In response to accusations from Democrats like Congressman Jim Clyburn and friends that the GOP is guilty of inciting violence, Republicans have pointed out that they've received threats too. It's a stupid game, but one Republicans have been forced to play. It's worth pointing out that Republicans, unlike the DNC and DCCC, are not blaming the other party for inciting these threats.
Threats of violence are despicable, and God forbid--I sincerely mean it--that anyone of either party is actually the subject of a violent act. But are generic threats and violent rhetoric so uncommon in American politics to justify their coverage by all three nightly news programs? I don't receive many nasty emails compared to some of my colleagues at THE WEEKLY STANDARD, but here, for example, is a comment left on Ben Smith's blog at Politico back in October in the wake of Dede Scozzafava's campaign calling the police on me for asking her questions:
This Democrat has a conceal carry license and an NRA card. Had McCormack started invading my wife's personal space and acting as we know Weekly Standard reporters/ teabaggers can (is there any real difference), he stood a good chance of getting shot. Brandishing a weapon is not to be taken lightly, but in light of the rightwing's fetish of shooting at anyone that supports abortion, I would have pulled my weapon and felt perfectly justified doing so.
There's really no point highlighting the fact that there are some stupid people out there, and sometimes these people post comments on blogs. It would be stupid to argue that this Democratic commenter was incited by MSNBC's anti-"teabagger" rhetoric. So why are the DNC, Jim Clyburn, and friends shamelessly trying to pin blame for threats to Democrats on Republican leaders?