Again With the Not Arguing

During her candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Sharon Angle hinted at urging an armed rebellion against the U.S. government. The people need to look to their "Second Amendment remedies" were her exact words.

Today Ms. Angle released the following statement in response to the shootings in Tuscon, and subsequent criticism of violent political rhetoric:

"The despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, and should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual."

This may turn out to be correct - violent political rhetoric by the likes of Ms. Angle may not have motivated the shooter. The problem is, Ms. Angle will be making this claim even if it turns out that political rhetoric influenced the shooter. She's not saying, "given all the facts, and given what we've learned, the despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, but it should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual." She's saying, that's how the shooting should be viewed, period.

The reason I mention this is that Ms. Angle was quoted as "arguing." That, of course, is untrue. Ms. Angle "asserted" her claim. She did not argue for it. To argue, one has to give reasons. She gave none.


I wonder with amazement why no one ever asks the obvious follow up question "why should we look at it that way?" I'm confident that if Sharon Angle were asked that question by a reporter she would run away, just like she did during her campaign.

Joe H.