If This Were 1800 Sarah Palin Would Be Challenging Some People to Duels

There has been a concerted effort on the part of the wacky left and its handmaidens in the media to blame Sarah Palin, among others, for the violence in Arizona.  It's an incredibly intellectually dishonest effort and one that is now beginning to meet with the disgrace it deserves.  As I watched this unfold it appears this was not a spontaneous effort, but a coordinated effort among the left, with possible White House prompting, to smear a potential 2012 challenger to Obama.

Do I have evidence of Obama's involvement in this smear?  Just as much evidence they have that Palin is responsible for this shooting.

Today Palin is fighting back in a lengthy video posted on her Facebook page.  Here's an excerpt:

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

You can read it all at the link. Mama Grizzly ain't happy.

And Palin's speech, coming the same day as Obama's trip to Tucson, will draw comparisons between the two.  Moe Lane has some advice for Obama:

Mister President, here’s the bar that you have to clear (Palin's speech).

It’s a high one. A much higher one than your attendants are telling you that it is. They are almost certainly telling you to concentrate on the ‘blood libel’ comment - which, by the way, will immediately resonate with at least 40% of the population of the country, mostly because it is darned accurate* - but what you really need to do is take note of the fact that she’s saying the things that the President should be saying right now about the need to come together, the glory of this country - and, yes, that the Democratic party is acting like a bunch of [expletive deleted] right now, and that they need to stop.

Call in your speechwriters. Make them watch this speech. Tell them that you need one just like it, only twice as good. Because if you don’t - if you go with your usual scheme where you try to set yourself up as the only rational solution in a world full of the irrationa - you will merely hasten your irrelevance.

Good luck with all that.