An anti-abortion activist has been shot and killed in Michigan. It seems to be linked to another homicide in the area, so this seems more like a lone lunatic than a political killing, at least for the nonce. I certainly hope so. The abortion wars are quite damaging enough without further escalating the reprehensible violence.
I also hope that if it does turn out to be someone with a political agenda, the right can manage to refrain from claiming that this is really a symptom of some dark rot at the center of liberalism. You hate it when liberals give into the temptation of this sort of bigoted partisan nonsense, and if you really want to piss them off, set an example they'll be forced to live up to.
Update: Yup, looks like he was targeted because of his protests. Prepare for the demands that every liberal commenter repudiate this, and liberal commentators complaining when pro-lifers make a public show of mourning their martyr. Happy Friday, everyone.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Concern trolling reaches all time low
Comment trolling reaches an all-time low.
Movertyperguy has no low.
I understand what you mean (take the high road, you won't regret it), but the problem is if conservatives take the high road, it won't help. Liberals already have multiple examples of a Republican doing something semi-similar already set up as excuses to excuse any bad behavior by liberals they want to.
Didn't you see the example about fringe actors? "Birtherism" beliefs by 28% of Republicans is supposedly a sign of nuttery beyond the pale, but 35% of Democrats self-identifying as believing Trutherism is just mainstream thinking.
However, all that aside, I can guarantee you that any comments of "dark rot at the center of liberalism" will just be an attempt at irony to wake up liberals to their double standards. It won't work, but some people are still naive enough to try.
but 35% of Democrats self-identifying as believing Trutherism is just mainstream thinking.
Didn't something like 30% of Republicans answer yes to the same question? Wasn't the question phrased in such a way, that if the Administration got a memo (which they did) warning of the attacks beforehand (which was ignored) you'd answer yes?
No to both, if you wish to be accurate and honest.
If you are merely trying to provide rhetorical cover by blurring the actual facts, I can't help you. Have the coruage to make your own assertions and back them up. Implying by way of "just asking" is just another layer of rhetoric designed to obscure, just another technique to attack conservatives rather than defending liberals.
You also might want to also consider the difference between someone believing President Bush is capable of allowing 3k people to die for a political purpose compared to believing that President Obama is not being fully transparent about the complete circumstances of his birth.
Personally, I don't subscribe to Birtherism at all. I've seen Hawaii birth certificates, and his looks exactly the same, and I have rejected and denounced Birthers and Semi-birthers and partial-birth-abortions whenever possible. I've told Birthers to stop being so ridiculous to their face.
Have you done the same to Truthers/ism?
Nathan- Doesn't it seem like the requirements for hypocrisy are getting a bit too loose though? I also believe that Birtherism is ridiculous and Trutherism is ridiculous, and I'd agree that thinking the President played a role in murdering 3,000 citizens is more vicious than thinking the new President is secretly a Kenyan. Nevertheless, I'd sure agree that they're both nonsensical at this point.
So, I suppose my own convictions are internally consistent, even though I contain multitudes. But, now, am I also required to publically state my disagreement every time anyone else who is of roughly the same political bent says something that contradicts something I think? That's a bit much, isn't it? I can put my press secretary to work on it. But do I seriously also have to track down those people whose views contradict my own and state to their face that they're being ridiculous, in order to be internally consistent or honest? I don't even know where Birthers and Truthers hang out, although I'm guessing they're not protesting near me, since I live in Ontario.
I guess my question is, don't we reach a point in which consistency isn't a very helpful philosophical measuring stick? I ask this not to start an argument, but because hypocrisy seems to be a hot topic here as of late.
Rufus,
(No button to reply to you, so I'll reply to me and direct it to you).
I non-sarcastically appreciate your thoughtful tone.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Sen. Craig was forced out of office by Democrats calling for his head. One of their main points was the hypocrisy of a Republican Senator being caught in a homosexual sting, because Republicans supposedly lecture people about sexuality. But many of these same Democrats (I'm assuming the Venn intersection is huge) defended President Clinton because it was just about sex.
Rep. Mark Foley is an even more striking example. No crime was committed. No complaints were failed for even sexual harassment. But he was pressured to resign solely on Democratic Party claims of hypocrisy.
When one side wields "hypocrisy" as a weapon, they cannot turn around and claim hypocrisy is no big deal when caught in their own contradictions.
That's what I see happening. I see Democrats rarely defending their own views, platforms, actions, etc, but rather merely finding a way to attack any Republican/conservative critic to get them to back off. That was the technique used against Sarah Palin, the technique Keith Olbermann is trying to use against Glenn Beck, the technique Nancy Pelosi ("They're NAZIs"), Harry Reid ("They're Evil Mongers!"), and President Obama used against the Tea Party/town hall protestors, the technique SEIU and their Democratic Party handlers used to try to shout out town hall protestors.
I'm tired of it. I wouldn't mind debating liberals/Democratic Party advocates, but if you just look in the comment posts, you don't see defense of Obama Care, you see attacks against conservative positions, or the logic that if you cannot *prove* 100% certain that Democrats plans won't work, that you are then required to accept any/all Democratic Party proposals and a massive government intrusion into both daily lives and all aspects of the economy and society.
So if we can defeat liberals/Democrats on their own battlefield (seizing the moral high ground) using their own techniques (derision, identifying egregious lies and hypocrisy), then maybe they'll recognize the diminishing returns of their method and return to actually debating the issues and evidence for views.
And apparently we are winning this battle.
My point is just that the hypocrisy argument is usually a lame argument. You seem to agree with that. As far as I can tell, your point seems to be that it's definitely a lame argument, so if we deploy that argument against liberals, they'll realize it's lame and stop using it. Maybe so.
Why it's lame: Let's take Senator Craig and the bathroom sting. If the man was actually doing what he was busted for (which still seems unlikely to me) and he otherwise lectured people about their sex lives, he could maybe be called a hypocrite. What's lame about the argument I think you're criticizing is that we can't just extrapolate from his individual hypocrisy that "The Right" is guilty of lecturing people about sex and then having kinky sex lives. It's even lamer to say Republican A talks like a prude, while Republican B frequents leather bars, thus Republican A is a hypocrite. It's hard enough for people to be internally consistent without asking them to be consistent with everyone else who votes the same way they do. It's easy to find those Venn overlaps in any large group of people because all we have to do is say, "in general" Star-bellied sneetches say X; but "in general" star-bellied sneetches also believe Y. So, from a very far distance, all groups look like hypocrites. And, as you've pointed out, if one side is being hypocritical in an argument, generally the other side is being hypocritical in the opposite way.
Also, people change their minds. Their beliefs smash up against reality and they have to adapt them. I've known plenty of people, for example, who did not care for homosexuals... until their Uncle or brother or daughter came out. I didn't hold it against them that they said one thing before that happened and another after it happened. As people gain a wider perspective on the world, one would hope their ideas would change.
But, as you've also suggested, even spotting hypocrisy well doesn't take us very far. Let's imagine a KKK member who never patronizes businesses that are owned or operated by minorities- okay, so he's not a hypocrite. But his ideas are still crap. Focusing on internal consistency moves us away from the basic question of which ideas are good and which are bad. It misses the point. It suggests that we can't tell which ideas are good or bad; just what ideas logically contradict other ideas.
Again though, I think you do recognize why it's a lame argument- at least, when the other side does it. Deploying it against "the left" might make whatever percentage of the left actually uses this argument realize how lame it is; or maybe won't. Eventually, I think we're going to reach the point at which everyone says, "Nobody else argues well, so I won't either." Well, unless we're already there. Over the last year, I have read a number of "right wing" blogs and websites and a number of "left wing" blogs and websites, and if I take them seriously, they have thus far taught me two things with absolute certainty:
1. Conservatives are evil, stupid, hypocritical, dishonest, and mean.
2. Liberals are evil, stupid, hypocritical, dishonest, and mean.
So, I'm with the sneetches.
In re: your other post (no reply button):
That's rich. Craig wasn't forced out of anything and if he was, it was most certainly not by Democrats. He didn't resign his seat, even though he said that he would. He didn't seek reelection because if he had tried, he would have been challenged from the right, not the left, and he would have been relentlessly hounded for his arrest.Larry Craig destroyed his career all by himself, he didn't need any help from Democrats. It was HIS actions that were responsible for his downfall, period. That is unless you don't believe in personal responsibility.
No, not because it was "just about sex" but because it was the result of a fishing expedition after three different investigations (AKA witch hunts) failed to turn up any wrong doing.
Additionally, Clinton was not a hypocritical moral crusader, Craig was. Democrats don't care what turns Larry Craig on, they don't care who he chooses to have sex with and what he does with his private life. That is unless it flatly contradicts what he says and does in public.
For example, if Bill Clinton had been in front of the cameras telling everyone that consensual oral sex with someone to whom you are not married is evil and that we should pass laws outlawing it, all while privately engaging in the exact behavior that he publicly condemned, you wouldn't find many on the left that would even try to defend that.
It's not the sex, it's the hypocrisy.
What? The reason that Democrats had a problem with Foley is because whether or not it could be definitively proven that he committed a crime, an adult soliciting sex from underage boys is indeed a crime. Not being convicted of a crime is not the same thing as "no crime was committed". And again, it's not the sex, it's the hypocrisy. Well, in the Foley case it was about the sex inasmuch as it was about statutory rape, but it's mainly the hypocrisy. Foley was a gay-condemning "family values" Republican who was trying to coerce underage boys to have homosexual sex with him.
But according to you, that had nothing to do with why he is no longer in congress, it was just that those mean old Democrats made a a big deal over Foley's hypocrisy.
Please.
When closeted gay Republicans are outed, their chances to win in a GOP primary become roughly nil, which is why they remain in the closet (*cough* Lindsey Graham *cough*). It isn't Democrats that have a problem with homosexuals, it's Republicans - which is why Foley and other closeted gay Republicans are moral-crusading "family values" Republicans in public, they can read the writing on the wall. And when one of their own is outed, they're disinvited from the club and the pressure to step down comes from their own party, not from Democrats, because the GOP is intolerant of homosexuality.
With Democrats it's usually about the hypocrisy but with the Republicans, it's always about the sex.
In point of fact, Clinton perjured himself in relation to questions that he was required to answer before the court as a consequence of legislation that he himself had signed while flanked in the photo op by prominent harpies of the feminist league. Thus, the plea that hypocrisy doesn't apply in Clinton's case rings a little hollow.
According to the National Abortion Federation, 140,000 incidents of violence have occurred in the past 25 years. Those incidents include at least 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 172 arsons, 373 invasions, 3 kidnappings, 1,141 vandalisms, 100 butric-acid attacks, 655 anthrax threats, 139 assaults, 365 death threats, 474 stalkings, 605 bomb threats, and 10,666 hate mails/harassing calls.
I can't imagine why on earth pro-choice folks might be tempted to point out a "dark rot" at the center of the anti-abortion movement.
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_stats.pdf
Based on recent actions by Democrats in Colorado and Texas to conduct attacks on their own people/locatiosn and blame them on Republicans, and based on the number of Hate Crime accusations that have turned out to be perpetrated by the individual making the accusation, I have to applaud your ability to so quickly assert that all these actions were taken by pro-life movement activists. I'm particularly impressed that you managed to elide over the fact that these numbers are inflated/obscured by including Canada's stats.
Bravo for so quickly fulfilling the prediction I made in post #2!
I have to applaud your ability to so quickly assert that these actions were taken by Democrats.
According to that link, 6,000 incidents of violence have taken place, the overwhelming majority of which consist of trespassing, vandalism, burglary (which presumably happens at all medical clinics), death threats, and (in the wake of the 9/11 anthrax threats) anthrax threat letters in the mail. These are not quite tantamount to murder--after 9/11, all my friends companies got bomb and anthrax threats, including my mother, several times, who sold real estate out of a low rise building on the upper east side.
Not to mention the 1.2 million acts of violence committed on the babies - who are, you know, killed during the abortion procedures.
What about the violence toward the unborn?
Wow, talk about false eqivalence. From The Times article Megan linked too.
"Leaders of anti-abortion groups said they knew of no other instance in which a person protesting against abortion had been killed."
For those counting at home, that's 373 violent incidents against pro-choicers compared to 1 against anti-abortioners.
I think what you meant to say is "which I assume happens at all medical clinics with the same frequency and severity that it does with abortion clinics." Be careful with those assumptions.
See, I think hate mail and harassment are bad things, and should be punished (at least the latter, since "hate mail" is not in itself a threat and punishable... "I think you're awful!" is free speech, even if it's rude).
But they are not violence.
They're not even like violence in the way vanadalism (violence against property) and stalking (implied threat of violence against a person) are.
Including them as the vast majority of the dataset of "incidents of violence" suggests that the intent is to inflate numbers to make them scary, rather than to honestly inform.
(And as Megan says below... 6000 incidents of some sort of violence, most of which are (thank God) false threats of anthrax in a letter, or trespassing and burglary (not violence by normal-person definitions), rather than actual violence against a person.
That's a lot less than 140,000.
The desire to throw around "140,000 incidents of violence" seems, to me, telling.)
Full disclosure: I don't really give a damn about abortion either way. I've never supported either side with my time or money. I've never had an abortion, being male, nor pressured a woman to either have or not have one. I have no dog in this fight apart from a desire that people argue cleanly.
One group is "pro-choice" and the other is "pro-life". Both sides have abandoned all claims of honest argument with their very names.
Let's not forget the 1.2 million helpless babies killed each year.
"100 butric-acid attacks,"
You mean stink bombs?
I think it's time Megan had a good sit down with Michelle Goldberg over the new dangerous rise in left wing violence.
(I kid, I kid.)
My apologies for typos. I will start using the preview button.
the right can manage to refrain from claiming that this is really a symptom of some dark rot at the center of liberalism.
I'm pro-choice and I still wouldn't mind seeing that claim, just to provoke some internal debate among left-liberals. Did you see all the defenses of Van Jones this week? They do this at the same time as they tar the right with Birtherism, with no sense of irony.
and if you really want to piss them off, set an example they'll be forced to live up to.
Sigh, if only the world worked that way. They won't be pissed off; in fact they'll benefit.
I'm sure I don't have to point out the incentives created by the following rules:
1) We have to spent considerable effort disavowing our crazies because the other side claims they represent us.
2) We shouldn't claim the other side's crazies represent them, even though that's why we had to make rule #1.
TallDave is absolutely right. There is a double standard so glaring that one wonders if the left is even capable of self-awareness. I am also pro-choice, but I am not so ideologically driven as to ignore the unlevel playing field here. The left is NEVER forced to live up to higher standards. by anyone. When the right finally stoops to the tactics of the left in a desperate bid to halt the onslaught of progressivism, the left responds by stooping even lower. it's a negative feedback spiral that will end only in social fragmentation or collapse.
The left howls about being forced to fund wars they do not support, and rightfully so, but they can't see how they are doing the same thing buy forcing conservatives to fund abortions with their taxes.
I also hope that if it does turn out to be someone with a political agenda, the right can manage to refrain from claiming that this is really a symptom of some dark rot at the center of liberalism. You hate it when liberals give into the temptation of this sort of bigoted partisan nonsense, and if you really want to piss them off, set an example they'll be forced to live up to.
With all due respect, I think it is rather unrealistic to expect the pro-life side to be the only one to "turn the other cheek", and set the good example. Especially when it is an absolute certainty that the Left will not "live up to" any good example or take it as anything but a sign of weakness.
There have been murders of abortion doctors. And there have been bombings of abortion clinics. The perpetrators have been caught and punished. And unlike the Left which worships their political killers, and agitates to have them released; none of the convicted felons are objects of any such effort by the Right. The most infamous of the abortion clinic bombers, Eric Rudolf, is mischaracterized as being fanatic right-wing. Eric Rudolf's writings and confessions [he also did the Atlanta Olympics bombing in 1996] reveal that in addition to being anti-abortion; he is also anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, and anti-Republican. Yet, the Left uses him to smear everyone to the right of Trotsky.
I came here after going to the local Michigan TV station's news site [Ossowo is near Flint]. In the comments on the story, the Left; call them "pro-choice", "pro-abortion" or whatever, have been having paroxysms of joy at the death. It seems to them that standing on a corner holding signs that oppose their political views is a capital crime.
So, no, if it turns out that whoever killed him was ACORN, SEIU, UAW, NBPP, AmeriCorps, OFA, NARAL, or any other form of a Democrat activist; your side gets to ride the heat for the crime.
For the record, because I know that the Chiroptera Lunarii will be out in force attacking me once this is read; I am not of any of the manifold flavors of the Judeo-Christian persuasion. I would personally oppose any attempt to abort any children I fathered, and have raised 4 of my own to adulthood, having lost a stepson to a genetic defect. That makes me one of what Democrat pundits are calling evil "breeders", I guess. My primary political arguments on this matter involve the ongoing insistence by Democrats that those with religious scruples [which I may not share, but I am willing to honor as a matter of civic tolerance (something Democrats speak of but do not practice)] not only pay for what they consider to be murder, but also that if they are medical personnel that they actually be forced to perform abortions; and the matter of having the medical procedures of abortion, and abortion providers, being subject to the same legal regime as all other medical procedures. That makes me an enemy of the state in Democrat terms. Oh, and I favor the death penalty for those who have deliberately killed anyone, abortion providers or not.
Those who have never granted quarter, should not demand or expect it.
Subotai Bahadur
Which Democratic pundit is using the term "evil breeder"? Please post a link to a pundit who has used the term.
Nice latinizing of Moonbat.
Brian Despain
Don't have the link at hand, but "breeder" was being commonly used by those of non-heterosexual persuasion and those of a pro-abortion persuasion to describe Sarah Palin because she did not abort her child with Down's Syndrome. Andrew Sullivan here at the ATLANTIC uses it regularly, both in reference to Palin, to heterosexual females, and to heterosexual couples who have children [do a search for "Andrew Sullivan" + "Breeder"].
[UPDATE]
And I did a quick web search, my, they hate heterosexuals. "Breeder" is a relatively nice term.
Found this by Bill Maher, who at best counts as a pundit.
Nov 17, 2008
Sarah Palin “not a reader but a breeder ” - Bill Maher
And if you search "Bill Maher" + "Breeder" and you will find that he has used it numerous times over the years [in two senses, he has talked about dog breeders, but he also rants against what he assumes are conservative stay at home mothers, and especially against those who breast feed]
And the number of sites that use the term, almost all on the Left, is humongous. They range from Gay Rights/Lifestyle sites, to ZPG sites, to what I call DINK [Dual Income No Kids] Yuppie sites. Here is a page from one that has a glossary:
http://happilychildfree.com/lingo.htm
Wander around the rest of the site.
Subotai Bahadur
Andrew Sullivan is not a democrat[sic] pundit. Neither is Maher. Maher is a comedian. The web sites you link to are not "democrat[sic] pundits".
who are the "they" that hate heterosexuals? Democrat pundits again?
Planned Parenthood nee ABCL founder Margaret Sanger was known to use the term "reckless breeders" as part of her eugenics schtick, although her punditry is not rather recent.
Where do protestors (of any flavor) find all this free time?
Skipping class, usually.
I've always wondered that about the bozos that tour the country protesting funerals. Even if I ignore the level of scumbaggery involved in protesting a funeral, I'm still left with the feeling of how do you not have something more productive to do with your time?
If you're talking about Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, the reason the have time to protest funerals is that's their job. Let me 'splain.
It's a tort scam. The "church" is basically his family (plus an in-law, though my info may be out of date). His wife is a lawyer. They go around and protest funerals of celebrities and fallen soldiers in a manner that's likely to seriously piss people off (the "God hates fags" sign are a nice touch), and when someone trashes a sign, or pushes one of the "church" members, or (cha-ching!) pops one of them, it's lawsuit time! That's how they pay the bills, though I can't imagine it's the most lucrative line of work.
You hate it when liberals give into the temptation of this sort of bigoted partisan nonsense, and if you really want to piss them off, set an example they'll be forced to live up to
I regret that that is factually incorrect on both counts. I do not hate it when liberal extremists do this, as I have grown to expect it. Furthermore, I can set a good example, but that does not force them to live up to it.
I find a much better strategy is either to ignore poor behavior (useful in blog comments -- but not when you are the blog owner ;-) ) or make it understood that I will not back down from attacks (useful in social settings) and will make it uncomfortable for the attacker -- and any supporters.
The problem is that in this day and age, unless you raise a big stink about something, you won't get any credit for NOT making a big stink. First of all, you have to control the framing from the outset to even make the story what you want in the first place. Second of all, it only takes a single person breaking ranks and making the connection to get the message out there.
Well, Megan, your musing has already been answered in spades. The guy hasn't been shown to have a political agenda yet, and your cadre is already seething about "some dark rot". It's their default setting, and they won't be deflected from it. And I do think it's comical that you want your boys to refrain from bigoted partisan nonsense. Your comment threads are filled with it daily . . . and there aren't too many lefties who post here any longer.
"Taking the high road is fine", but sometimes what the other side needs is "a taste of their own medicine".
There are a lot of double standards being exposed right now, as the Democrats are now finding out with matters like "respect for the president".
Maybe once all the double standards are fully exposed we can all agree to have civil debate from here on out. I'm not holding my breath for it though.
great local blog bout this here
http://donate-blogs.blogspot.com/
Yeah, what with all those well-regarded liberal organizations taking the position that abortion protesters should be killed -- and that this particular abortion protester should be killed -- I can see why you'd draw that obvious parallel between this guy's shooting and the recent right-wing hits. Why, it was only yesterday Keith Olbermann said someone would be justified in taking poor Mr. Michigan protester out.
I would also note that it's not clear the shooter was liberal and/or in favor of legalized abortion. He just didn't like the fact that this guy displayed giant bloody fetus pictures outside a high school. So it might have been more the medium than the message that incited the violence.
But whatever. This totally should not have happened. I am sorry for the victim's family. Nothing good comes out of this. And its too bad conservatives and their enablers like McMegan will try to make hay.
The victim was targeted because of his protests. He was not targeted, so far as we know, for being pro-life. The perpetrator, of whose politics we know little at this point, apparently made known that he didn't like the graphic pictures of fetuses being shown to children. That is not a pro-choice position per se- it is fully consistent with being pro-life and yet averse to kids being exposed to these pictures. I was against the Iraq War but would never have wished pictures of dead Iraqi civilians to have been shown to first-graders.
Does that justify killing the person (I can almost hear the collective spittle of these commenters hitting the screen)?!!!!! No, of course not. This guy needs to be locked up pronto. But don't say he's a liberal, not yet.
And no, I haven't slung such accusations at "conservative" killers. In fact, I have spent every minute of every day tracking down every last hypocritical thing said by any person anywhere from the left over the past twenty years (I did take a few bathroom breaks), even to the point of losing my house, kids, and family (Uncle Jerry once called Bush "incompetent" so I had to ruin Thanksgiving dinner correcting him). So put away the Glenn Beck violin because I had nothing to do with the unfairness of it all.
"also hope that if it does turn out to be someone with a political agenda, the right can manage to refrain from claiming that this is really a symptom of some dark rot at the center of liberalism. You hate it when liberals give into the temptation of this sort of bigoted partisan nonsense"
This last is true, we do hate it. But the alternative is to live in a world where conservatives have to answer for their loons while the left does not. Allowing this isn't the high road, it's stupidity. The left will never stop their attacks if we don't force them to. Why would they ever decline a "heads I win, tails we split" bet? The idea that somehow we make out by lettign them off the hook is crazy.
Conservatives have to answer for their loons because main stream conservatives incite them with murderous (in the case of the abortion issue) rhetoric. The day you call out O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck for talking about how killing abortion docs is justified is the day you stop having to answer for them.
They've taken the position that killing abortion docs is justified? All three of them? Really? I'm assuming you have some evidence of that - I would be very surprised to see that it's true.
Right, Hannity called for murder. Such accusations are fine when it's just you and the gals from Women's Studies 101. It's like saying the pledge of allegiance. When other people are present it translates to "I'm the loon".
I think it's only fair to point out that your advice was echoed by Ed Morrissey on Hot Air. He writes:
I think Ed's sentiments are shared by most conservatives and by, I hope, most Americans.
My bad, boys! O'Reilly and Beck used inciting rhetoric. If Hannity didn't, do you think that undermines my point? Hint from me and the "gals" with law degrees and impressive credentials: It doesn't.
No dominant figure on the left has used inciting rhetoric directed against abortion protesters. When they do, it will our job to get the "loons" in line.
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001803/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFh3hgoi7Ew
I guess I'll have to think about this since you couldn't be bothered. Neither clip shows either O'Reilly or Beck calling for violence. Both highlight use of the term "baby-killer". So first, this isn't murderous, nor is it inciting.
But let's move past your simple assertion errors to the subject at hand. Presumably you can justify why you think loaded language counts as murderous inciting language. So for this purpose let's just accept they are the same. So all I have to do is find examples of liberals or lefties using similarly loaded language without the left casting them out.
- Michael Moore's criticism of the terrorist attacks because NYC voters were against Bush, implying he would have no objection to their killing Bush voters.
- Nina Totenberg wishing that Jesse Helms or his grandchildren will contract AIDS, suggesting that people who disagree with her (and their families) deserve death.
- Julianne Malveaux hoping that Clarence Thomas's diet will kill him young.
- Hillary Clinton claiming the administration is waging war on poor children.
- Julian Bond claiming that Republicans support the swastika.
So as usual, once you apply the same standard to both sides we find the leftist position is completely hypocritical. You might ask for a refund from whoever awarded you your impressive credentials.
I really love the way you think:
Then in the very next sentence, you go on to sarcastically describe the "dark rot at the center of liberalism", assuming (there you go again) that liberal commentators will complain "when pro-lifers make a public show of mourning their martyr." Is that partisan nonsense really the example you were trying to set?