Jared Loughner Was A Non-Partisan Nutcase

Ed Morrissey posts this video from ABC of an interview with a friend of Jared Loughner that confirms that he wasn’t very political, didn’t listen to talk radio, and really didn’t care about anything related to government beyond his bizarre theories about grammar:

So, can we please stop with all the conservations about any connections between Loughner and the tone of American political rhetoric? Because it’s rather obvious that he never even heard any of it.

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Andy says:

    Doug,

    No we can’t stop because we can’t let this crisis go to waste, nor should we pass up this golden opportunity to gain advantage over our political opponents, even if that advantage only exists in our own minds.

  2. jim says:

    I suspect he was very partisan, only his partisan view was : me vs everybody else. Set him up in a nice hospital room with John Hinckley and Mark Chapman

  3. Dave says:

    Should we stop with the conversation about whether or not heated political rhetoric influenced Loghner’s murderous rampage? Yes.

    Should we stop with the conversation about whether or not the shooting death of a member of congress should cause us to rethink using violent political metaphors of armed resistance? No.

    Jon Stewart said it best: “It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV.”

  4. Dave says:

    * attempted shooting death. Bad typo.

  5. Drew says:

    “Jared Loughner Was A Non-Partisan Nutcase”

    No shit. I just completed a review of all the coverage and comments here at OTB.

    Let’s just say, not OTB’s finest hour.

  6. DMan says:

    “So, can we please stop with all the conservations about any connections between Loughner and the tone of American political rhetoric?”

    We can, the connection has shown itself not to exist.

    But the fact is people are finally engaged in a conversation about whether we should change the tone of American political rhetoric, and that is a good thing. Seeing that the majority of the problematic rhetoric is coming from one political movement, and more specifically Palin and her supporters, it’s no wonder she is being discussed so frequently. The author’s at OTB seem to be ignoring this, and instead are focusing on the few who still believe a direct connection exists. I think this is what is frustrating so many of the commenter’s here, as OTB is generally good at picking up on nuance such as this.

  7. Axel Edgren says:

    Perhaps he didn’t disagree with the intended victims politically – but he was still feeling as if they should be shot. He made a judgment. He was emotionally engaged in the idea that they were objectively his enemies – and we all know who are responsible for legitimizing that idea.

    Partisan? No. But then again he wouldn’t have shot those two if he didn’t believe democrats and immigration represented such a threat.

    He would have shot *someone*. But his selected victims were no accident.

  8. mike says:

    the bottom lime is that when you have that many guns in a society, these things will happen. I am not a gun control freak or anything, but rather a realist. Selling guns to anyone who wants one and can afford one and meet the minimum checks means things like this will unfortunately happen.

  9. Herb says:

    Hmmm….we’re not even going to wait for a trial before we declare him insane and apolitical? We’re just going to listen to the unsworn testimony of his friend and call it?

    Also, I suspect “Jared Loughner is insane and apolitical” is going to be his defense strategy. The prosecution, on the other hand, will probably emphasize Loughner’s relative sanity (the deliberate planning involved) while they establish that Loughner targeted Giffords for being in Congress. (In other words, a political –though not partisan– motive.)

  10. matt says:

    the bottom lime is that when you have that many cars in a society, these things will happen. I am not a car control freak or anything, but rather a realist. Selling cars to anyone who wants one and can afford one and meet the minimum checks means things like this will unfortunately happen.

  11. Herb says:

    Apropos of my last comment,
    Dahlia Lithwick makes roughly the same point in Slate:

    “And to anyone who claims to know today how much of Loughner’s conduct last weekend was rational and how much was pathology, all I ask is this: Please stand by your words if and when Loughner and his experts and lawyers someday opt to make those very same arguments in court.”