A pretty silly column in the Lafayette Journal & Courier, under the headline "Civility continues to rule in Indiana":
A year removed from the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, tensions have been high among Indiana voters as the right-to-work legislation has led to the second Statehouse stalemate in as many years.
Voters who support and oppose the hot button issue have been vocal, and opportunities to rally for the topic are easy to find.
But despite all the controversy and the memory of Giffords' incident being fresh in the minds of many, local lawmakers say they do not fear becoming the target of violence.
"I think our people understand what is happening here," said state Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette. "People in this Hoosier state, they may disagree with you, but they are respectful when they do. I've been proud of both sides ... they have been very orderly."
It's admirable that we're able to politely disagree here in Hoosierland, no matter how strong our differences of opinion are, but what in the world does that have to do with the wounding of Gabrielle Giffords? She was shot by a deranged young man, not a political opponent. The writer of this column seems oblivious to the fact that people on the right complained bitterly for months about the left's shameless and despicable exploitation of the Giffords shooting in an attempt to stifle dissent.
Comments
The initial assumption that Giffords had been shot by a political opponent was entirely understandable, especially given Sarah Palin's literal targeting of Giffords.
The assumption proved wrong, as you point out, which should remind us all about assumptions.
If liberals were given to loose talk about "Second Amendment solutions" and so forth, and had Giffords been a Republican, you probably would have jumped to the wrong conclusion yourself.
And the fact that the shooter is psychotic, by the way, does not prove he was unaffected by the angry rhetoric of the day. He did, after all, target a politician.
"The initial assumption that Giffords had been shot by a political opponent was entirely understandable,"
Uh, no it's not understandable at all. It was never an "assumption", rather it was an all out made up democrat media assault along the lines of Rham's famous "never let a crisis go to waist". It was despicable and deplorable, but typical.
Civility Rules In Indiana?
Say, for example...On the SE side of FORT WAYNE?
(not gonna happenhere ANY time soon...at least not by the "locals")
Everywhere else...perhaps. maybe...if we're fortunate.