Sarah Palin doesn’t like be accused of having anything to do with the Arizona massacre—fair enough, so issue a statement saying so, but be a stateswoman and say you still regret the crosshairs. Instead, she issues an eight-minute statement accusing her detractors of “blood libel” for suggesting her rhetoric was beyond the pale. Yeah, her rhetoric isn’t that bad, she just throws around phrases like “blood libel” to defend herself. (Does she even know what the phrase means? Does she want to be sure no Jews like her at all?)
See, when people put crosshairs on public servants’ districts, that’s just heated political rhetoric. When other people object to those crosshairs as being potential encouragement to lone-wolf nutjobs, that’s blood libel.
There are a bunch of blood-thirsty lunatics in the Republican Party, and then there are the conscientious conservatives who really wish they’d go back to simply voting instead of running their mouths and running the show.
Oh, and while both sides have lunatics, what does it say that “only” 11% of Democrats and Independents think violence against our government is sometimes justified while 28% of Republicans think it is? Perhaps more Republicans are given to paranoid fantasies of “what would I do if my government were taken over by military coup?” (in which case, of course violence is on the table) but the way the question was asked, it strikes me more as, “Is it okay to kill government officials when they’re in favor of laws that I find to be outrageous”?