Vitriolic rhetoric is the topic of the day. Politicians are bandying the term about like they have some sort of lock on the terminology. It’s cliché already.  Senator James Clyburn (D) (SC) used the term and looked as uncomfortable as to nearly pass a stone when he said it.

Vitriol describes Sulphuric Acid and various metal sulphates but in the sense of words means bitterly abusive language; invective or vituperation. The term describes poisonous speech and discourse.

Because people use colorful metaphor or allusion to other matters, some suggest political discussion in opposition to the stance they take is violent. Therefore it’s “hate speech” as defined by the letter of the law. What is “hate speech” in a nation where Free Speech is said to be a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Can you make people “love” one another? Can you place a gauge on the weight of words to determine what’s “hateful”, “hurtful”, “harmful”, “mean” or “nasty”? Is there a felonious status to be balanced by a misdemeanor statute of the words? Can a person be jailed for his thoughts which may or may not be pleasant toward another? Can I be arrested for not liking somebody?

Where does government interference end?

Can a political discussion broadcast over television, cause a person not known to be mentally ill become that way and turn to become a mass murderer? Or if a person is mentally defective and in need of therapy then be turned into that same mass murderer or; was his being mentally defective a reason he entered into the act of mass murder and nothing really increased the jeopardy in the first place?

Just how bloody vitriolic does the rhetoric have to be to create a mass murderer?

Politicians are adaptable people. They slide from one end of an issue to another dependent on the political winds. If they were clothes they’d be reversible. Before the mid-term elections the Democrats were all about HealthCare as the economy tanked. Now they’re all about jobs and the economy. The Republicans took the exactly diametrically opposed stances during the same periods of time.

And they wonder why their approval ratings are somewhere lower than the Luray Caverns, subterranean.

The most shameful display of all this skullduggery has been the way the politicians and the media have been following each other like two elephants in a parade. Each grabs the other by the tail and they follow in a circle. It’s a great way to divert attention from the issues and makes the illiterate appear intelligent. Simply develop an artificially seasoned bone of contention and then worry the bloody thing until the public is sick of the topic.

People have been assassinated by a madman. The best thing the Democrats could see to do was protest under color of dogma: gun control and vitriolic rhetoric of Right Wing Pundits and operatives and Tea Party Activists. The Republican response is to grouse about how obviously unfair it was for the Democrats to be so unkind. The Democrats want the Republicans and their media advocates to stop using metaphors that can be remotely construed as violent while the Democrats can use violent metaphors with impunity in Congressional Debate.

Meanwhile, the nut-ball in Tucson (the Sheriff of Pima County, not the accused) has come out with his personal opinion following Democratic Party hyperbole. It makes you wonder what new elected office this fool is running for. Yes, he’s entitled to his opinion. I’m sure the District Attorney loves the Sheriff’s politicizing this case as much as he can. It helps the DA’s case kind of like salt in an already festering wound. It spices up the situation but challenges the necessary outcome of the issue. Nothing like clouding issues to get face time on national television.

This entire period of time after this tragedy as conducted by the people most often demanding deference for the fact they hold high political office has proven to be a debacle when it comes to earning the respect of the American people.

The self-centered fools have shot themselves in the foot again.

Oops! Is that vitriolic rhetorical metaphor?

Thanks for listening.