Along with Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Beck and all the others.
Hannity provided a particular turning point today with his observation that liberal rage over rightist rhetoric during this tragic time was "evidence that liberals have lost the policy debate."
They are right. The more we rage against them, the more we rationalize their culpability, the more feed for their victim-mill.
They know this game, and they love it. They can't lose. Unless we take all our energy from this, forget about them and their drama queen personalities, and channel it to a a hit against their strongest (weakest) point: gun control
More than any other event in recent memory, the Loughner massacre makes clear the need for proper, strong gun control.
The founding fathers are not responsible for not envisioning a future where an individual could have the power to become a mass murderer through firearms.
What we need is a constitutional amendment to update the second amendment. Very highly controlled weapons in gun clubs are not a problem. Single-shot guns in homes might not be a problem if they are controlled very tightly. Including ruinous fines for violations.
All of these things could be accomodated by a well-worded constitutional amendment.
In short: we NEED the Nanny state to keep Junior from shooting the neighbors (and maybe the family).
By focusing on something tangible - a gun control amendment, rather than "tone of discourse," we can prevent the rage-o-sphere from claiming it a victim, and at the same time inflict a deep political defeat.
Thanks Rush, for quickly channelling our anger in a constructive and realistic direction.