Sarah Palin: “I Hate Violence”

Via Glenn Beck, we have Sarah Palin’s first real words on the controversy that has erupted since Saturday’s shootings:

On his radio program on Monday, Glenn Beck described an email exchange with Sarah Palin over Saturday’s tragedy in Tuscon. Beck said Palin told him, “I hate violence.”

Beck said he wrote to Palin urging her to look into security measures in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others because “there are nutjobs on all sides.” He told listeners he gave the former Alaska governor the name of the security firm he uses.

“Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are felling the same heat, if not much more on this,” Beck said he wrote.

“I hate violence,” Beck quotes Palin as having responded. “I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this.”

I’m not sure what to make of this, and I’m sure we’ll hear something more in the days to come because, like it or not, this story has quickly become about Sarah Palin even though the guy who killed six people is named Jared Lee Loughner.

Video here.

FILED UNDER: Politicians, Quick Takes, Sarah Palin, 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. john personna says:

    Sarah Palin: “I Hate Violence”

    I believe her.

  2. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    And Doug, do you know the reason it becomes a story about Sarah Palin? I suggest it is in the Presidents own words or the words of one of his advisors. That being no crisis goes unwasted. No less than Paul Krugman was placing blame at that feet of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin almost before the echos from the last shots quieted. Commenters on OTB were quick to assign this to the right. Once again they were and are full of it. I did notice however this same group of people who are quick to jump to conclusions about motivations did not feel the same way when there were groups, well organized, marching around with signs advocating the assination of George W. Bush. I would like to ask Michael Reynolds about that.

  3. I have a hard time believing they mean this. I have yet to hear them speak out against the violence they seem to support in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ve never heard them complain about Darfur. I think they hate the violence they did not justify or approve.

  4. wr says:

    So zels — does the current violence make you rethink your frequent threats of mass murder against those who disagree with your politics?

  5. Axel Edgren says:

    You know what I hate? Being hospitalized.
    You know what I don’t do? Engage in free-form mountain climbing.

    You see what I am doing? I am combining my dislike with something by behaving in a way that reduces the chances of that coming into being.

    Palin et al. have been saying that Obama, ACA, Cap and trade etc. are threats to the integral, original nature of the USA. The problem is that if they hum the INTERLUDE to the song some nutjob is prone to pick up the tune when they stop.

    Once again, this is not about black-or-white guilt or innocence, but about reducing vs. increasing the chances that a select group of people will be targeted by maniacs, bigots etc.

    Republicans have long had a cavalier attitude to the suffering of gays and others that has a fair chance of being intensified by their acts and language. Now they are even increasing the chances that democrats get hurt – but when you point this out you are either being “ungentlemanalike” or “opportunistic” (look at realclearpolitics for a study in foppish and whiny poutrage over those uncouth democrats) or you are trying to turn republicans into hate-criminals who don’t deserve to speak.

    Um, no one is trying to do that, you excitable douchepots.

  6. Terrye says:

    Punk:

    Oh please, if the US left Iraq and Afghanistan today those places would not be peaceful havens no matter what silly naive people might like to think. In fact, the US presence has probably reduced violence…but that has nothing to do with what happened in Arizona.

    The truth is the left is using the pain of others for their own gain and they really do not care if they have to lie their behinds off in the process.

    I am not a Palinista, but the idea that she is in any way responsible for this is insane. It really is.

    BTW, does the DNC still have that nationwide map with all the bulls eyes on it where they target vulnerable Republicans for destruction? Gee, that sounds menacing doncha think?

  7. Terrye says:

    Axel:

    I listened to people on the left wish honest to God death to George Bush for years, they get a little bit of it back and they whine like crybabies.

  8. EddieInCA says:

    I, for one, am sick of the comparisons of rhetoric aimed at George W. Bush and those aimed recently at congressional candidates and Obama. A few questions for those of you who keep making it:

    1. When did any Obama supporter, or Gore supporter or Kerry supporter show up at a Bush Presidential event with a gun strapped to his leg in plain sight?

    2. When did anyone leave behind a gun at a local Republican congressional event?

    3. And, lastly, when was the last time any Republican congressman was shot in the head at a local congressional event?

    “Don’t retreat. Reload” – Sarah Palin

    “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” – Sharon Angle

  9. uhh? says:

    “This story has quickly become about Sarah Palin even though the guy who killed six people is named Jared Lee Loughner.”

    The vast majority of the coverage I’m seeing is about probing deeper into Loughner’s background, motivations, etc. Maybe you meant that Palin continues to be one aspect of this story? And yeah Doug, we’ll probably hear more about something that everyone — including you — continues to bring up. Bold prediction.

  10. uhh? says:

    Wow Terrye. I know you didn’t really just refer to half a dozen corpses and a congresswoman shot through the head as the left “getting a little bit of it back” right?

  11. An Interested Party says:

    “Oh please, if the US left Iraq and Afghanistan today those places would not be peaceful havens no matter what silly naive people might like to think.”

    No one ever claimed that they would be…nice strawman, though…

    “The truth is the left is using the pain of others for their own gain and they really do not care if they have to lie their behinds off in the process.”

    Really? This is the road you want to go down? I’m sure that some people on both the right and the left have used and will continue to use tragedies to further their own political agendas, but your sweeping generalizations are hardly based in reality…I wonder if you’re pleased to fall into wingnut territory with the likes of Zelsdorf Ragshaft III, among others…

    “I listened to people on the left wish honest to God death to George Bush for years, they get a little bit of it back and they whine like crybabies.”

    Who were those people? I assume you have equal disgust for those who have similar thoughts about our current president?

  12. An Interested Party says:

    So very true…

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/riding-that-tiger-iv.html

    “For as long as I can remember, I have heard conservatives blaming everything that is wrong in the universe, from violent crime to declining test scores to teen pregnancy to rude children to declining patriotism to probably athlete’s foot . . . upon Dr. Spock, Hollywood liberals, the abolition of prayer in school, Bill Clinton, the ‘liberal 1960s,’ the teaching of evolution — in other words, upon symbols, rhetoric, cultural norms, and the values expressed by political and media leaders. Yet from the moment when someone gets a gun in their hands, apparently, society ceases to have any influence whatsoever on the outcome and individual responsibility takes hold 100%. Something is driving the tripling of death threats against congressmen (and the concomitant rise in threats against Federal judges and other villains of the right, from Forest Service rangers to climate scientists) and it isn’t the sunspot cycle.”

  13. EddieInCA says:

    Anyone…?

    Anyone…?

    Bueller….?

  14. anjin-san says:

    My understanding is that Palin thinks shooting live animals with a high powered rifle from a helicopter is great fun. I don’t see how anyone who thinks that can honestly say that they “hate violence”.

  15. jukeboxgrad says:

    Terrye:

    does the DNC still have that nationwide map with all the bulls eyes on it where they target vulnerable Republicans for destruction?

    I think you’re talking about the map that can be seen here:

    http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

    If you actually pay attention to the map and the article that contains it, you’ll see that it does not “target vulnerable Republicans for destruction.” The article is talking about winning those states in the next presidential election. So the focus is not on Repulican officials in those states. Unlike Palin’s map, which did indeed target specific individuals. Palin’s map listed Gifford’s name.

    There’s another important reason why the situation is not symmetrical. Guns fans (and therefore gun nuts, who are a subset of gun fans) are generally not part of the D base. They’re part of the R base. The risk of this rhetoric inciting a nut is greater on the R side, and therefore R leaders have a greater duty to be careful. But the gun fans in their base love this talk, so that’s why this talk is much more common on the R side.

  16. Axel Edgren says:

    I love how the teepers’ friends (who will gladly join up with people they usually malign if it means tax cuts and spiting liberals) are desperate for some whitewashing or false equivalence opportunities. But alas, not even the democrat target image is equivalent.

    Krugman has basically become Hitler for the far-right’s useful idiots.