I'm not trying to silence anyone (I think Jared Loughner made that attempt) so if you want to fling around the cowardice tag, talk to Mrs. Palin.

Baseless? Are you kidding? The woman voiced her concerns after someone ransacked her office then was shot, but it's all HER fault because she didn't ask for more security? Did you go to the Lee Harvey Oswald School of Law? Maybe, like JFK, she thought hiding would be cowardly, and poor service to constituents with a right to see her. Accounts at the time indicated that she referenced the "consequences" of Palins site as an aside while actively (and foolishly, IMHO) DOWNPLAYING her own risks (despite already having been attacked at the behest of a "militia" leader). If your best defense for Palin is yet another way to blame the victim that counts as an EPIC fail, man.

No, I don't think Loughner went on a shooting spree specifically because of Palins website. I DO think two years of uninterrupted incitement to militance and hatred by Palin and the rest of the far right contributed to it, encouraged an already unstable and violent mind to do something horrible. That Giffords happened to have explicitly referenced Palin the LAST time someone explicitly and publicly called for violence against liberals and people all over the country committed it is the reason why we're focused on Palins website, but the sad and scary thing is it was BOUND to happen. Why? Because so many on the far right have used the same kind of imagery to promote militant hatred for the past two years, while so many on the left voiced concern about what would result, that it was INEVITABLE someone on the left would be attacked like this, and equally INEVITABLE they would have made a specific reference to one of the many many inflammatory statements by far right leaders. Whatever incitement they referenced by whatever far right demagogue would be certain to make the front page after their easily predictable attack.

What it boils down to is that most of the left has been saying for two years that the far right rhetoric was putting their lives in danger and even after that's been demonstrated you still insist they're all just blowing smoke. You have the right to whatever fantasies you like, and so does Jared Loughner, but not when they get people murdered.

The reason so much attention is being paid to Giffords has nothing to do with political bias and everything to do with her explicitly referencing Palins site when predicting an attack (or another attack, since her office had already been the target of far right violence explicitly urged by a "militia" leader). Presumably these attacks will continue while the far rights leaders deny any responsibility; it's working so far, and it DID accomplish the objective you find so commendable: Removing Giffords from Congress. Again, if not for Giffords' explicit reference to Palins site the latter would be no more than one small part of a large group of demagogues stirring up hatred and militance.

However, the plethora of far right leaders doing just that is undeniable, and when many people proclaim all liberals to be godless, treasonous, communist EVIL to be defeated and destroyed at any price, as a public service as well as an act of survival, this is what results. The blame for THIS incident is largely Loughners, just as the blame for the attack on Giffords' office belongs to the perpetrator, and, to a lesser extent, the "militia" leader who publicly urged the whole country to attack politicians offices. That leaves Palin and her ilk free of MOST of the blame--but not all of it, because each of them helped create the climate from which unbalanced minds conclude that any action against liberals is justified patriotism. After all, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, right? Yet what LBJ said to Goldwater applies to Palin and Co. also: "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue. "

I'll give you this much though: You're the only person yet, INCLUDING Palin, who's had the balls to say that if she's a victim of "blood libel" then Gabrielle Giffords is her primary assailant. That shows courage, but courage in the absence of decency and objectivity is a disturbing thing. The kamikaze had courage, too, and Philip Sheridan, but that doesn't ennoble the sentiment that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". When you courageously defend the reprehensible and dangerous I respect your courage and deplore your cause.