Can We Get A Little Consistency

From John Dickenson, on Sarah Palin's response to her critics:

"Palin effectively quoted Ronald Reagan arguing that the criminal alone is responsible for the crime. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," she said. Good. Then she went on to say that "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." Bad. You can't argue that words don't create criminals and then argue in the next breath that, actually, yes, they might."

This inconsistency demonstrates that Palin will say whatever sounds like it might work - regardless of consistency or the substance of her actual beliefs. You know, things like "those bullseyes were not cross-hairs. They were surveyors' sights." Please! Palin can't believe that words don't inspire crime and yet they do. No one believes Not P and P. Therefore, she couldn't have been saying what she actually believs.

And does she really think we're all so stupid that we'll believe her non-bullseye surveyor's sight claim, particularly after all that "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric?

Let me say for the record that her supporters have a tremendous tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

Let me also say that, as far as I can tell, no one on "the left" is defending themselves against the charge that they engage in over the top political rhetoric that puts people's lives in danger. Beck, Limbaugh, Angle, and now Palin have all done so.

That should suffice to settle the equivalency thesis.

Joe H.