The Political Situation Today

I have spent the last 48 hours trying to stay on top of the act of domestic terrorism that took place in Tucson, Arizona yesterday. During the attack yesterday, a lone gunman went on a shooting spree with a semi-automatic handgun and killed six people, among them a sitting federal judge and a 9 year-old girl. This same lone gunman allegedly severely wounded a sitting Democratic Congressperson (Gabrielle Giffords) who was at an event to meet her constituents and hear their concerns.

I cannot think of anything to write about this that has not already been written about at DemocraticUndergound.com, HuffingtonPost.com or DailyKos.com. But I will say that I am simply astounded that Sarah Palin has not been forcibly repudiated and admonished by the elder statespeople of her party for her incendiary and inciting speech that placed gunsights over the congressional district of Giffords and 19 other Dems whom Palin and her crowd wanted to see defeated.

Here's what I wrote on Democratic Underground today:

OK, so let me make sure I have it straight.

Sarah Palin maintains a website that 'targets' various Dem officials by putting the image of a telescopic gunsight over each of the districts.

One of those Dem officials is subsequently attacked and severely wounded by a gunman who kills 6 people during a shooting rampage.

And no Republican, not one, of any national stature has yet publicly repudiated, rebuked or admonished Sarah Palin in any meaningful way for her website's incitement of its viewers to violence?

Here's what I'm tryng to get my mind around:

I understand that various Reupblicans have condemned the attack on Giffords. But why is the Republican Party or its national leaders not publicly admonishing or repudiating Palin for inciting people to violence?

The silence on Palin is positively deafening and I cannot help wondering if the Republican Party, by its deafening silence, is now insinuating that political violence is acceptable.

When I said that I thought this might mark the start of Civil War v2.0, my wife responded that I was being needlessly alarmist and using inflammatory rhetoric to frame yesterday's events. I sure hope my wife is correct. I guess I'm trying to figure out what yesterday means and portends. As in, how bad could this get?

Opinions on Democratic Underground are sharply split. Some see this as the opening salvo in a new civil war; others see it as indicative of little more than a crazed lone gunman acting in response to his own peculiar demons.