Rachel Maddow's former co-host seemingly advocated assassination politics by his paramilitary squad.

[LoZoccolo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrFOb_f7ubw

Do I think that Republican politicians who have been trying corral the Tea Party toward the Republican Party's goals attempt to harness the undercurrent of violence in the far-right conspiracy culture that has recently been solidifying? I think it's been pretty clear that they have, and that's a pretty strong argument if we present the right evidence. I think it gets diluted when people bring forth the argument that Sarah Palin was actually encouraging assassination politics rather than trying to redirect it, though. If she was actually doing so, wouldn't she be proud that she could tick one of the names off the list, and be pushing for the rest of them?

Of course she should be repudiated for using the iconography of violence, and her scrubbing of the web site is evidence that she acknowledged that she had used it.

The right wing has a tactic of taking a large issue - like the very real evidence that there is advocacy of violence within the Tea Party - and redirecting attention to a few details where they think they can win. This happened during the controversy surrounding Bush*'s National Guard service; there was other evidence of favoritism, but they were able to focus attention on one fabricated piece of evidence. I think they're going to turn the notion that the Sarah Palin list was a literal hit list into another one of these distractions; anticipate this.

[DCKit]

1. It's the sum of the parts, and Palin's hit list is simply the best graphic.

Boner's use of the word "corrupt" regarding our President is just one more, but it's not nearly as portable.

[LoZoccolo]

2. That is true; there's a "portability" to the Sarah Palin hit-list argument.

Keep in mind, though, that right-wing radio allows it's hosts to spend a half-hour or more potentially dissecting one single thing that we say, so it has to be pretty bulletproof. We don't have an advantage in that area; the portable argument has to be such that no matter how long they have to dissect it, the discredit themselves further even attempting to do so.