I pretend no comprehension of insanity, but would not think so, and Palin putting crosshairs on her district still prompted Giffords' comment, so the source would be unchanged. Regardless, what would be the "logic"? A crazed liberal partisan shooting one of their own representatives to substantiate criticism of Palin?


I also do not think Palin intended Giffords be shot, or considered the possibility someone would take her graphic to advocate that, but the latter is precisely the problem: She did NOT consider that possibility, even though it was plausible enough Giffords DID, immediately. It was obvious irresponsible negligence, yet Palin not only never realized that, but remains too busy denying even the POSSIBILITY to realize it despite undeniable subsequent evidence.

At the risk of partisanship, it speaks poorly of the "personal responsibility" party to accept, let alone embrace, such leaders. Of course, if Palin and Co. had more empathy and consideration for how their behavior affects neighbors they might not be Republicans. If a party leader puts crosshairs on opponents' districts, an opponent says it could endanger her and is subsequently shot, the RESPONSIBLE thing is to disavow the shooting and discontinue the imagery, not indignantly publicly accuse the victim of "blood libel." Pardon my saying so, but that is a bit self absorbed and short sighted for a would-be national leader.

At the time, rt noted someone (Kos, IIRC) similarly using bullseyes: Just as dangerously irresponsible (another of many reasons to avoid Kos, IMHO.) That people on both sides do it makes it worse, not better. Hoffa Jr. publicly calling unions as an "army" to "take out" the Tea Party in "war" does not excuse Rick Perry chiding an IA rally for not physically assaulting the visiting Fed Chairman: Both are inexcusable. The latter was so indefensible it prompted the bizarre but amusing spectacle of RON PAUL (of all people) DEFENDING THE FED CHAIRMAN (though I personally think he was just continuing his primary-long role as Romneys attack dog.) Since Brandenburg v. OH, the SCOTUS says publicly inciting murder is (somehow) legal; that does not make it desirable, much less acceptable, in national leaders.