Immediately in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona, the nation was desperately searching for any information that would make sense of this senseless tragedy. It was in this atmosphere that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was thrust into the role of official spokesperson at a news conference about the shootings.
Sheriff Dupnik released some information about the shooting, victims, and the shooter and then introduced the local FBI Special Agent in Charge and also introduced the doctor who spoke for the University of Arizona hospital. After the others had given their report to the press, the sheriff returned to the microphone and made a statement that soon had many on the right outraged at his “politicization” of the tragedy.
Reaction from the right
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said, ” First, I didn’t really think that that had any part in a law enforcement briefing last night. It was speculation. I don’t think we should rush to speculate.”Michele Malkin, a prominent Right-wing blogger and Fox News regular wrote on her blog, “There has been zero indication that [accused shooter Jared] Loughner directly or explicitly complained about immigration; instead, he ranted about illiteracy in general and inveighed against grammar control. But this, of course, didn’t stop pro-illegal alien amnesty sheriff Clarence Dupnik from shoehorning SB1070 and its aftermath into his press conference about the Tucson massacre.”
Fox News personalities, including Megan Kelly and the crew of Fox and Friends were among some of the most critical of the Sheriff’s comments.
Trent Franks, GOP congressman from Arizona – “You know, it’s bewildering and disappointing to me, while people are making funeral arrangements that somehow, uh, that somehow those in authority, those really given the trust to report these circumstances to us, would somehow politicize it before they knew what the real truth was. I was especially disappointed in Sheriff Dupnik, because we were looking to him to give us straight facts and he politicized this…”
Neal Boortz, syndicated talk radio host said, “I accuse the sheriff of assigning blame for a political purpose. He’s out there immediately blaming this on talk radio. But you talk about rhetoric, I mean is give me liberty or give me death… uh… that’s some pretty strong rhetoric.”
Normally, I would probably find myself in agreement with the idea that we shouldn’t immediately politicize such an event. However, if you actually listen or read what Sheriff Dupnik said you realize that he didn’t politicize it.
“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and, unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
When asked if Giffords being shot could have been motivated by “prejudice and bigotry,” Dupnik responded, “All I can tell you is that there’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol.”
Statement starts at 5:59
Nowhere in those words did the sheriff point fingers at the left or the right. He did not name a single individual nor blame any one source for the “vitriol that comes out of certain mouths.” Given that, one has to wonder why all of the critics of the sheriff happen to be from the right.
Could it be that those on the right really do realize their rhetoric has gone too far? Could they be feeling guilty about their calls for armed revolution or 2nd Amendment solutions? Could it be that they realize saying that if they can’t win at the ballot boxes then they will turn to the “bullet boxes” is over the top?
This pair of comments from a post on theagitator.com are quite revealing.
• #23 | r€nato | January 10th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
it’s quite revealing that so many people read something ‘political’ in Dupnik’s call for civility, which named nobody and no organizations.I wonder what you people would say about that bleeding-heart pinko Jesus and his divisive, p artisan advice that people forgive one another and turn the other cheek.
• #24 | EH | January 10th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
it’s quite revealing that so many people read something ‘political’ in Dupnik’s call for civility, which named nobody and no organizations.Because everybody knows what he’s talking about, which is why there’s such a disingenuous pushback against him.
In a post titled A Tale of Two Sheriffs John Cole of BalloonJuice.com wrote, ” Two quick notes for David Gergen and the “both sides do it” bullshit peddlers. First, there was nothing partisan about Dupnik’s statements. He pointed no fingers at any specific group- he merely pointed out that public figures are receiving a lot of threats and that as a lifelong resident of Arizona, he has noticed a change in the political atmosphere, which DIRECTLY impacts his ability to do his job, which is keeping the peace. Compare that to the overtly political statements Arpaio has made… well, forever.”
MediaMatters.org has published a similar article with the same title – A Tale of Two Sheriffs – that has more quotes from figures on the right.
Sheriff Dupnik is correct about the nonstop 24/7 anti-government rhetoric in this country. It is everywhere. There has also been a steep rise in anti-government sentiment. Furthermore, he is also right in that it is being promulgated for political advantage. What those who use this tactic to gain political power seem to fail to realize is that this anti-government sentiment isn’t going to vanish overnight once they realize their goals of controlling the reins of government. From that moment on, they will be the government against which so much hate has been aroused.
Since the Right claims the mantle of religion, perhaps they should heed the prophet Hosea in the Bible – “For they that sow the wind shall reap the Whirlwind. Hosea 8:7”
131 comments