Sarah Palin and her followers among the Tea Party are bobbing and weaving in the wake of the shooting in Arizona, outright denying their use of violent rhetoric targeting political opponents in some cases (casting the now-notorious “crosshair” targeting imagery as surveyor’s marks rather than gun sights, for example). Palin herself has, of course cast herself as the victim rather than step up and confront the relationship between violent political rhetoric and violent political action herself.

Please. Either own your words and your rhetoric, or use different words and rhetoric. From my perspective, it seems like a pretty obvious connection and a pretty obvious degree of responsibility in play (not responsibility for the action of the shooter, just responsibility for feeding the political petrie dish that nourishes such nutcases). I don’t necessarily expect the Tea Party crowd to see it the same way, but is a less craven response really too much to expect from someone like Palin, who plays the role of leader to a large segment of the population?

Apparently in this universe it is. Fortunately, I’m on a lot of email lists, and I received the following press release from the Mirror universe. In the Mirror universe, our doubles have, in many ways, the very opposite qualities of their counterparts here. Sometimes it’s a scary thing. Other times it’s… refreshing.

Here, then, is the press release from the Mirror-Sarah-Palin, responding to criticism of her rhetoric surrounding the equivalent event in the Mirror-universe.

I would like to take a moment to respond to some of the discussions currently underway in the wake of the tragic and horrific attack in Arizona this weekend.

A federal judge has been assassinated. A US Congresswoman is in critical condition. Others have been murdered for simply being nearby, including a 9-year old girl.

At this point, it seems clear that the shooter had political motivations for his horrific actions, and while those motivations are not what can reasonably be considered “conservative” in the context of mainstream political debate, it must be said that his anti-government ideology, given the peculiar commentaries on currency and the like, is most likely a product of the extreme political right. As a result, many are now questioning whether or not some of the strong-worded rhetoric from the Tea Party movement, and some of my own words on behalf of the American people, should be considered as a causal factor in the actions of this individual.

This is an understandable reaction in the face of tragedy. As much as some of my supporters would defensively try to cast the crosshairs on our legislative targeting map as akin to surveying marks, this is, of course, not accurate. We specifically and intentionally used words and symbols that evoked warfare and firearms, and indeed we are hardly the first. We are, as a nation, engaged in what has been called by both sides as a “culture war,” and it is hardly an escalation to speak of political and electoral strategizing in that context, using the weapons and rehtoric of war.

So while I understand the objections – even the angry ones – to the use of this kind of rhetoric, I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion that such rhetoric can be considered in any way responsible for the tragic events of this weekend. First of all, I hope it goes without saying that our rhetoric was never intended to be taken as a call to violence. I honestly believe that no sane, reasonable person could see it as such.

Which brings us to the point that the shooter, I believe, was neither sane nor reasonable, and was almost certainly predisposed to such antisocial and violent behavior.

Let me be clear once again – and I hope my supporters understand this – I understand the strong reactions and the finger-pointing towards the uncompromising rhetoric of the Tea Party, and out of respect, I would never condemn or disparage anybody for reacting angrily towards myself or others who have chosen to express our views so passionately. But the simple fact is that we cannot allow our speech – especially our most passionate political speech – to be captive to what the dangerously violent or unstable elements in our society may do without ceding some control of our political process to them. I certainly do not intend to do so, even as I understand and appreciate that I may be subject to criticism for that view.

So let me close by once again expressing my deepest condolences to the victims of this horrible attack. My thoughts are with the families, and my prayers are with all the wounded. I and my family join with all Americans of all political stripes in hoping for a complete and speedy recovery for all.

A shame we can’t trade up.