Representative Steve Scalise Shot and OPEN THREAD

From CNN:

Washington (CNN)Rep. Steve Scalise, a congressional staffer and members of the congressional police force were shot Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Virginia, in what sources are calling an apparent “deliberate attack.”

Scalise, the third ranking member of House Republican leadership as the majority whip, appeared to have been shot in the hip and it appeared two Capitol Hill police agents were shot, according to Rep. Mo Brooks, who told CNN he was on deck when the shooting occurred. A congressional staffer was also injured.

As of 9:45 a.m. ET, Scalise was in stable condition but undergoing surgery, according to a statement from his office.
“Prior to entering surgery, the whip was in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone,” the statement said. “He is grateful for the brave actions of U.S. Capitol Police, first responders and colleagues.”

The shooting took place at a practice for the GOP congressional baseball team. According to both congressional and law enforcement sources, the shooting appears to be a “deliberate attack.”

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Donald Trump is his own worst enemy.
  • Retired military

    Per VA Governor Terri McAuliffe (democrat)

    “We Lose 93 MILLION Americans a Day to Gun Violence”
    I don’t know about you but I am going to invest in some ammunition manufacturing companies.

    • Scalia

      93MM?? That guy’s on drugs.

      • Retired military

        Well his name is being floated for 2020. He will have to keep Hillary’s knife out of his back for trying to take her place in history.

        • Hmm. Does Hillary have ‘knife sharpener’ on her Amazon Wish List? (Asking for a friend… 😉 )

          • They’ll find another like this shooter to deniably inspire.

      • pennywit

        I’ve been hanging around this blog too long. I read this comment, and I thought, “93 millimeter? I’ve never heard of that kind of gun.”

    • Jwb10001

      How many politicians did he push down to get to the front of the “I’m a loud mouth moron with something incredibly stupid to say” line?

    • Hank_M

      Doesn’t matter that he said something stupid. McAuliffe is leading with the preferred narrative the ever dishonest MSM and democrats will be pushing. This will be all about gun control, not the environment of hate they’re been endorsing and now refuse to accept responsibility for.

    • What a cretin.

    • jim_m

      The good news is that at this rate we won’t have to listen to stupid leftist bs like that because we only have a couple of days before our number is up.

  • pennywit

    This is an awful occurrence.

    • Scalia

      In all likelihood, this is just an isolated kook. I hope and pray that is the case.

      • pennywit

        I’m worried about how many isolated kooks there are. I’ve seen people friends on both left and right go crackers over the last decade or so. Between this and the Comet Pizza guy last year, I’m beginning to wonder if one of my friends is going to round the bend.

        And, yes, I’m aware that the guy in Comet Pizza didn’t actually shoot or kill anybody. But that situation could have gone pear-shaped in an instant.

      • Brett Buck

        One would hope, however, when you have the media and other politicians whipping their groups of idiot followers into a froth over one ridiculous false claim after another, you have to expect this. Leftists of all stripes have tended toward violent sociopathy for years, and for 8 years, the king of violent confrontational agitation Obama had missed no opportunity to try to incite violence.

      • jim_m

        His FB group lived it. You can find support growing for him on Huff Po and Daily Kos. The left loves him. He will be a martyr for them.

  • pennywit

    Looks like the shooter was a left-winger. Bernie Sanders supporter. Paged through what I assume is his social media presence. Pretty much an out-there lefty. Scary thing is that it’s hard to tell which of these folks are going to pick up a gun and which are just content to sit at home venting.

    • I’d love to see the much-beloved liberal late-night nutjobs scale things back. The problem with being a comic with one schtick is that you’ve always got to try to top your previous night to keep the audience engaged.

      The late-night crowd has been milking the leftist political stuff for so long… there’s not much further they can go.

  • Hank_M

    When you repeatedly demonize those you disagree with, compare them to nazi’s, fascists and worse, call them unfit for office, accuse them of wanting to take your rights away, ignore violence by your side (antifa), attend and applaud Plays depicting the murder of the President, this is what you get.

    • fustian24

      The sad thing is there are rubes that really believe the lefty narrative of hate.

      These are alleged to be this guy’s favorite TV shows (from his Facebook page):
      John Oliver-Last Week Tonight
      The Nightly Show
      The Ed Show
      Rachel Maddow
      the Daily Show
      Real Time with Bill Maher

      Every one of these a lefty hate-fest.

  • fustian24

    It is time to get Sessions back on the stand to find out about any contacts he’s had with this guy, because until the investigation is over we cannot be certain that the Trump campaign was not in collusion with this guy.

  • cathymv

    Sadly, when you continually call for violence – someone will listen to you. When you see Kathy Griffin holding a beheaded Trump – When you Tim kaine saying: dems have to fight in the streets against Trump – someone will listen to you. When you hear Madonna say she wants to blow up the whitehouse – someone will listen to you. When you host a Shakespearean play about killing the president – someone will listen to you….. when you call for the shooting of the police – someone will listen to you….

    this is what happens when you call for violence against a political opponent day after day – someone will listen to you

    • fustian24

      “Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil” (Krauthammer’s Law)

      • All too true. Time we started thinking of progtards as insane and dangerous to themselves, others, and civil society as a whole.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Past time.

        • fustian24

          To tell the truth, I always see our politics as a kind of circle. Out at the extremes, all sides meet, they just disagree about which religion must be enforced. Extreme forms of Christianity or Islam or whatever the lefties call themselves these days.

          At the edges, it all starts to look a lot alike to me.

      • jim_m

        Conservatives are right and liberals are projecting.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Excellent comment!

  • pennywit

    Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke briefly about the shooting Wednesday, amid reports that the suspect, James T. Hodgkinson III, volunteered on the Vermont senator’s 2016 presidential campaign and featured the senator’s image prominently on his Facebook page.

    “I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice this morning is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. “Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society, and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values.”

    • Scalia

      I’m very glad he said that, and it’s most appropriate at this time.

      • fustian24


        But Bernie is pretty much a Marxist. The whole point of Marxism is the belief that the oppressed have to rise up in violence against the capitalists. This IS the revolution his beliefs and his rhetoric leads to.

        Who does he think he’s kidding?

        • pennywit


        • Scalia

          No disagreement, but a lot of rhetoric can be toned down. I’ve heard plenty on the Right too–myself included–but, regrettably, it may be too late. I have a sinking feeling that we’re being propelled toward a disastrous confrontation. God help us all.

          • pennywit

            I have a sinking feeling that we’re being propelled toward a disastrous confrontation.

            I believe we are as well. I don’t think it’s going to be on the scale of the Civil War, but I think it’s going to take one or two more incidents like this before people realize how far we’ve sunk. I have friends both on left and right who have social media walls similar to this guy’s — lots of memes, half-baked opinions, and political conspiracies. And I have no idea which one of them might decide to go from “post meme” to “shoot gun.”

          • Vagabond661

            I believe a civil (or really, uncivil war) is exactly where we are headed. Big Media won’t accept anything less.

          • “Civil War” is second only to “Civil Servant” in terms of self contradiction, both of which leave “Military Intelligence” as a distant speck in the rear view mirror of perception.

          • It could be that you are somewhat loose in what you consider a friend. I would certainly have no question like that among those who I number as friends.

            Then again, my personal circle of friends is more akin to “Good Friend” in the old joke that begins “A friend will help you move.”

    • As Sarah Hoyt posted on FB –

      “LISTEN TO ME NOW, it’s time to believe your lying eyes and accept that people can disagree with you without being evil. It’s time to investigate all news, even the ones you think confirm you bias. It’s time to wake up.

      YOU DON’T WANT TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD. There is nothing for you here. It didn’t turn out well in 1914. It won’t turn out well now.”

      She’s worth checking out – you might not agree with her, but she’s seen Socialism up close and personal growing up in Portugal, and she’s not impressed by it at all. And she’s really worried about the intolerance that’s getting endemic.

      • pennywit

        Can’t stand the woman, honestly. That means I need to read her stuff more often.

        • What upsets you about her?

          • pennywit

            I’ve read her in the past. I’ve found her kind of grating and a little arrogant. Kind of like me, actually.

          • Retired military

            I dont care for her SF novels. Dont read much of anything else she writes.

          • I’ve only read her blog posts and such. I shall have to look into her SF work.

          • Vagabond661

            Speaking of novels, a shipmate of mine wrote a pretty decent book about submarine life. It’s called “Bubbleheads” and it’s out at Amazon.

          • Been there, done that. Smile when you call me a bubblehead.

          • Vagabond661

            Aye aye. From one bubblehead to another.

          • “The Med Run”?

            He might want to look into Kindle Direct Publishing.

          • Vagabond661

            He’ll have it there this weekend. Thanks!

          • The price point is important. At $12.99, he’s not likely to get many for a new author, but at $2.99 he gets it at the 70% royalty sweet spot.


            It’s always a balancing act between price and sales.

            Also, if he has it in the Kindle Unlimited Lending Library, folks who subscribe to KU can get it for ‘free’, and he gets paid for pages read.

            Hope this helps!

          • I don’t really care for her SF – but she’s REALLY been helpful to a lot of people who were interested in self-publishing. She’s the one who got me started putting stuff up on Kindle Direct. Look for ‘No Network Found’, in Kindle reads under ‘Alternative History’, if you’re interested.

          • As a commentator or as an author of SF?

      • I do believe she hit that nail on the head.

        With a ten pound sledgehammer.

  • stan25

    I have noticed the state controlled media is kind of subdued by the fact, the shooter was a Bernie baby.

    • Scalia

      And we all know what they’d be doing if it were a Trump supporter who shot up a Democratic gathering.

  • When I heard “More than 50 shots fired” and something like only 4 persons (discounting the shooter) hit, I was thinking: “Sounds like a progtard to me…”


    Via Allahpundit at HotAir:

    The ritual post-shooting scouring of social media to find a motive has begun. There is in fact a Facebook page for a James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, IL who describes himself as a former owner of JTH Inspections. (The page has posts dating back months. It wasn’t created by a hoaxster within the last hour). There’s no proof yet that Hodgkinson the shooter is the Hodgkinson that owns that Facebook page, but that would be some coincidence if it isn’t.

    There’s loads of Berniebro stuff and other progressive meme-age there. WaPo interviewed a friend of Hodgkinson the shooter and discovered that he was in fact a loud and proud Bernie fan:

    Charles Orear, 50, a restaurant manager from St. Louis, said in an interview Wednesday that he became friendly with James T. Hodgkinson, whom law enforcement officials identified as the shooter, during their work in Iowa on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. Orear said Hodgkinson was a passionate progressive and showed no signs of violence or malice toward others..

    “You’ve got to be kidding me,” Orear said when told by phone. “I met him on the Bernie trail in Iowa, worked with him in the Quad Cities area.”
    “He was more on the really progressive side of things,” said Orear. It’s going to be a long day for the “don’t blame an entire group for the worst actions of one deranged person” segment of the public.

  • fustian24

    I assume this is a grammatical quibble with my sentence above. But I believe he’s wrong. As long as it is the subject of the verb, you use “who”.

    Certainly If you google “Whom does he think he’s kidding” all the of the references come back “Who does he think he’s kidding”.

    • Who did it. It got done to whom.

      The actor is he.

      • fustian24


        Still not buying it. I’ve run that sentence through two online sentence diagrammers and both see “Who” as the verb.

        Additionally, papers like the Washington Post and the NYT with all of their editors both seem to prefer the usage: “Who does”.

        • Who’s zooming who?

        • Fustian,

          Consider for a moment the likely skill set emphasis of the programmer who wrote that code…

          • fustian24

            I would assume that the developer worked with a serious grammarian for that exact reason.

            One of the reasons I’ve never paid much attention to the rules of grammar and spelling is that they are attempts to define after the fact a language that will not stand still and will not obey. A spelling rule like “i before e, except after c, or when sounded as ‘a’, as in neighbour and weigh”, isn’t so much a rule as it is an admission that English will not be held down. It refuses to abide by your stinking rules.

            If “whom” WAS correct in the past (and I’m still not totally convinced), it is no longer the way real people speak English. You can either stay mired in the past or you can joyfully wallow in the ever-changing expressiveness that is English.

            Now, whom is with me?

          • One should never ass u me facts not in evidence.

          • fustian24

            But that’s my hobby!

            As a self-aware crank, this is akin to a duty. It’s what we do.

            If we’re not allowed to assume facts not in evidence, there would be a whole lot fewer posts here! What in the world would we talk about here?

        • pennywit

          “Papers like the Washington Post and the NYT” laid off their copy editors ten years ago.

    • pennywit

      Your final sentence contains the error.

      The sentence “Who does he think he’s kidding?” — like many interrogatory sentences — uses an inverted structure that puts the subject of the sentence later in the sentence rather than in the front.

      If we restructure your sentence to put the subject first, it becomes:

      “He thinks he is kidding who?”

      Note that once we remove the inverted sentence structure, it is obvious that “Who” is not the subject of the sentence, but the direct object of the verb “is kidding?” Therefore, “whom,” a predicate pronoun, is appropriate. “Who,” a subjective pronoun, is not.

      • Which is the long form of “Who did it. It got done to whom.”

        Rather an uphill row to hoe, as “Who do you think you’re fooling.” and “Who does he think he’s fooling.” are stock phrases.

        • Scalia

          Yes. That’s why I raised the pet peeve issue. In blog posts, one doesn’t normally criticize punctuation and grammar—unless, of course, somebody who uses them incorrectly criticizes others for doing so.

          • fustian24

            Well, in this case I didn’t feel like I was attacked. At this point I’m interested in the correct answer more than anything.

            As a math/science guy, I’m not really up on grammar and sentence structure. But as a native speaker that has read extensively, outside of pure carelessness, i usually get these things more right than wrong.

            So I definitely see y’alls point, but “Whom” still sounds wrong to me.

          • And one of our progtard contingent has issues with “Shan’t” as the correct contraction for “Shall not.”

          • pennywit

            Who/whom is a HUGE pet peeve for me.

          • Scalia

            Generally, grammar errors don’t bother me unless, as stated, someone starts knocking others over the head about it. At that point, he’d better walk the chalk.

          • pennywit

            I typically restrain myself, although I have certain pet peeves that surface on occasion. Who/whom is one of the big ones.

          • Scalia

            Well, I must admit that seeing periods and commas outside quotation marks, for some unexplained reason, gets under my skin. Almost all of us went through the public school system and were taught to put them within quotes, excepting semi-colons, but many otherwise educated bloggers mimic English punctuation.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            This is where a mathematical mind comes into grammar. If the quote is a subset of the sentence, I think the period would logically be outside the quotes, symbolizing it is ending the entire sentence, not just the statement in the quotation. I do recognize that usually you are supposed to put the punctuation before the closing quote symbol; but suspect that this is because it just looks better aesthetically, not because it is logically better.

          • Scalia

            Yes, it’s a matter of style over logic. Still, one would think that after having been taught it for 12 years, it would sink in.

          • Indoctrinated for 12 years. Taught, rather less.

      • fustian24

        A “predicate pronoun”?

        I draw the line at nouns and verbs.

        • pennywit

          You’re right. I should have said “objective pronoun.”

    • Scalia

      I must disagree here. A simple way to get the right word is to determine whether we’re dealing with a subject or an object. If a person is the subject, you use who, and if a person is the object, you use whom. Thus, “Whom does he think he’s kidding,” is correct. The person in act is Sanders (he is kidding somebody); therefore, the “somebody” is the object and not the subject.

      • pennywit

        Scalia, you and I are both nazis.

        Grammar nazis, that is.

        • prigsby2

          I prefer the title of “Conan the Gramerian”.

          • Then there was Conan the Librarian.

            (Unsheaths axe)

            “By Crom, you WILL BE SILENT!!!”

          • pennywit


          • Seems to me like you are shooting for Grammar Schutzstaffel now…

      • fustian24

        You’re kidding someone here. Who is it?


        • pennywit

          Actually, this is a correct use of “who.” In this case, “Who” is the subject of a new sentence. And, incidentally, “It is who?” would work as well because “is” is a linking verb rather than an action verb.

  • Retired military

    I have noticed that the only description of the rifle is “high powered” not AR15 or assault rifle. Maybe because it is a democrat who did the shooting. My coworkers and I were talking. Considering there are 5 people injured with no deaths and as many as 30-50 shots fired (per witnesses) we are betting the guy probably used a .22. Given that the shooting probably took place from maybe 100-200 yards a .22 just seems right. They can kill but you have to hit the right spot.

    • Barbie guns…

    • pennywit

      Serious question … can you think of a way we could have kept an AR-15 out of this guy’s hands without running afoul of the Second Amendment? And, no, I’m not going to jump down your throat or anybody else’s over your answer.

      • Let’s see…

        If, as I’ve seen elsewhere, the guy’s had his rifle for a decade or more, any waiting times would be moot.

        He wasn’t insane, he wasn’t a felon, he wasn’t prohibited from owning a rifle even by the laws of Illinois.

        The trouble is that the laws we have only work if people are willing to abide by the laws. The prosecution rate for lying on background check paperwork for guns is rather laughable, even though it’s a felony to do so. I mean, 44 out of 80k? Sheesh.

        So… there’s really not much of anything that would have prohibited him from buying whatever he wanted. Background check? He had that.

        All in all… I don’t see any way.

        • pennywit

          Yeah. The press has been delving into his social media posts and his habits of the last few weeks. Until he attempted murder yesterday, there wasn’t much to distinguish him from other political cranks who talk big on the Internet but are mostly full of hot air. And that’s not sufficient basis to deny somebody his Second Amendment rights..

          If we required that the government screen a person’s social media posts before he could buy a gun, then I think you and I would both be up in arms about it.

          • I’d be there with you. You can post whatever crazy shit you might want to on-line and that’s fine. Free speech and all that, I may not AGREE with what you say but I support the right to say it.

            But once you start to act on it you’ve gone beyond any sort of free speech protections. And even then, up to the point he grabbed his rifle and started firing he could have backed away from the edge. Guess the problem is finding the folks who’ll dive over that edge with a big grin on their faces… and I can’t think of any way to do that.

          • pennywit

            Well, I think there are a couple points in this guy’s recent history that should have made people (not necessarily police) take a closer look at the guy.

            1) He had at least a couple violent or near-violent confrontations with others, including an encounter with his daughter that included him cutting her seat belt with a pocket knife.

            2) Relatively recently, police found him discharging around 50 bullets into the woods in Illinois. After verifying he was a legal gun owner, police didn’t charged him and let him go with a warning.

            3) For the past few weeks, he’d been living out of a car and hanging out at the Alexandria YMCA and elsewhere in the area with a laptop. People noticed the guy, and they knew he wasn’t local. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but I wonder if this should have been unusual enough to trigger somebody’s weirdness sensor.

          • Weird doesn’t exactly equal ‘imminent threat’ though.

            ‘Homeless’ with a laptop? I can think of four people at a local Starbucks that match that. (Seriously – a group of us hang out at a local Starbucks once a week for an hour or so. The characters we’ve seen over the last year are… interesting. Same people show up for a few months, at the same table (usually plugged into the wall) then… they’re gone. Where did they come from? Where did they go? We’ll never know.)

            Predicting people’s behavior is hard as hell, even if you know them. Some random guy you haven’t seen before? That’s even worse.

          • pennywit

            Let me flesh this out a little more.

            A few weeks ago, I saw a homeless person (who is usually in a wheelchair) having what appeared to be a drug-related episode. He was out of his wheelchair, on the ground, and screaming incoherently.

            Normally, if I see a handicapped person has fallen out of his wheelchair, I would stop to help. But I wasn’t sure I could help this person without putting myself or Mrs. Pennywit (who was with me at the time) at risk. I stopped and spoke to the nearest police officer on duty. He immediately knew who I was talking about. “You mean John?” he asked. He got his radio out and called some help for John.

            Weird or not, drug-addled or not, the homeless individual who frequent a particular area should be known to the individual officers who police a given area. Simply being new and weird should not, of course, lead to an arrest. But there’s nothing unconstitutional about a police officer talking to the new, weird guy with a laptop and trying to figure out his story.

          • Community policing in that manner has fallen out of favor in most of our big cities.

          • Except there are those who would look at that and see it as an unconscionable abridgment of the 4th Amendment. And if the new weird has an aversion to or isn’t exactly cooperative with the police, what would happen then?

            Amendment IV
            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

            I don’t know – there’s no easy answers…

          • …there are no…

          • AAAGGH! GRAMMAR NAZI!!!!


          • pennywit

            Really? I have trouble seeing how “officer asks you a couple questions publicly on the street” equates to “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

          • Ask a lawyer. 😉 They’ll find something wrong, if there’s money to be made out of it.

          • pennywit

            I have, actually, including lawyers who know the Fourth Amendment rather well. Simply talking to somebody isn’t a search or a seizure.

          • Scalia

            Correct, but the party isn’t obligated to answer any questions, as you know.

          • Talking to someone who doesn’t want to be talked to?

            (Shrug.) Okay.

      • Serious answer: None which would be tolerable under the Constitution.

    • I’ve seen some reports it was an SKS with a scope. Can’t really verify, though.

      SKS with iron sights isn’t a bad rifle. With a scope… depends on how the scope is mounted. Some ways (the one described I saw) works well if the mount is precisely machined to fit (it replaces the rear spring dust cover) – but if there’s the slightest bit of play in it every time the rifle is fired the scope aim point is going to shift.

      Guess we’ll see, if they ever show a picture of the weapon.

  • Paul Hooson

    This is outrageous and totally immoral and wrong. I offer my prayers for the innocent victims for their full and complete recovery from the violence from this madman.

    Political violence is never an acceptable path when civil discussion and civil debate on differing paths of governing are what is required to have a government.

  • fustian24

    I would say, unlike our Constitution, our LANGUAGE is living.

    Only humorless pedants would say “Whom does he think he is kidding?”


    • Scalia

      Good one. Living language and prevailing standards of decency—I wish I had that as a tool when I was in grade school!

    • Pedants and the humorless are not wholly convergent sets (unlike cretins and progressives).

      • fustian24

        THAT cracked me up.

        The mileage of others may vary.

        • I thought it might given your stated strengths of math and sicence as well as your generally excellent grammar here.

  • Scalia

    Scalise in critical condition:

    Washington (CNN)Rep. Steve Scalise, a congressional staffer and members of the Capitol police force were shot Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia, during Republicans’ early-morning practice ahead of a charity baseball game.

    President Donald Trump said the alleged gunman had been killed. Federal law enforcement officials identified the alleged shooter as James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois.

    At least five people including Scalise, the third ranking member of House Republican leadership as the majority whip, were hospitalized.

    Scalise was in critical condition after surgery, according to So Young Pak, spokeswoman for MedStar Washington Hospital Center. Scalise is out of his first surgery, according to a Scalise aide. It is not clear if he will have a second surgery. His wife Jennifer and their two young children are traveling up from New Orleans to Washington now to be with him.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      May God be with him and his family.

      • Scalia

        Good to “see” you, Walter. Been missing you.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Oh, I’ve been lurking. I’ve either come up with an off-topic article or others have said [usually much better] what I was going to say.
          Cathymv’s earlier comment on this post was especially good.

          • Scalia

            Yes, she did a good job. Don’t sell yourself short. You post excellent comments.

    • pennywit

      I do hope he recovers.

  • Par4Course

    On the Fox News Specialists show, Rand Paul was interviewed, giving his account of the event. He was so shook up, he kept calling the shooting victim “Scalia.” I trust you’re OK.

    • Scalia

      Fine, but looking over my shoulder.

      • pennywit

        Just say “whom” at the right times, and everything will be fine.

        • Send not to ask for who the bell tolls…

          • fustian24

            Loving it.

  • Scalia

    I notice that Buster is commenting on these boards under another thread, but not a peep from him about this shooting.

    • Vagabond661

      I want to see Big Media, late night talk shows and all of the rest of the left to come out and condemn this just like Bernie did.


      Busy watching a great band on the waterfront of Lake St. Clair. I must have missed roll call.

      Sorry for all those that were injured, it is a terrible episode. Crazy people do horrible things.

      • Scalia

        Yeah, sure…while you were posting on another thread.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Your watch must be off. You should have gone to the concert. The Groove Council played at Memorial Park. Free concerts every Wednesday at a band shell on the shores of Lake Saint Clair; can’t beat it. Nine piece band, probably the best band that plays there all summer.

          So apparently I am guilty of some transgression? Let me guess, as a liberal I should not only offer my sympathies, but also shoulder some responsibility and personally apologize for my political beliefs?

          So sure, this is partly my fault and as I read the thread, this is a result of Maddow, Maher, etc. Yup, the fact they invented partisan political rhetoric is certainly part of the problem. Good thing that type of behavior is limited to the left.

          Maybe some good will result from this event. I saw politicians speaking this morning on trying to not view their colleagues from the other party as the enemy. There was a time, not so long ago, when the parties worked together, and at the very least, socialized.

          Remember when you could know someone for years and not even know their politics? Democrats and Republicans as friends and even married to each other (dogs and cats living together) was not out of the norm.

          • Scalia

            My watch wasn’t off at all, Mr. Dodger.

          • In-artful dodger at that.

    • jim_m

      Coming in late I notice that none of the resident lefties are commenting about this. They all seem to have gone to ground.

      It’s almost a tacit admission that this is exactly what they have hoped and wanted to happen.

      • pennywit

        At my end, it’s more like “feared.”

      • Scalia

        Yeah, Buster had to be pulled along—kicking and dragging. Bruce? Zip.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          When did you open the thread? I stayed away from the subject on the other forum as I know how you all feel about being “off subject,” especially as a liberal.

          Heck, half the commenters keep asking for Bruce to be banned, but now his absence makes him somehow complicit?

          Are you sure many of you are not taking this way too seriously?

          This is merely entertainment, no need to take it personally.

          • Scalia

            The discussion was opened on the very thread you were commenting on yesterday, and the topic was far more important than the one you chose to comment on.

          • Brucehenry

            As a wise man told Buster the other day, “spare us your snotty self-righteousness.”

            This “far more important” thread than the one I commented on yesterday is about 35% a circle jerk about who vs whom.

            Much of the rest of it is boilerplate stuff one would find on any Wizbang thread.

            Then there’s the theme, espoused by the Dilbert guy and enthusiastically seconded by Fustian and M. Soi Disant, that Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher “radicalized” this Bernie-bro and are culpable in some way in this crime. This is so hilarious coming from those who had not a word to say about the 25 years of Hate Radio we’ve all endured. When liberals reached for the smelling salts at Nugent’s “suck on my machine gun” bon mot, when they clutched their pearls at Palin putting crosshairs on Gabby Giffords’ Congressional seat, who mocked them as snowflakes and crybabies? Oh, and Adams whining about “once you’ve decided that the other side is Hitler” to the acclamation (and upvotes) of commenters here is pretty rich considering the image often used here to describe liberals:


            On this thread, and the other one on which I was commenting last night, we heard how “conservatives think liberals are stupid and liberals think conservatives are evil.” Yet on that thread I prersonally was described, based on my political comments, as un-American, evil, hate-filled, and all manner of yada yada.

            Jim, one of your most prolific and oft-upvoted commenters, routinely describes me, Buster, and indeed all liberals, even the most milquetoast RFK types, as fascists, communists, Stalinists, enemies of America, and enablers of Islamic terror.

            So again, spare me the pats on the back you guys are giving yourselves because you post here a lot of platitudes about your “thoughts and prayers” and how you hope God is with Scalise. I hope Scalise recovers, runs for re-election, and is defeated before he can do more harm to America than he’s already done.

          • You were warned you would not like the new rules being applied to you.

            Cry us a river.

          • Scalia

            Again, no word of outrage at the shooting. You express anger at the way we post on a conservative blog, yet you express no anger at what happened to Scalise and the others who were shot by a liberal.

            As we’ve known for some time, you are a disgusting lowlife scumbag. You will not post another comment on this thread.

          • jim_m

            By his own confession, Jared Lochner never saw and was totally unaware of Sarah Palin’s website and rhetoric. Plrase,explain in detail how it is then that her crosshairs image impelled him to shoot Giffords.

            It’s a lie. You know it is a lie, but you cone here and repeat that lie over and over with the intent to deceive people. This is why you ought to be banned.

          • jim_m

            Bruce’s comment basically says that he believes Scalise deserved to be shot.

          • Scalia

            What he’s doing is engaging in the very “whataboutism” that he accuses others of. He’s twisted over violent rhetoric from the Right, so our complaining about leftist rhetoric is empty grandstanding. In other words, whataboutism.

            So, he made the deliberate decision to not say anything about Scalise. In his demented mind, that makes him a better person. Instead of actually being a better person and express, like pennywit, condemnation for this heinous act, hez gonna give them hicks a taste of thar own medicine! Just sick.

            What’s really important to Bruce is Russia and GOP gerrymandering. If he were so inclined to post something about Scalise, the thought of you and others calling him names put to rest any such notion. Never mind that none of us blasted pennywit for leading the call to condemn the shooting. Whataboutism takes precedence. After all, one must have one’s priorities.

        • I’m rather glad our obnoxious progtards seem to be in retreat.

        • Sky__Captain

          I really I don’t see it as a bad thing that Bruce is quiet…

  • fustian24

    i like Scott Adams take. He is maintaining that the liberal media radicalized this guy.

    Makes sense to me.

  • I think Scott Dilbert Adams is right:

    The Alexandria Shooter was “Radicalized” by Mainstream Media.

    Hat Tip: Glenn Instapundit Reynolds.

  • pennywit

    BTW, I came across an interesting article about the media bubble a few months ago. Don’t remember if I shared it here.

    Here’s the meat:

    Parts of the media have always had their own bubbles. The national magazine industry has been concentrated in New York for generations, and the copy produced reflects an Eastern sensibility. Radio and TV networks based in New York and Los Angeles likewise have shared that dominant sensibility. But they were more than balanced out by the number of newspaper jobs in big cities, midsized cities and smaller towns throughout the country, spreading journalists everywhere.

    No longer. The newspaper industry has jettisoned hundreds of thousands of jobs, due to falling advertising revenues. Dailies have shrunk sections, pages and features; some have retreated from daily publication; hundreds have closed. Daily and weekly newspaper publishers employed about 455,000 reporters, clerks, salespeople, designers and the like in 1990, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By January 2017, that workforce had more than halved to 173,900. Those losses were felt in almost every region of the country.

    As newspapers have dwindled, internet publishers have added employees at a bracing clip.

    This isn’t just a shift in medium. It’s also a shift in sociopolitics, and a radical one. Where newspaper jobs are spread nationwide, internet jobs are not: Today, 73 percent of all internet publishing jobs are concentrated in either the Boston-New York-Washington-Richmond corridor or the West Coast crescent that runs from Seattle to San Diego and on to Phoenix. The Chicagoland area, a traditional media center, captures 5 percent of the jobs, with a paltry 22 percent going to the rest of the country. And almost all the real growth of internet publishing is happening outside the heartland, in just a few urban counties, all places that voted for Clinton. So when your conservative friends use “media” as a synonym for “coastal” and “liberal,” they’re not far off the mark.

    Interesting, no?

    Playing with this a little …in the old days, a J-school grad might work his way into a paper in a good-sized metropolitan area before settling down. He might be more liberal than people in his community, but not as prone to national media groupthink, And he’d live in, pay taxes in, and send his kids to school in that community, and thus have more of a connection there.

    Internet journalism? Not so much.

    Food for thought.

  • Paul Hooson

    Since this is an open thread, I’ll raise a new issue, Cuba. – Certainly, Obama’s opening to Cuba has seemed one-sided to many, that Cuba has done little in response. However, this policy is a little wiser than it appears on the surface. It blunted Vladimir Putin from a more active role in propping up Cuba with financial aid, and far worse from Russia placing military bases or even nuclear weapons only 90 miles from the United States. – President Trump’s partial rollback of the Cuba opening may give Russia a dangerous opening to offer first financial aid, then establish military bases, then place nuclear weapons in Cuba.

    For years, sales of American goods to Cuba have increased year by year, with near zero sales of Cuban goods to the U.S., so American farmers and others have benefited from this. With the U.S. so close to Cuba, we are a more natural trade partner here. Mr. Trump’s partial rollback of the opening to Cuba may prove to be a major foreign policy mistake if Russia makes a move similar to Syria by moving in bases and more and more advanced weapons. And, we do not want to risk another episode similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the U.S. and Russia close to a WWIII crisis once before in 1962. Russia cannot be allowed military bases or advanced weapons placement in Cuba if we create a vacuum in relations with the erratic Communist state.

  • jim_m

    The Scaluse shooter wasn’t radicalized by anyone. He is a mainstream dem.

    As another den told us, we should be ready to “punch back twice as hard”. They want a shooting war. It looks like they will leave us no other choice but to defend ourselves.

    • Scalia

      And CNN has apparently acknowledged that it is at war with the administration. What a mess.

  • pennywit

    Two manslaughter verdicts this week:

    1) Jeronimo Yanez acquitted of shooting Philando Castile.

    2) Michelle Carter found guilty of manslaughter in the texting suicide of her boyfriend.

    Neither of these verdicts sits right with me.

    • Why?

    • Scalia

      I echo Rodney’s question. Why don’t they sit well with you?

      • pennywit

        1) I thought the police officers actions were over the top in the Philando Castile case; it seems to me that Castile was trying to comply, and the officer was too quick to shoot him.

        2) I’m not comfortable with the notion that a woman was convicted of manslaughter for essentially talking a person to death.

        • Scalia

          1) We don’t have access to a complete video of the confrontation. From what I’ve gathered, the suspect did not comply with the officer’s repeated demand not to move. When a police officer draws his weapon and orders you not to move, you freeze.

          2) The court’s opinion appears to conform with Massachusetts precedent, and I think the reasoning is sound, given the context of Carter’s actions.