Rachel Maddow takes on Oklahoma's own Tom Coburn

I'd suppose by now that y'all have heard about Rachel Maddow taking on Oklahoma's junior Senator Tom Coburn on Meet the Press on Sunday.

Guests on the show were discussing threats of violence against government officials made by right wing protesters who are trying to stop health care reform legislation from moving through Congress. Coburn said that these protesters have lost faith in government because of out-of-control deficit spending, and that this justified their violent rhetoric. He wasn't just defending their constitutional right to say hateful and inflammatory things. He seemed to be arguing their point of view was justified.

Coburn's line of argument was particularly odd because he made his comments in reference to a protester who was waving a banner that included the same slogan as a t-shirt worn by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh when he was arrested. Coburn argued that these protesters are understandably angry. Coburn said that these protesters have lost faith in government because of out-of-control deficit spending, and that this justified their violent rhetoric.

In case you haven't seen it, you can watch Rachel Maddow's response here.

I found a particularly useful analysis of this interchange at 2parse.com.

I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that a right wing Republican Senator would please for “understanding” in quasi-defense of extreme right wing rhetoric and threats of violence. After all – what else can he expect?

I suppose my point is: if any people out there take Sarah Palin’s statement that children will be put to death by “death panels” if Obama’s health care plan succeeds; if any people out there seriously believe a Holocaust is about to take place if this health care reform is passed; if they believe that their children are going to be indoctrinated into an atheistic faith in Obama if health care passes; if they believe that their grandparents of their children are in danger – if someone believes any or all of these things, then violence is justified.

We make heroes out of the men who tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler. If we now say that Obama is another Hitler, aren’t we advocating assasination? If we say our child will be killed by Obama, aren’t we implicitly endorsing violence to protect our children?

How can we – as a society – have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of the specific health reforms being considered with this unhinged debate? We can’t. Instead, we just have to let the unsustainable status quo stay in place.