WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* House honors Tucson victims: "Shaken by the attempted assassination of their colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, and the killing of one of her aides, House members reconvened at the Capitol on Wednesday to honor the dead and the wounded in the Arizona shooting rampage and to begin reviewing security concerns with law enforcement officials."

* The memorial service in Tucson will be held tonight at the University of Arizona, starting at 8 p.m. eastern, and is expected to draw more than 14,000 attendees. President Obama is expected to speak for 10 to 15 minutes.

* Dept. of Bad Timing: "Speaker John Boehner will host a cocktail party for the Republican National Committee at the same time that President Barack Obama will be addressing the nation at the memorial service for victims of the Tucson shooting."

* Lebanon: "Hezbollah and its allies forced the collapse of the government here on Wednesday, deepening a crisis over a United Nations-backed tribunal investigating the assassination of a former prime minister."

* A man targeting Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) with death threats was taken into custody today, and faces federal charges. (thanks to reader H.S. for the tip)

* The National Climatic Data Center reports that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for global surface temperature. "Nine of the Earth's 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and all 12 of the warmest years have occurred since 1997."

* Massive flooding has effectively shut down Brisbane, Australia's third-largest city. To date, 16 people have been killed, 43 are missing, and thousands have lost their homes.

* An official in the Arizona Republican Party resigned this week, fearing potential violence from Tea Party activists.

* One year after Haiti's devastating earthquake, much of the country remains in rubble.

* Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), reflecting on Saturday's shooting, said, "I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person." (There was -- the man holding that gun very nearly shot an innocent man.)

* Franks also said, "If every person in the world was like Sarah Palin, there probably wouldn't even be need for government because no one would be in danger of any kind." I have no idea what that means.

* People who live in glass houses shouldn't use teleprompters.

* Daniel Luzer: "Thought going to college would be a sensible way to get a good job? Well it looks like for the most sought-after positions in the country, only a few schools -- only five of the more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States -- will do."

* There's nothing wrong with saying, "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them." But when the speaker insists that same principle doesn't apply to Muslim Americans, then it's best not to take her seriously.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

'THERE'LL BE A LOT OF POLITICAL CARRYING ON, BUT IT WILL BE DONE'.... Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, played a critical role in electing a new Republican majority to the House. While he's no doubt aware of some of the pressure from the GOP's activist base, Donohue also knows his Republican partners can't -- or at least shouldn't -- do anything that undermines the nation's business interests.

Consider this exchange from MSNBC this morning:

CHUCK TODD: Are you going to be actively working on these folks that you supported in the election, telling them, 'Hey, don't mess around with the debt ceiling,' or 'Don't mess around with these trade deals'?

TOM DONOHUE: We absolutely support the expansion of the debt. We think, by the way, it's in everybody's interest to do a few things on spending while we're at that, to demonstrate we're moving in the right direction. But who could imagine that new people come to town and cut the most significant deficit while we have high unemployment two weeks into the deal? So we've got to do the debt ceiling. There'll be a lot of political carrying on, but it will be done.

The "carrying on" Donohue referred to will be coming, of course, from conservatives who are his ostensible partisan allies.

But Donohue realizes that, given his role representing business interests, his voice in Republican circles is arguably louder than any other GOP contingent. If he tells the party the debt ceiling has to be raised, Republicans know they have little choice -- and Democrats know not to take GOP hostage strategies too terribly seriously.

Of particular interest, though, is the division between Big Business heavyweights like Donohue and those engaging in the "political carrying on" he wants to ignore. A labor source told Greg Sargent today that this division on the debt ceiling is evidence of a "big divide on some issues between 'traditional' Republican business support and the new tea party folks."

This hasn't gotten a lot of play, but this divide deserves more attenion. There have always been simmering tensions between Republican factions, but it's worth remembering that Tea Party activists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have quite a few differences, and make contradictory demands of party leaders. It will be a challenge for the GOP to make both happy at the same time.

Over the past couple of years, Republicans have done reasonably well taking orders from Donohue and his crowd, while distracting Tea Partiers with shiny objects. If I had to guess, I'd say Boehner & Co. will stay the course with this strategy, and count on confused Tea Partiers being easily misled, but it won't be easy.

Something to keep an eye on.

THE KIND OF INSIGHTS ONLY GOHMERT CAN PROVIDE.... Earlier today, in apparent reference to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said, "I hope the sheriff tones his rhetoric down."

Yes, Gohmert wants someone else to tone down the rhetoric. This from the guy who, among other things, screamed at Anderson Cooper for several minutes about "terror babies," and argued on the House floor that Democrats are trying to get senior citizens to "die off more quickly" by passing health care reform.

Better yet, soon after urging Dupnik to cool the rhetorical excesses, Gohmert was right back to his own crazy ways.

Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said an FBI official who spoke today at a closed-door security briefing for lawmakers "stonewalled" attempts to learn about the personality and political beliefs of shooting suspect Jared Loughner, saying that could jeopardize the investigation and prospective prosecution.

Gohmert suggested the evasiveness was designed to insulate President Barack Obama's political base.

Gohmert declared on the House floor, "It may be that if the things that we're reading -- that he's a liberal, hates the flag, supports Marx, that type of thing, turn out to be true, then it may be embarrassing to some of the current administration's constituents, and, heaven help us, we wouldn't want to embarrass any of the president's constituents."

In Gohmert's mind, the FBI claims it doesn't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation, but the real reason the FBI doesn't want to talk about a madman's profile is to shield Democrats from embarrassment. It's all just an elaborate partisan ruse, orchestrated by Democrats, the White House, and Justice Department -- but ol' Louie is onto their little game.

Right, and Sheriff Dupnik is the one who needs to tone down his rhetoric.

Update: This afternoon, Gohmert began pushing a measure to allow members of Congress to bring loaded firearms onto the House floor. Of course he did.

CRAZY LIKE A FOXX.... I've been pondering this, and I'm still not sure what she's talking about.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) says political rhetoric doesn't really incite violent behavior at all -- but not before describing Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner as a "communist" and "the liberal of liberals."

"This guy appears to be a communist," Foxx told the Winston-Salem Journal. "His beliefs are the liberal of the liberals [sic]. There is no evidence whatsoever that this man was influenced by Sarah Palin or anybody in the Republican Party. This man is not a conservative; he's a fan of communism -- that's the opposite of conservatism."

As we've noted this week, trying to pin Loughner down on a traditional left-right ideological spectrum is a fool's errand, and Foxx's comments are ridiculous on their face. (The message apparently went out to the right to characterize the madman as a communist because of his list of favorite books. The list included Karl Marx -- and Ayn Rand.)

But putting all of that aside, can someone translate "liberal of the liberals"?

Also, if you're not familiar with Foxx, Alan Pyke noted yesterday that this is the same member of Congress who has "called health care reform legislation a greater threat than any terrorist in the world, and claimed that senior citizens would be 'put to death' under Democratic reforms," among other things.

What's she up to in the 112th Congress? The new House Republican majority has put her in charge of the committee that oversees higher education and lifelong learning in the United States.

The jokes write themselves.

'PROMOTING A PARANOID CULTURE'.... There's been an ongoing conversation the last several days about the effects of rhetorical excesses in our political discourse, with many wondering the extent to which such talk might lead to violence. Harold Meyerson has a terrific column today, suggesting a separate question that may have more salience.

For example, Glenn Beck suggested he'd shoot public officials who tried to take his children if he didn't give them flu vaccines. Erick Erickson said he'd point a shotgun at those who tried to prosecute him for resisting the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. In Grown-Up Land, of course, neither scenario reflects reality -- no one seizes children from parents over flu vaccines and no one arrests those who blow off the American Community Survey.

The gun-related rhetoric is worth considering in its own right, but another angle is just as important. From Meyerson's piece:

The primary problem with the political discourse of the right in today's America isn't that it incites violence per se. It's that it implants and reinforces paranoid fears about the government and conservatism's domestic adversaries.

Much of the culture and thinking of the American right -- the mainstream as well as the fringe -- has descended into paranoid suppositions about the government, the Democrats and the president. This is not to say that the left wing doesn't have a paranoid fringe, too. But by every available measure, it's the right where conspiracy theories have exploded. [...]

As much of the right sees it, the government is planning to incarcerate its enemies (see Beck and Erickson, above), socialize the economy and take away everyone's guns. At the fringe, we have figures like Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, who told a rally in Washington last April that, "We're in a war. The other side knows they are at war, because they started it. They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

It matters whether such nonsense contributes to a toxic climate that might even lead to violence. But a related question is how the nonsense reflects a deeply paranoid right.

This isn't entirely new. Those who remember right-wing rhetoric in the Clinton era may recall overheated fears of black helicopters and the White House handing over power to the United Nations.

But much of this has gone mainstream in the Obama era. For example, given recent events, there's been a fair amount of talk about Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) talk about her allies being "armed and dangerous." But let's also note that this is the same loony lawmaker who said the Census may lead to "concentration camps," and AmeriCorps might be used to force young people into "re-education camps."

Indeed, it's hard to avoid the paranoia running through contemporary conservatism. As they struggle with legitimate policy debates, they're stuck manufacturing make-believe policy ideas that suit their worldview. Obama supports death panels! He wants to adopt a global currency! He's going to impose a tax on every time we flip a light switch! The fears are absurd, but on the right, they're ubiquitous.

Meyerson concluded:

American politics and culture have a rich history of paranoia, as historian Richard Hofstadter and many others have documented. Many of the incidents of anti-government violence over the past couple of years -- flying a plane into an IRS building in Texas, shooting police officers in Pittsburgh and carrying out last weekend's savagery in Tucson -- came from people who, however individually loony they may have been, also harbored paranoid visions of the government that resembled, though by no means entirely, those put forth by the Becks and the Ericksons.

That doesn't make Beck, Erickson, Rupert Murdoch and their ilk responsible for Tucson. It does make them responsible for promoting a paranoid culture that makes America a more divided and dangerous land.

THROUGH THE CONGRESSIONAL LOOKING GLASS.... I can appreciate why members of Congress have taken a renewed interest in their personal safety this week, but some of the proposals seem off-track.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), for example, has talked up a bill that would make it a crime to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official. This idea probably won't go far.

Others are getting even more creative.

An aide to Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) tells CBS News that the Indiana Republican plans to introduce legislation next week that would encase the House Gallery in "a transparent and substantial material" such as Plexiglas that would keep members of the public from being able to throw explosives or make other attacks on members on the House floor.

Burton has introduced similar legislation in the past. It reads in part, "The Architect of the Capitol shall enclose the visitors' galleries of the House of Representatives with a transparent and substantial material, and shall install equipment so that the proceedings on the floor of the House of Representatives will be clearly audible in the galleries."

If you've never been in the House chamber, there's a fair amount of public seating above the floor. It's entirely open -- there's nothing but distance between spectators and lawmakers. Burton is effectively calling for a shield to go in, encasing the chamber for members' safety.

To be sure, this openness has been exploited in the past. In 1954, Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the public seating, shooting five House members. Proponents of Burton's idea are likely to reference this to bolster their case.

But it doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. Since 1954, security on Capitol Hill has intensified significantly. There weren't even metal detectors for those entering the building in 1954.

Ezra Klein runs down some related ideas being floated for congressional security, all of which seem well-intentioned but misplaced, and raises a good point.

And all this would solve ... what? In the past three decades, there haven't been five members of Congress shot by constituents. There haven't been two. There's been one. And it's not at all clear that most of these proposal would've even prevented that shooting.

I don't want to downplay the horror of what happened in Arizona. But attaching a police officer to every congressional event or trying to train aides who're supposed to be listening to constituents to instead try and assess the threat level they pose is not the right way to grieve. We've suffered a tragedy, but there's no evidence, at least as of yet, that legislators are in much everyday danger. That's in stark contrast with, say, people who live in Detroit, who perhaps could use more security.

Being nervous after the violence in Tucson makes sense, but there's a real risk of reactionary security excesses in response to the tragedy. Here's hoping cooler heads will prevail.

'BLOOD LIBEL'.... If the goal of Sarah Palin's speechwriters was to get lots of attention, it worked. Her use of the phrase "blood libel" this morning has sparked quite a bit of discussion.

In context, the half-term governor, speaking by way of a pre-recorded video because she can't handle interviews, argued that "journalists and pundits" had manufactured "a blood libel," which in turn may "incite ... hatred and violence."

Palin was a little vague as to what, exactly, constituted "blood libel," but the implication was that she was referring to those who dared to criticize her.

Given the loaded qualities of the phrase, much of the discussion has been about whether she was right to use it. Jonah Goldberg, of all people, agreed this morning that it should have been avoided. Adam Serwer today helped explain why.

Blood libel is a term that usually refers to an ancient falsehood that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals. For hundreds of years, particularly during the Middle Ages, it was used to justify the slaughter of Jews in the street and their expulsion from entire countries. "Blood libel" is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them. [...]

Given that people like Beck and Limbaugh have spent the last two years trying to convince their audiences that being white and conservative in America today is comparable to being black under Jim Crow, Palin's use of "blood libel" isn't entirely surprising.

The difference is, though, that Beck and Limbaugh don't really fancy themselves as political leaders in the sense Palin does. As David Frum wrote earlier this week, Palin's previous response to the incident was "petty at a moment when Palin had been handed perhaps her last clear chance to show herself presidentially magnanimous." That was before she was drawing parallels between harsh, even unfair verbal criticism and genocide.

I've seen some suggestions that Palin isn't nearly smart enough to know why her use of the phrase might be offensive. The point is not without merit -- if she thinks the "Bush Doctrine" refers to the former president's "worldview," it's safe to assume her understanding of the "blood libel" phrase is limited. That said, ignorance isn't exactly a compelling excuse.

What's more, I've seen others suggest Palin couldn't possibly have written her statement -- the grammar was correct and it was lacking in unnecessary exclamation points -- so it's not quite her fault. That's unpersuasive, too. Palin has to take ownership of the words that come out of her mouth, especially in pre-written remarks.

Some prominent Jewish Republicans, by the way, were asked this morning for their reaction to Palin's use of the phrase. They didn't seem eager to talk about it.

For additional context, it's also worth mentioning that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) is Jewish and the attempt on her life fell on Shabbat*. I seriously doubt Palin or the folks who put words in her mouth thought about these details to this degree, but it reinforces why the former half-term governor probably shouldn't have used "blood libel" in her remarks.

* edited for clarity, thanks to suggestions from Alan and Enceladus in comments

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* A new national Associated Press poll offers some good news for almost everyone in Washington. President Obama's approval rating, for example, is up to 53%, roughly his best numbers in a year. Approval for congressional Republicans, meanwhile, now stands at 36%, which sounds awful, but it's up from 29% in the fall.

* In Nevada, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) struggling badly if he faces Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) in a primary next year. The House member, who hasn't stated his plans, leads Ensign in a hypothetical match-up, 52% to 34%.

* Speaking of Nevada, PPP also found that Republicans in the state currently favor Mitt Romney in the fight for 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Romney enjoys 31% support, followed by Sarah Palin at 19%.

* In remarks that should effectively close the door, Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, told the Boston Globe yesterday that "there's no elective office" in her future. There has been some talk of trying to recruit Kennedy to take on Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) next year.

* For the second time this week, a poll shows Mike Huckabee as the early favorite in the GOP's Iowa caucuses. This time, it's PPP showing him with a 12-point lead over Romney, his next closest competitor.

* If Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is still weighing the possibility of a presidential campaign, his constituents have some advice: don't bother.

* And Dave Weigel raised an interesting observation about the presidential campaign calendar. We're about a year from the first caucus/primary votes, and the only candidate we know for sure to be running is President Obama. At this point in the last campaign cycle, 14 candidates from both parties had already launched their campaigns.

NAM HAS A WISH-LIST FOR ISSA.... Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) vowed last year that if he was made chairman of the House oversight committee, the right-wing Californian would simply ignore corporate misconduct. And sure enough, the gavel is now in his hands.

It wasn't surprising, then, when we learned last week that he'd contacted more than 150 trade associations, companies, and think tanks, asking them to put together a list of regulations they'd like him to target for elimination.

They've begun getting back to him.

In response, the GOP-friendly National Association of Manufacturers has asked him to probe forthcoming regulations aimed at enhancing worker health, improving toxin standards, mitigating climate pollution and preventing another crisis on Wall Street. [...]

NAM also takes aim at an OSHA injury and illness protection plan that would require employers to find and fix hazards in their workplace.

Remember, as far as the Republicans' "Tea Party" base is concerned, the new GOP majority is committed to some kind of economic populism, and a break with entrenched special interests. Issa is offering change, but it's the kind of change in which wealthy and powerful business leaders effectively give Congress instructions on what to do.

And in the case of NAM's wish-list, the instructions include measures that would mean weaker worker protections, less oversight of Wall Street, and dirtier air.

Coming soon to a House oversight committee hearing near you.

GETTING THE OLD GANG BACK TOGETHER, CONT'D.... Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was sentenced this week to three years behind bars for his conviction on money-laundering charges. With that in mind, it's a shame that the corrupt Republican's former staff is still running the House.

I reported last week that three top officials in DeLay's former House operation now have key roles in the new Republican majority. Danielle Maurer will be Speaker John Boehner's director of member services; Anne Thorsen will be Boehner's director of floor operations; and Tim Berry will serve as chief of staff to the House Majority Whip.

John Bresnahan picks up on the story today, and notes that the list is even longer than I'd realized.

These DeLay alums are populating the upper reaches of Republican leadership jobs in the House and enjoying lucrative jobs lobbying and consulting. Their enduring influence shows that while the GOP establishment may have moved on from DeLay, the staffers who ran his House shop at its peak of power still have cachet. [...]

[A] look at the top jobs in the new GOP majority reads like a "Who's Who" of DeLay's staff list from four years ago.

In addition to the aides I mentioned, this report notes that Boehner's policy director also worked for DeLay. The disgraced Texan's former aides are also serving as the communications director for the House Republican Conference, the policy director for a House committee, a top official in the NRSC, and in a variety of lobbying positions on K Street.

Bresnahan noted that "for some time after" DeLay's resignation in 2006, "having the name 'Tom DeLay' on one's resume was a major drawback.... But after the Election Day romp by Republicans on Nov. 2 last year, DeLay's staffers started trickling back onto the scene."

If anything, that's understating the case.

To reiterate the case from last week, it's worth emphasizing that DeLay's former team hasn't been convicted of anything, and it's a stretch to suggest they should never be allowed to work in politics again.

The point, though, is that the new Republican House operation is starting to look an awful lot like the old Republican House operation -- up to and including the identical staffers who helped a corrupt politician run the chamber.

DeLay's aides will help run the show; corporate lobbyists have been brought on to shape policy; and the K Street project that Boehner swore to leave in the past is looking reconstituted.

Given the spectacular failures of the last Republican majority, getting the old gang back together isn't exactly encouraging.

HALF-TERM GOVERNOR BREAKS HER SILENCE.... As tempted as I am to simply ignore former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) latest statement, I suppose there's no point in pretending it's not of some interest to the political world this morning.

Palin has been unusually quiet since Saturday's massacre in Tucson, and as interest in the toxicity of political rhetoric has grown more intense, her role in cheapening and dragging down our discourse has generated a fair amount of attention.

Today, Palin broke her silence issuing a video, which is nearly eight minutes long. It's a standard tactic -- the right-wing media personality can't subject herself to questions or muster the confidence to deal with cross-examinations, so to communicate, Palin's forced to hide behind statements others write for her, and then upload them. It's not exactly the stuff Profiles in Courage are made of.

In any case, the statement/video is about what one might expect. Palin, speaking from Alaska with an American flag over her right shoulder, has no regrets and no apologies to offer. Instead, she's concerned about "blood libel."

"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."

I don't imagine Palin actually knows what "blood libel" means, but historically, it's referred to the ridiculous notion of Jews engaging in ritual killings of Christian children. More commonly, it's a phrase intended to convey the suffering of an oppressed minority.

In other words, Palin is apparently feeling sorry for herself, again, using a needlessly provocative metaphor that casts her as something of a martyr.

I was also struck in the same paragraph by the notion that media figures are "inciting" "hatred and violence." Palin didn't cite any examples, so I don't know what she's referring to, but there is something odd about the accusation. As she sees the events in Tucson, a "deranged, apparently apolitical criminal" committed a despicable act, but that's no reason to "claim political rhetoric is to blame." That's a defensible argument. But if that's the case, why is Palin concerned about criticisms from pundits "inciting the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn"?

Excessive political rhetoric is fine, but criticizing those who engage in excessive political rhetoric is fomenting violence? How does that work, exactly?

Palin went on to note that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) participated in the reading of the Constitution on the House floor last week, and happened to read the First Amendment.

"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."

I agree that responding to the tragedy by curtailing the First Amendment would be a mistake, but let's be clear about the context: what Palin chooses to overlook is that Giffords has taken a leading role in trying to lower the temperature of those who engage in rhetorical excesses, and specifically complained publicly about Palin's use of rifle crosshairs targeting Giffords' district just last year.

To suggest that Giffords and Palin are on the same page on this is at odds with reality.

And with that, the former half-term governor will probably go back into hiding for a while, content with the knowledge that the media will air her video over and over again, and that she need not have the courage to answer questions to get her message out.

Palin had an opportunity to step up, demonstrate some real leadership, and prove to everyone that she deserves a role on the national stage. That opportunity is now gone, and Palin has failed.

'BOTH SIDES' DON'T PRODUCE POLITICIZED ASSAULT RIFLE COMPONENTS.... It's hard to forget Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) heckling of President Obama in September 2009, shouting, "You lie!" when the president was, in fact, telling the truth during a speech to a joint session.

Of course, some folks remember the incident more fondly than others.

Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) health care-era "you lie" interruption of President Obama is now reportedly being commemorated with a place on a new, limited edition line of assault rifle components.

The Columbia Free Times reports that the words are being engraved on a series of lower receivers manufactured for popular AR-15 assault rifles. Lower receivers are one of the primary pieces of the firearms.

"Palmetto State Armory would like to honor our esteemed congressman Joe Wilson with the release of our new 'You Lie' AR-15 lower receiver," the weapon manufacturer's site writes in the product description. "Only 999 of these will be produced, get yours before they are gone!"

It's distressing enough that far-right activists wanted to make Wilson a hero for his ridiculous outburst, but it's quite a bit worse when "You lie" makes its way onto commemorative assault rifle components.

The website selling the lower receiver features a photo of Wilson holding a rifle and standing in the manufacturer's store, but the "You Lie" component is "neither endorsed nor affiliated" with the Republican congressman.

I'm glad, but if Wilson could perhaps criticize the commemorative product, that'd be nice, too.

THOSE WHO JUSTIFY ANTI-GOVERNMENT VIOLENCE.... CBS News conducted a poll this week -- after the massacre in Tucson -- and included a provocative question: "Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?"

Given that the American mainstream strongly rejects these kinds of attitudes, I expected the results to be entirely one sided. For the most part, they were -- overall, 76% of Americans said such violence is never justified, while 16% said anti-government violence can be acceptable.

Markos Moulitsas, however, emphasized an important angle to this: the partisan breakdown.

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?

Republican 28% yes, 64% no

Democrat 11% yes, 81% no

Independent 11% yes, 81% no

The 11% of Dems and self-identified Independents is still much higher than I'd like to see, but it's the GOP numbers that are especially disheartening. More than a fourth of rank-and-file Republicans are prepared to justify violence against their own government? That's not a tiny, obscure fringe; that's a sizable chunk of a major political party.

The only solace I can take from this is the wording of the question is open to some interpretation. For example, respondents weren't asked specifically about Americans and the U.S. government -- in the abstract, a citizenry somewhere in the world suffering under the rule of an authoritarian dictator may be justified in "taking violent action" against their government, and maybe some folks thought of that when participating in the poll. For that matter, if we're willing to entertain fantastical imaginations, maybe some respondents could envision a day in which the existing U.S. government is dissolved and replaced with some kind of autocratic tyrant, at which point a rebellion could be warranted.

But really, this is quite a stretch, and I'm probably just trying to make myself feel better about what appear at face value to be outlandish results.

I'm well aware of the contemporary Republican Party's sharp move to the far right, but when 28% of the party's voters are prepared to justify anti-government violence, it's a reminder that GOP leaders have some work to do to lower the temperature -- if they're inclined to help.

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* It seems hard to even imagine, but Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) is already able to breathe on her own, though she remains in critical condition. One of her doctors told reporters today, "She has no right to look this good."

* Speaking from China today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said North Korea's nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile programs are "becoming a direct threat to the United States."

* Gates' visit just happened to coincide with a test flight of China's new stealth fighter jet. If that wasn't enough of an eyebrow raiser, try this: "[T]he demonstration also raised questions about the degree of civilian control of the Chinese military, as China's president, Hu Jintao, and other civilian leaders appeared to have no knowledge that the test had been conducted only hours before they received Mr. Gates for a formal meeting at the Great Hall of the People."

* Oversight matters: "The U.S. official in charge of overseeing the billions of dollars being spent to rebuild Afghanistan announced his resignation Monday, just a week after he fired two of his top deputies in a major shake-up of the organization."

* Did House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) suggest Muslim Americans aren't actually Americans when it comes to war? It sure sounded like it.

* Not exactly the ideal reaction to recent events: "Gun sales soared in Arizona and several other states on Monday after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to FBI figures provided to POLITICO. Gun sales skyrocketed 60 percent in Arizona on Monday Jan. 10, compared to the corresponding Monday last year."

* State lawmakers in Illinois are poised to abolish the death penalty.

* Once and for all, Fox News' report connecting Loughner to a white supremacist group was wrong.

* I've been trying to stress this since Sunday: "In other words, even if the shooter is a complete nut, we should be asking whether the tone of our political discourse might also have played a role in triggering the shooting -- and if so, whether such a thing could happen again."

* And I've been trying to stress this for eight years: "The right and the left both have intemperate voices. But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as leading lights, embraced by the leadership. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America. Who are the folks on the left with equivalent popularity and influence?"

* High on the list of things that bother me about conservative media: they make stuff up.

* Ken Blackwell's understanding of constitutional history is ridiculous.

* Colleges measuring their output can be a good idea, but it doesn't have to be.

* For what it's worth, Alexander Hamilton rejected the idea of legislative supermajorities, too.

* I knew comment moderation on Sarah Palin's Facebook page was excessive, but I had no idea it was this bad.

* And Glenn Beck's website this week included a heartening message: "We must stand together against all violence." Less heartening: the message ran next to an image of Beck holding a gun.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BEHOLD, THE PROPHET FROM GEORGIA.... Following up on an earlier item, President Obama led a moment of silence yesterday for the victims of the massacre in Tucson, and urged Americans to use the time to "come together as a nation in prayer or reflection, keeping the victims and their families closely at heart."

CNN's Erick Erickson disapproved -- he wanted the president to mention "prayer," but not "reflection," because the latter "accommodates atheists." Erickson said the president deserves to be "bashed" for the phrasing, and also deserves to have the public question "the sincerity of his faith." This led to a fair amount of criticism of the RedState blogger, from among others, me.

Erickson responded today on Twitter (not to me, per se, but to those who've noted his criticism).

Atheists are upset with me. But God is upset with them.

Two things. First, one need not be an atheist to be offended by Erickson's smear of the president, and to assume that only non-believers would be bothered is strikingly narrow-minded.

Second, Erickson believes "God is upset" with atheists. I'm curious: how does he know?

No, seriously. I'm fascinated by those who are so arrogant, they're comfortable claiming to know what God thinks and how God feels. So perhaps Erickson can enlighten us mere mortals who can only speculate about the state of mind of a supreme being. Is Erickson hearing voices? Does God send him text-messages? How can he be sure that God is "upset" with atheists and not, say, unhappy with right-wing media personalities who claim to have special insights into the Lord's emotional state?

Also worth noting is the fact that Erickson went on to highlight "what's missing" from the coverage of the shootings in Tucson.

Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about -- a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

I can't help but wonder if Erickson was wearing his WWJD? bracelet when he published an item wondering when voters might "get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot." Or when he called retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter a "goat f--king child molester." Or when he referred to two sitting U.S. senators as "healthcare suicide bombers." Or when he praised protesters for "tell[ing] Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel."