The Important Question about Violent Republican Rhetoric

There's been a big hoopla over whether violent Republican rhetoric can be blamed for Jared Loughner's heinous attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. But I think this discussion misses the point: Even if this rhetoric didn't cause Loughner's attack, it was still highly -- shall we say -- sympathetic to it.

The important point is that Sarah Palin continued to endorse Sharron Angle, even after she repeatedly called for the use of "second amendment remedies" to solve "the Harry Reid problems", and to "take out Harry Reid". This rhetoric can only be interpreted as a literal endorsement of assassination. After all, Angle gave a long spiel about how the point of the second amendment was to give Americans the tools to overthrow their government if necessary. The only practical way citizens armed with guns could overthrow a government armed with nukes is through assassinations and terrorism, so it's pretty transparent what they mean by "second amendment remedies".

Critics might say their violent rhetoric is beside the point if it didn't directly cause the Loughner shooting, but I disagree: When it comes to terrorism, we typically condemn anyone who verbally endorses the cause, not just those directly involved in it. Granted, we can't convict someone who justifies the attack of 9/11 in a court of law, but at the very least, we can and should shame them.

In the same way, Palin, Angle, and anyone else who condones the use of "second amendment remedies" to resolve ballot box "failures" deserve a good public shaming.

You bring the tar, I'll bring the feathers.