I came across this article that I thought was an excellent summary of the Arizona shooting communication situation - "Who Is Winning the Tucson Murderer PR Blame Game."
Clearly, right, left and center are talking about it, and many people I've talked to have had strong opinions - usually strongly pro-Sarah, or strongly anti-Sarah (we ARE in Alaska.) Not many undecideds in this one. But the article, talking purely about the overall messaging of the sides in this, does a pretty objective - and good - job of outlining what, essentially, a pretty toughspot to get out of, messaging-wise.
But really, the biggest problem I think the right, as a whole, will have to get over is to defend this clear fact:
"The conservative establishment has a gigantic infrastructure through organizations like the Media Research Center with multi-million dollar budgets all based on the premise that negative ideas put out through the media corrupt a culture and cause long term problems, even where there isn’t a direct casual relationship between any one trouble teenage mom and a specific MTV reality show. So it’s a bit disingenuous for conservatives to make the claim that all the right wing militaristic rhetoric flowing from conservative talk show hosts and politicians can have no effect."
Anyone looking at this objectively may come up with different conclusions about the "real reason" this happened - but who can say, with a straight face, the guns and violent rhetoric and not-so-veiled threats should continue as they have?