put up most of the fight against Sanchez, and helped squash the idea.

Politicians and pundits like to talk about the “optics” of a situation, how it will look to the public. You can imagine what went through the Democratic leadership’s minds when nitwit Sanchez suggested this: “Sure let’s kick to the curb the most sympathetic member of our caucus, just after she’s taken a bullet to the brain. That’ll play well on TV and talk radio!”

Then there’s the legislative side of this nonsensical idea: the Republicans hold a seven-seat majority on HASC.  Giffords’ vote wouldn’t be decisive without several Republican defections, so replacing her is meaningless. Sanchez’s staff tried to pass this off as making sure Giffords’ interests were represented, but that can be done by other members of the committee (such as Sanchez, since she cares so deeply) without putting the boot to a colleague who’s already been through so much. (And Reyes has a good point. Morale in rehab counts for a lot, and learning that the work she enjoyed so much is being taken away from her, however temporarily, wouldn’t help.)

Really, I don’t see how Sanchez benefits from this proposal, so I’ll have to put it down to congenital stupidity. She may not be the worst member of California’s 54-seat delegation (There’s stiff competition for that honor), but she’s definitely in the bottom five.

UPDATE 10/30/2014: Edited to remove an error in which I confused her with her equally execrable sister, Linda.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

The Left and “blood libel:” the cartoon version

January 16, 2011

The essence of moonbat reasoning:

I’d say that covers it.

via Legal Insurrection


A media guide for confused journalists

January 12, 2011

Michael Ramirez shoots* a three-pointer, nothing but net:

(Click to enlarge)

*Oh no! Violent rhetoric! Someone hide Michael Daly‘s eyes!


Even violent rhetoric is still free speech

January 9, 2011

Jack Shafer has a great rebuttal in Slate to assertions by the Left that violent rhetoric and imagery are to blame for the mass-murder in Tucson, yesterday. His point is that our political speech is often over-the-top, but only the shooter is to blame for what he did — In Defense of Inflamed Rhetoric:

For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer.

Be sure to read the whole thing. Violent, even hysterical rhetoric has been part of our political discourse since the earliest days of the Republic. Thomas Jefferson himself once wrote:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

So, did Jefferson have blood on his hands when John Wilkes Booth murdered President Lincoln and shouted “Sic semper tyrannis?”

No, of course not. Again, the only person responsible for the outrage in Tucson is the shooter himself and anyone who may have helped him. Not Sarah Palin, not the Tea Party, not the Republicans, and by no means their rhetoric.

Not that this will stop many on the Left from exploiting this tragedy in a attempt to suppress free speech.

AFTERTHOUGHT: And where were all these clucking scolds when George W. Bush assassination fantasies were all the rage? Or Bush as a vampire sucking the blood of liberty? Or Sarah Palin, herself? Dollars to donuts they saw no problem at all.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)