** Why don't we see what WE can do with toxic political tone in
rec.boats? ***

WASHINGTON – Politicians of all stripes are bound to be haunted by Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords' warning, 10 months before she was shot, to cool the
rhetoric.

It's been a year or more of raw politics, with anger spilling over on
both sides and gun-related metaphors coming loosely from the lips of
some candidates and activists. Giffords, a figurative target of the
right, on Saturday became the actual target of a gunman who shot her
through the head and killed at least five others. She was critically
wounded.

The gunman's motive is not known.

But in Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff Clarence Dupnik suggested "all this
vitriol" in recent political discourse might be connected to Saturday's
shootings. "This may be free speech," he told reporters, "but it's not
without consequences."

Whatever the motive, the toxic tone of the national debate is certain to
draw greater scrutiny.

"We do know that politics has become too personal, too nasty and perhaps
too dangerous," said Jonathan Cowan, president of the centrist
Democratic group Third Way. "Perhaps out of this senseless act some
sense can return to our public discourse."

In the aftermath of the rampage, the House's newly installed Republican
leaders postponed Wednesday's scheduled vote to repeal the new health
care law, the issue at the center of the harshest criticisms of Giffords
and many other Democrats for the past two years. Lawmakers from both
parties were deeply shaken.

Many lawmakers, especially Democrats, felt the 2009-2010 debate over
health care sometimes got out of hand. It began with emotional town hall
meetings in the summer of 2009, when some critics warned of government
"death panels."

Giffords, 40, was among lawmakers who reported 42 threats or acts or
vandalism in the first three months of 2010, a big increase over the
previous year, law enforcement officers said. Nearly all the threats
dealt with the massive health care bill that Giffords and other
Democrats enacted over fierce Republican opposition.

In March, someone kicked in or shot out a glass door and side window at
Giffords' office in Tucson, a few hours after the House passed the
health care measure with her help.

Giffords also was among about 20 Democrats opposed in last fall's
elections by Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee.
Palin's Facebook page in March posted a U.S. map with the cross-hairs of
a gun scope imposed over each of the 20 Democrats' districts. Gun
imagery appeared in various ways in the campaign, often not connected at
all with gun rights.

"We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list," Giffords said at the time. "The
way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our
district. When people do that, they've got to realize there are
consequences to that action."

Palin's Facebook page had the following comment in the hours after the
shooting:

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona."

Ferocious comments, and even occasional violence, certainly animate
American politics from time to time; witness the bloody drive for racial
equality and desegregation, and the antiwar protests, of the 20th
century. The question now, and again, is how much is too much, and how
hot is too hot, in political discourse.

"Anger and hate fuel reactions," said Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva,
whose Arizona district also includes parts of Tucson. He said he was not
assessing blame, and Saturday's shootings might be the work of "a single
nut." But he said the nation must assess the fallout of "an atmosphere
where the political discourse is about hate, anger and bitterness ."

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs said in a statement: "While we do
not know the motives for today's attack, we do know that it cannot be
viewed apart from the climate of violence and the degradation of civil
society that are anathema to democracy."

The suspected shooter, Jared Loughner, complained about the government
in online diatribes that also spoke in scattered ways of currency,
terrorism and "mind control." But what might have driven him to violence
has not been established.

"We don't yet know what provoked this unspeakable act," President Barack
Obama said from the White House. "We are going to get to the bottom of this.