Arizona congresswoman shot

OG_slinger wrote:

He shot a Congresswoman singled out by Palin by crosshair icons, who also used the saying "don't retreat, reload".

Seriously? This is what passes for leaders these days.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I'm sure all the Palins and Becks of the world that called for the tree of liberty to be refreshed are happy today. You incite hatred and violence and you get... hatred and violence.

Absolutely. The crazies out there, the ones with the pent up, undirected rage, eat this stuff up. Very sad stuff.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

his youtube profile and other online postings. what evidence is that he's a tea bagger? other than you don't like tea baggers.

He shot a Congresswoman singled out by Palin by crosshair icons, who also used the saying "don't retreat, reload".

Maybe he was primarily going after the judge appointed by George Bush? I think speculation leading to formed opinions at this stage are very premature.

sheared wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

his youtube profile and other online postings. what evidence is that he's a tea bagger? other than you don't like tea baggers.

He shot a Congresswoman singled out by Palin by crosshair icons, who also used the saying "don't retreat, reload".

Maybe he was primarily going after the judge appointed by George Bush? I think speculation leading to formed opinions at this stage are very premature.

Via the NY Times the sheriff's office claims the congresswoman was the target of the attack, and I believe I saw somewhere she was the first one shot.

I do think it's premature to speculate on the gunman's political inclinations.

For me, this is more about rhetoric than political stances. If you use violent rhetoric for your personal and political gain, you should not be surprised when some people take you seriously.

There are crazies of every political stripe. However, there's an argument to be made that nobody on the US political left is inciting violence for liberal crazies to latch onto (certainly nobody with a national media presence) - or, if we want to bend over backwards, "using imagery and language that some people are misconstruing as advocating violence".

Today's violence is a tragedy. If it turns out that the shooter was set off by someone's rhetoric, shame on them.

Kudos to McCain for not mincing words:

[I am] horrified by the violent attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent people by a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion. Whoever did this, whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law.

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

LeapingGnome wrote:

I'm sure all the Palins and Becks of the world that called for the tree of liberty to be refreshed are happy today. You incite hatred and violence and you get... hatred and violence.

Do you see what you're doing? You're generalizing based on what a crackpot did. There are plenty of outlier nutjobs on either side who do crazy stuff that doesn't reflect the vast majority of that side. Come on man, we're better than this.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I do think it's premature to speculate on the gunman's political inclinations.

For me, this is more about rhetoric than political stances. If you use violent rhetoric for your personal and political gain, you should not be surprised when some people take you seriously.

This.

And don't forget fear. Fear has been used as a political device for as long as there have been politics, but it seems so have really ramped up the past two years. Keep your people afraid, beat the war drums and eventually some one will forget that your just full of sh*t.

Actually I'm surprised that something like this didn't happen sooner.

This whole thing reminds me of the movie The Fisher King. Though I doubt this story's ending will be as heartwarming.

Running Man wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

I'm sure all the Palins and Becks of the world that called for the tree of liberty to be refreshed are happy today. You incite hatred and violence and you get... hatred and violence.

Do you see what you're doing? You're generalizing based on what a crackpot did. There are plenty of outlier nutjobs on either side who do crazy stuff that doesn't reflect the vast majority of that side. Come on man, we're better than this.

You know, this is exactly what Bill Maher was talking about when he criticized the motives/point of the Colbert/Stewart rally-- I appreciate your point, but this whole "there are crazies on both sides!" thing is bullsh*t.

I agree that it's premature to judge this person and their motivations, but until you can show me examples of someone in recent times on the "liberal fringe" that has murdered/attempted to murder a conservative political figure, or has thrown bricks through campaign headquarters' windows, or similar acts thanks to the inspiration of the "liberal media," then the scale is NOT balanced when it comes to crazy.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Kudos to McCain for not mincing words:

[I am] horrified by the violent attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent people by a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion. Whoever did this, whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law.

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

Given today's political climate, I'm guessing that they will attempt to paint the gunman as someone who wasn't a part of THEIR audience, or else turn it around and somehow use it to make an attack on the left in some fashion. I hope to god that I'm wrong, but I fear I won't be.

SommerMatt wrote:
Running Man wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

I'm sure all the Palins and Becks of the world that called for the tree of liberty to be refreshed are happy today. You incite hatred and violence and you get... hatred and violence.

Do you see what you're doing? You're generalizing based on what a crackpot did. There are plenty of outlier nutjobs on either side who do crazy stuff that doesn't reflect the vast majority of that side. Come on man, we're better than this.

You know, this is exactly what Bill Maher was talking about when he criticized the motives/point of the Colbert/Stewart rally-- I appreciate your point, but this whole "there are crazies on both sides!" thing is bullsh*t.

I agree that it's premature to judge this person and their motivations, but until you can show me examples of someone in recent times on the "liberal fringe" that has murdered/attempted to murder a conservative political figure, or has thrown bricks through campaign headquarters' windows, or similar acts thanks to the inspiration of the "liberal media," then the scale is NOT balanced when it comes to crazy.

Completely agree. You ask anyone what they think of when they think of a radical or extremist liberal, and likely the results will be hippies, environmentalists, vegans, and possibly atheists.

Let's be clear, though, I believe reports are saying the shooter has mental issues, perhaps something that can be medically diagnosed. The reports aren't clear yet, and I imagine we'll find out sooner or later, but if that's the case, his political leanings could end up being immaterial, contingent upon what those issues might be.

sheared wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

his youtube profile and other online postings. what evidence is that he's a tea bagger? other than you don't like tea baggers.

He shot a Congresswoman singled out by Palin by crosshair icons, who also used the saying "don't retreat, reload".

Maybe he was primarily going after the judge appointed by George Bush? I think speculation leading to formed opinions at this stage are very premature.

Well at least we can all be happy that this crazy f*cker's 2nd Amendment rights weren't infringed upon...

This tragedy underlines how terrible our media is. It's amazing how quickly this event turned into a piece of political theater. Both liberal and conservative media outlets should be ashamed of themselves. They are all fear mongers, liars and unethical cooperations. It should be illegal for news outlets to turn a profit.

/seething.

SommerMatt wrote:

I agree that it's premature to judge this person and their motivations, but until you can show me examples of someone in recent times on the "liberal fringe" that has murdered/attempted to murder a conservative political figure, or has thrown bricks through campaign headquarters' windows, or similar acts thanks to the inspiration of the "liberal media," then the scale is NOT balanced when it comes to crazy.

Sometimes we ignore cases that don't fit our world view.

Here's the Discovery Building hostage-taker, the eco-nut that said "the planet doesn't need humans," which is technically true.

Then there's the vandal that threw "bricks through campaign headquarters' windows". It was the Colorado Democratic Party headquarters here in Denver, done with the apparent purpose of centering blame on the other side. He helped with the 2008 Obama campaign, by the way.

I'm really not trying to stir up conflict about this, but you asked. And if it was a conservative that got shot by a screwball, I'd be saying the same thing, lets not generalize the other side from what this loony did. I probably wouldn't be saying it on this site...

Grubber788 wrote:

It should be illegal for news outlets to turn a profit.

So only print newspapers and magazines should report the news?

/rimshot!

Running Man wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

It should be illegal for news outlets to turn a profit.

So only print newspapers and magazines should report the news?

/rimshot! :P

Haha, that's true, but if only newspapers reported the news at least lazy people who can't be bothered to read would be kept blissfully ignorant of the issues of the day. Of course, we'd also have to outlaw colorful graphs and pictures.

And the celebrity gossip section.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

With regards to Palin I saw this on CNN. Part of it was posted previously in the thread.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote:

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

"I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked this afternoon in Tucson, Arizona. There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence. Gabby is a steadfast representative for southern Arizona and both she and John are dedicated public servants.

"The Department of Homeland Security has offered all possible assistance to the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, who are leading the investigation. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family and staff, and all those who were injured in this difficult time."

This interesting post was recently removed from the left-wing site dailykos.com
IMAGE(http://potluckbloggers.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/kos-rant.png)

Who is threatening who again?

Guys, we don't know the motivation of the shooter. Over on MeFi, people who are looking at this more closely than I am are saying he sounds schizophrenic. There's tons of bile and hate about the language that the Tea Party candidates have been using, but we have no evidence that he even paid attention to any of that.

It will, however, be instructive to see what the talking heads on the right wing do and say over the next couple days.

I'm kinda iffy on Palin's denunciation, btw.... it doesn't sound like her, it sounds like a PR flack, and I have trouble imagining that message having any particular resonance with her fans.

http://twitter.com/caitieparker

Seems to be a friend of his from high school. According to her, he was a pot-smoking Anti-Flag fan with leftist political views in high school (three years ago).

Dominic Knight wrote:

From what I've read, Congresswoman is awake, recognizes her family and is talking. :)

Not at the moment. Watching Cspan live and they reported she is in critical condition and sedated. hmmm well I guess you can be sedated and awake.

Is this homegrown terrorism?

Robear wrote:

The guy looks like a crazy. I think the non-political comments to the effect that "rhetoric matters" and "how we make a point is important too" are more valuable than smearing political movements.

The problem with that line of thinking is that crazy people are ... well, crazy, and by definition unpredictable. To prevent crazy people from taking something someone says publicly and using it as justification for doing something crazy, we'd have to ban all speech.

Let's consider a semi-hypothetical example. There have been numerous open calls for Julian Assange to be assassinated or imprisoned by public figures across the political spectrum and even in other countries. If Assange were to be assassinated now by a lone gunman, who would take the blame for that? What if it was a team of guys from a helicopter that got caught on tape? Who would have some 'splainin' to do for that?

And consider further the kind of rhetoric that was employed before the invasion of Iraq. Bush and his administration certainly are responsible for both the words and the actions that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people - yet they are free today. Should we curtail free speech because of what they said? No. It was their actions that mattered, just as in this case.

Brizahd wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

With regards to Palin I saw this on CNN. Part of it was posted previously in the thread.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote:

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

"I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked this afternoon in Tucson, Arizona. There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence. Gabby is a steadfast representative for southern Arizona and both she and John are dedicated public servants.

"The Department of Homeland Security has offered all possible assistance to the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, who are leading the investigation. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family and staff, and all those who were injured in this difficult time."

Good find. I'd only seen the sincere condolences line. It's less strident than Senator McCain's denunciation, but I'm glad she's denouncing the shooting.

Running Man wrote:

This interesting post was recently removed from the left-wing site dailykos.com
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5FYNQ.png)

I know you're feeling piled on in this thread, Running Man, but did I miss the part where "BoyBlue" was an elected official or media figure of national prominence? Violent rhetoric is much more dangerous you have a (metaphorical) bullhorn.

Aetius wrote:

The problem with that line of thinking is that crazy people are ... well, crazy, and by definition unpredictable. To prevent crazy people from taking something someone says publicly and using it as justification for doing something crazy, we'd have to ban all speech.

Let's consider a semi-hypothetical example. There have been numerous open calls for Julian Assange to be assassinated or imprisoned by public figures across the political spectrum and even in other countries. If Assange were to be assassinated now by a lone gunman, who would take the blame for that? What if it was a team of guys from a helicopter that got caught on tape? Who would have some 'splainin' to do for that?

[leaving out the Bush stuff not because it isn't important, but because it's gonna cause a derail here]

But the law does acknowledge that speech can serve as the trigger for violence. The test set in Brandenburg v. Ohio does set the bar high (it held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action, and specifically struck down an Ohio law which prohibited merely advocating violence). And we want that bar set high - abridging freedom of speech isn't something to be done lightly.

However, the fact that a given act of speech is legal doesn't mean that speakers shouldn't be called out when they use fear and anger as political tools. I see people in this thread saying this rhetoric shouldn't be used, not that Palin et. al. shouldn't be able to use it. The former is strictly a moral stance, not a legal one.

In the Assange example, I think calls for his assassination or execution are reprehensible and irresponsible - regardless of where on the political spectrum they're coming from. I don't think that those statements should be banned, though.

We'll know more about the shooter's motives as the investigation proceeds. It's possible that he's just a violent crazy and wasn't stirred up by anybody's rhetoric. Of course, that wouldn't mean that violent rhetoric is suddenly safe and appropriate for civic discourse, but it's entirely possible that it's not to blame here.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
Dominic Knight wrote:

From what I've read, Congresswoman is awake, recognizes her family and is talking. :)

Not at the moment. Watching Cspan live and they reported she is in critical condition and sedated. hmmm well I guess you can be sedated and awake.

They want her to lie still to prevent any damage from post trauma and surgical swelling. It is a good sign that she was moving and recognizing her family.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Brizahd wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

With regards to Palin I saw this on CNN. Part of it was posted previously in the thread.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote:

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

"I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked this afternoon in Tucson, Arizona. There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence. Gabby is a steadfast representative for southern Arizona and both she and John are dedicated public servants.

"The Department of Homeland Security has offered all possible assistance to the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, who are leading the investigation. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family and staff, and all those who were injured in this difficult time."

Good find. I'd only seen the sincere condolences line. It's less strident than Senator McCain's denunciation, but I'm glad she's denouncing the shooting.

The confusion arises from it seeming to be two separate releases. The first part, which had been posted here, is what she posted on Facebook. I really don't know where the second part came from. But I'll specualte it came in after people started pointing out how week her original statement was. CNN doesn't give a source.

Jayhawker wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Brizahd wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

With regards to Palin I saw this on CNN. Part of it was posted previously in the thread.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote:

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

"I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked this afternoon in Tucson, Arizona. There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence. Gabby is a steadfast representative for southern Arizona and both she and John are dedicated public servants.

"The Department of Homeland Security has offered all possible assistance to the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, who are leading the investigation. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family and staff, and all those who were injured in this difficult time."

Good find. I'd only seen the sincere condolences line. It's less strident than Senator McCain's denunciation, but I'm glad she's denouncing the shooting.

The confusion arises from it seeming to be two separate releases. The first part, which had been posted here, is what she posted on Facebook. I really don't know where the second part came from. But I'll specualte it came in after people started pointing out how week her original statement was. CNN doesn't give a source.

Yea CNN is the only place I've seen the last part. It doesn't show up on facebook or her sarahpac place.

Running Man wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:

I agree that it's premature to judge this person and their motivations, but until you can show me examples of someone in recent times on the "liberal fringe" that has murdered/attempted to murder a conservative political figure, or has thrown bricks through campaign headquarters' windows, or similar acts thanks to the inspiration of the "liberal media," then the scale is NOT balanced when it comes to crazy.

Sometimes we ignore cases that don't fit our world view.

Here's the Discovery Building hostage-taker, the eco-nut that said "the planet doesn't need humans," which is technically true.

Then there's the vandal that threw "bricks through campaign headquarters' windows". It was the Colorado Democratic Party headquarters here in Denver, done with the apparent purpose of centering blame on the other side. He helped with the 2008 Obama campaign, by the way.

I'm really not trying to stir up conflict about this, but you asked. And if it was a conservative that got shot by a screwball, I'd be saying the same thing, lets not generalize the other side from what this loony did. I probably wouldn't be saying it on this site...

None of that stuff was pushed with rhetoric from a nationally known candidate, or respected movement. It's not like Al Gore can be linked to eco-nut violence in the same way people have been predicting this ever since Sarah Palin started using the Tea Party anger to make waves. The problem is, this is something we saw coming.

There is a reason Beck had to ban posters from his rally. He knows full well that his followers are crackpots that couldn't handle free speech on the anniversary of MLK's speech. Palin's rhetoric has been called out across the board by the media and political leaders since before Obama was elected. It was always assumed that a nutjob would act on her rhetoric.

None of this makes it true. But it is not democrats using this incident to make a point. The point has being made over and over, long before this. It's worthy of discussion. Because the Tea Party has been scaring people for long time now.

Brizahd wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Have Palin / Limbaugh / Beck / O'Reilly / Bachmann condemned the shooting yet?

With regards to Palin I saw this on CNN. Part of it was posted previously in the thread.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote:

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

"I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked this afternoon in Tucson, Arizona. There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence. Gabby is a steadfast representative for southern Arizona and both she and John are dedicated public servants.

"The Department of Homeland Security has offered all possible assistance to the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, who are leading the investigation. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family and staff, and all those who were injured in this difficult time."

Turns out it was a misprint on CNN's part:

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: "I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked this afternoon in Tucson, Arizona.  There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence.  Gabby is a steadfast representative for southern Arizona and both she and John are dedicated public servants. The Department of Homeland Security has offered all possible assistance to the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff's Office, who are leading the investigation. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family and staff, and all those who were injured in this difficult time."

In an odd twist, Christina Greene, the 9-year-old that was killed, was born on 9/11/2001 and featured in a book called "Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11". She had just been elected to her student council and wanted to meet a politician.

The police are saying that they think he had an accomplice. They're looking for a white male 40 to 50 years old with dark hair. Now I'm wondering if someone decided to use this wacko to do his dirty work.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I know you're feeling piled on in this thread, Running Man, but did I miss the part where "BoyBlue" was an elected official or media figure of national prominence? Violent rhetoric is much more dangerous you have a (metaphorical) bullhorn.

I wasn't implying that "BoyBlue" was an official, I posted it to show that both sides are sanitizing their sites, not just Palin. If that message title had been posted on a conservative site by a conservative, many liberals would have interpreted it as a threat, especially if it said "My congressWOMAN voted against [conservative politician] and is now dead to me!" Think about it.

Jayhawker wrote:

None of that stuff was pushed with rhetoric from a nationally known candidate, or respected movement. It's not like Al Gore can be linked to eco-nut violence in the same way people have been predicting this ever since Sarah Palin started using the Tea Party anger to make waves. The problem is, this is something we saw coming.

There is a reason Beck had to ban posters from his rally. He knows full well that his followers are crackpots that couldn't handle free speech on the anniversary of MLK's speech. Palin's rhetoric has been called out across the board by the media and political leaders since before Obama was elected. It was always assumed that a nutjob would act on her rhetoric.

None of this makes it true. But it is not democrats using this incident to make a point. The point has being made over and over, long before this. It's worthy of discussion. Because the Tea Party has been scaring people for long time now.

You don't like the Tea party. We get it, but aside from your own dislike of them how did you see this coming? Where are the facts behind Beck's banning of posters from his rally, except for conjecture?

"But it is not democrats using this incident to make a point," what does that mean? Many democrats jumped to the conclusion that it was a right-winger, and they were certainly trying to make that point.

"Because the Tea Party has been scaring people for a long time now," How exactly are they scaring 'people', aside from voting their candidates into office?

I'm open to changing my mind, but I can't find any proof of this.

Prederick wrote:

On the latter, I don't think she did, because by Monday afternoon, this will be "how DARE the left attempt to implicate me in this atrocity", et cetera. He's not a Tea Partier, and he's not "a liberal", as the Tea Party's mouthpieces have already labeled him. Both sides will be looking to pin him on the other.

But this is a tragedy, and this should make us re-think how we discuss politics in the public sphere, because it was coming.

I think this is why many, including myself, associated this with the Tea Party. Not because he's a Tea Party donor. Not because he goes to rallies wearing tri-point hats. But because the violent rhetoric has been in the air for some time. Had someone attacked a Republican politician at the height of the Bush hate I would have assumed it was a leftist crazy just as I assumed this was a tea party influenced crazy.

When rage is in the air constantly...
When you talk about reloading and taking out people whom you label targets...
When you do lectures at your chalkboard of grand conspiracies involving Nazis and Communists and tell everyone that those forces are all converging to take over our government and your lives...

Don't be shocked when someone actually takes a life. And don't be shocked if people think there might be a correlation. This is EXACTLY what many politicians and pundits have been practically asking for. Now that it's happened they shouldn't be surprised that many of us assume those were his influences. Glen Beck is equally capable of referencing Brave New World or 1984 or anything dystopian to prove how we're headed "there".

We'll see. Plenty of assassinations were performed by pure crazies. I just think when you dump lots of crazy in the air the chances go up.

Poisoned Well Is Poisoned

One of Sarah Palin's top aides responded Sunday to mounting criticism that she had helped to incite the kind of violence that exploded in Arizona at a meet-and-greet by Ms. Giffords, wounding 20 and killing six.

In the wake of the shooting, many people drew attention to a map of the United States that had been part of one of Ms. Palin's Web sites that showed targets on the districts of lawmakers who supported President Obama's health care legislation.

Ms. Giffords was one of the targeted lawmakers, as she noted in an interview on MSNBC last year.

In a radio interview Saturday night, one of Ms. Palin's top aides, Rebecca Mansour, said of the map of lawmakers: "We never, ever, ever intended it to be gun sights." Ms Mansour said attemps to tie Ms. Palin to the violence were "obscene" and "appalling."

"I don't understand how anyone can be held responsible for someone who is completely mentally unstable like this," Ms. Mansour said. "Where I come from the person who is actually shooting is culpable. We had nothing whatsoever to do with this."

She added: "People who knew him said that he is left wing and very liberal. But that is not to say that I am blaming the left for him either."

Ms. Mansour, who helps run SarahPAC, Ms. Palin's political action committee, made the remarks to Tammy Bruce, a radio talk show host, on a podcast made public on the internet. Ms. Bruce is introduced at the beginning of her show as "a chick with a gun and a microphone."

Ms. Bruce complained on her show that liberals were incorrectly politicizing the shooting by blaming conservatives.

"We all know that the liberals, there's something wrong with them," Ms. Bruce said. "The reaction on the left was to start blaming somebody."

Ms. Bruce added that: "Saying that a mass murdering crazy guy is representative somehow of the political dialogue going on, especially with the non violent Tea Party movement....and yet there are attach this to the tea party and other politicians."

Did I call it? I called it. Those of you wondering what the prevailing argument will be by 5 PM on Monday will be, there you go.