OK. I have at least a couple of posts about the Tucson shooting that left at least two dead and Rep. Gabriel Gifford’s in critical condition. I might even finish writing one of them before the story is no longer news. (But not before everything has been said.)
But I can’t let this wait.
Look, if you’re going to have the gall to put crosshairs in a political ad, have the guts to own up to it.
Palin’s team, in particular, sought to put distance between the former Alaska governor and the case, insisting that an oft-cited “crosshairs” logo used on a Palin PAC website over Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ district was not in any way intended to look like gun sights.
The images on the map bore a resemblance to a surveyor’s symbol, a Palin spokeswoman said Sunday, but Palin herself referred to it as a “‘bullseye’ icon” immediately after the election.
Seriously? What does this look like to you.
Crosshairs? Or “surveyor’s symbol”?
And how does a surveyor’s symbol tie in with the obvious message of the ad? In case there’s any doubt, an image now scrubbed from Palin’s PAC website makes it pretty clear.
“We’ve diagnosed the problem. Help us prescribe a solution.” How do “surveyor’s marks” help “prescribe a solution”?
More to the point, how does a surveyor “reload”?
The two did not discuss the fact that the image was immediately followed by Palin urging like-minded folks to “reload.” Of course, everyone knows surveyors’ equipment needs to be reloaded, too, right? Oh wait….
It’s worth emphasizing that the website for Palin’s political action committee was scrubbed yesterday, and offending materials related to Giffords and crosshairs were removed.
So, I have three related questions. The first is, if Palin’s materials were entirely defensible, why scrub the website? Isn’t this an implicit acknowledgement of an offense?
The second is, if the crosshairs were unrelated to guns — “Surveyor’s symbols”? Seriously? — why did Palin’s team wait to come up with this alternative interpretation until yesterday?
Seriously? Why didn’t the Palin camp tell us they were “surveyor’s marks” before now? Why not tell us when the controversy first flared up months ago? For that matter, why did Palin Because they weren’t surveyor’s marks then, and they aren’t now. It doesn’t pass the laugh test, and nobody except true believers on the right buys it.
I’ll give the Palin camp credit for quick thinking. But Steve Benen poses the ultimate question.
And the third question is, I wonder just how difficult it would be for Palin to simply acknowledge, “In retrospect, those crosshairs were inappropriate. I regret it.”
On the eve of Palin’s latest version of reality, the Dish offers a recap of all the demonstrable lies she has told in the public record. We reprint the list as a public service and invite readers to run the new “book” through exactly the same empirical wringer, so we can compile an up-to-date and comprehensive list of the fantasies, delusions, lies and non-facts that Palin is so pathologically and unalterably attached to. Remember: we are not including contested stories that we cannot prove definitively one way or another or the usual spin that politicians use, or even hypocrisy or shading of facts. We are merely including things she has said or written that can be definitively proven as untrue, by incontestable evidence in the public record.
After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn’t Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?
Why not just say that she regrets it? Because at her core she probably doesn’t regret it. Then why not lie and just say that she regrets it? Because … well maybe because there is at least one thing Sarah Palin can’t lie about, even if she feels she has to. Perhaps Ms. “Don’t Retreat, Just Reload” would lose some of her most rabid supporters if she “retreated.”
She can’t come right out and say she doesn’t regret it. But she can’t say she does. The best alternative is to lie about what she did and try to cover her tracks.