Monday's lead editorial in the New York Times, "Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona, "
unmasked the paper's blatant hyper-partisanship and shameless
willingness to use a tragedy to score political points against its
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.
That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of "the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country." Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal.
But Philip Klein at The American Spectator noticed  that the Times' reaction was just the opposite when the political situation was different. After a radical Muslim officer killed a dozen people at Fort Hood, Texas, the editors urged caution and warned Americans not to blame Muslims. Excerpts from the Times' November 7, 2009 editorial :
In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East.
President Obama was right when he told Americans, "we don't know all the answers yet" and cautioned everyone against "jumping to conclusions."
Unverified reports, some from his family members, suggest that Major Hasan complained of harassment by fellow soldiers for being a Muslim, that he hoped to get out of a deployment to Afghanistan, that he sought a discharge from the Army and that he opposed the American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were reports that some soldiers said they had heard him shout "God is Great" in Arabic before he started firing. But until investigations are complete, no one can begi n to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.
There may never be an explanation. And, certainly, there can never be a justification.
- Clay Waters is editor of the MRC's TimesWatch  page