A reader writes:
I just listened to the Bruce-Mansour interview in its entirety, and it strikes me that the pathology on display here runs deeper even than the "surveyor's symbol" excuse. Rebecca Mansour (who, as you know, is one of Palin's closest advisers) insists that it wasn't the idea of Palin and her advisers to take down the target graphic - instead it was Palin's web host that broached the idea. But otherwise Palin NEVER would have made any connection between that map and a target, it just never would have occurred to her! And besides, Team Palin thought the graphic had already been taken down, because the election was over. So by all means, yes, take it down, they told the web company - but not because there's anything tasteless about it. Just because it's outdated anyway and they didn't want to "pay" any longer to have it up. And besides all that, Mansour goes on, the graphic wasn't even designed in-house. It came from out outside firm. So, there you have it.
Really, the stream of credulity-straining excuses is like listening to a teenager try to explain why his homework assignment isn't done.
This is not the way mature, rational adults behave. It's also majorly bizarre that Tammy Bruce insists multiple times at the beginning of the interview that Mansour isn't appearing as a representative of Palin or SarahPAC ("she joins me personally and not on behalf of the PAC" says the lead-in text on the website). She's just on, apparently, as a private citizen shootin' the shit. I can only assume that this disclaimer is offered up preemptively to give Palin breathing room to deny anything controversial Mansour might have let slip during the segment.
Is there any length to which Palin will not go to evade responsibility for any action? She could have come out and made some statement to the effect that the target graphic was in retrospect a poor choice, but that "targeting" is a common political metaphor and no harm was intended, etc. Instead she lies, evades, and misrepresents.