Amid the calls for civility in discourse, the right continues to defend their use of violent rhetoric, claiming it was not the cause of Jared Loughners murderous rampage in Tucson. The question that needs to be asked, over and over again, is “When is enough enough?”  Is it when the next crazed gunman does site Glenn Beck’s classroom teaching or Sarah Palin’s instructions to “Don’t Retreat – Reload!” as their prime motivation?  After more have been gunned down and innocent children are lying bloody in the street?

The right got so defensive in the wake of the AZ shootings because they are the ones who have been spewing the violent directives, using gun metaphors and whipping their followers into maniacal frenzies.

If Sarah Palin felt that her map with crosshairs over 20 Congressional districts -including Gabby Giffords’- was not, in some way, a directive for gun violence there, why did her people take it down in the moments after the shooting?  Why the need to backtrack and erase her tweets describing the crosshairs as bulls-eyes and targets?  Obviously, they knew – and know – exactly what that imagery suggests to the easily led.

I never felt the need to backtrack on anything I said or apologize if my words were interpreted wrongly, as I have never said anything that even hints at the idea of perpetuating violence upon those with whom I disagree.

That was the topic this morning when I spoke with my friend Jason Leopold, deputy managing editor of Truthout.org.

In the second hour of the show, as we do every Monday morning, Nicole Belle of Crooks & Liars joined me for our “Fools on the Hill” segment, recapping the Sunday talking head shows. Of course, the shooting and civil discourse was the main topic…

Obviously, the shooting in Tucson is still fresh in the minds of the media and they’re still sorting out exactly what the long term ramifications will be from the shootings.  Will we more civil?  Will we use this as an opportunity to have a realistic debate on sensible gun control?  Or will we wring our collective hands and then go right back to the same exact toxic political climate?

And there’s little doubt that the climate is extremely toxic.  In a sad coda to the shooting, one of the shooting victims, James Eric Fuller, was arrested at an ABC town hall in Arizona specifically to address the ramifications of the shooting.  When Christiane Amanpour directed a question to Trent Humphries, the head of the Arizona Tea Party—the same man who said that Giffords is to blame for the shooting for having the gall to meet with constituents without armed security to protect her—Fuller allegedly pointed a camera at Humphries, took a picture and said, “You’re dead.” (Fox News coverage, at 1:23).  Fuller was escorted by the police out of the town hall (which ABC so sensitively aired at the conclusion of This Week) and later involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation.

Now the right wing blogs are already grasping at this gleefully in the hopes of pinning liberal violence on Fuller.  I don’t know and don’t care what Fuller’s ideology is. It’s wrong, no matter who does it.  But I have to question the wisdom of the ABC producers to bring a tea bagger to discuss the shooting so soon after the event.  Is this a sad example of PTSD on the part of Fuller?  Or was Fuller was trying to make a larger point over the dangers of the casual use of violent rhetoric and how it charges the climate with fear and instability? In a CBS profile, he blamed Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sharron Angle for their eliminationist rhetoric. The pointing of a camera demonstrated just how easy it is to point a gun and get off a shot before anyone else can unholster their gun in response.    Whatever the case may be, I think there’s no question that this is another incident that points to a need for us to get our discourse on a more sane level again.

Now we need to get the Republican politicians on board.  It would be nice to start with Tom Coburn.  It took David Gregory three tries to get Tom Coburn to repudiate the violent rhetoric, sort of.

It’s interesting to see the two strawmen arguments continually put up by right wingers in response to the tragic shootings in Tucson. The first one is a variation of the “But…but they do it too!”, pointing fingers at the left. I’ve yet to see anyone confront a right winger using that excuse as you would the second-grader equally as apt to employ it: if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do that too? Whether or not you agree with the premise that everyone does it (and for the record, I don’t agree), that doesn’t absolve you of your contribution.

The second strawman tactic is to dismiss any discussion because there’s no evidence that accused shooter Jared Loughner was influenced by Sarah Palin’s crosshairs map or Glenn Beck’s 20+ hours of broadcasting each week, railing at the tyrannical impulses of progress and equality in this country. While it is true that we can’t really know the motivation of a troubled brain like Loughner’s, can anyone dispute that as soon as we heard about this shooting, our collective minds–left and right alike–went immediately to the state of political debate in this country and think, “it was just a matter of time before it happened”? And why is that? Because the tenor of debate in this country HAS degenerated into “I’m right and I want you to die/get hurt/be eliminated for not seeing it my way.”

But not five minutes later, Coburn lapses right back into the same exact kind of language.  When Gregory asks about raising the debt ceiling, Coburn dismisses the concerns Chuck Schumer brings up about being unable to pay Social Security, our military and vets, not to mention the massive hit in confidence we’d take on the international market, Coburn denies the danger and says the “bond vigilantes” are a bigger pain than not raising the debt ceiling.  Classy guy, that Coburn.

Even on Fox News Sunday, Mara Liasson had the intellectual honesty (a rare commodity at FNC) to say that fellow Fox News contributor Sarah Palin admitted that highly charged rhetoric can incite violence.   (it’s a 6 minute clip—there’s a lot of hackery there, so it’s hard to advise where to start/stop)  Unfortunately, Palin is so narcissistic that she thinks it only applies to her.

“Here she is saying, when you talk about blood libel, that is the definition political discourse, a manufactured lie causing violence,” noted Liasson. “In this case she paints herself as the potential victim.”

“Here she is agreeing with the left that political discourse can cause violence.”

Luckily for Sarah, she’s got some of the conservative pundits under thrall.  Pat Buchanan insists the left is conducting “something of a lynch mob” against Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Howie Kurtz just can’t believe that WaPo’s Dana Milbank thinks that you should hold people accountable for the eliminationist rhetoric.

Just goes to show you that the media insiders still don’t get it and will protect their own over any kind of interest.

I ended the Fools on the Hill segment a few minutes early to talk with one of those 3000 Pound Elephants, Bud Meyers – who happens to be one of the so-called 99ers.  But that topic needs its own post, so come back in a few minutes and read about Bud…