There are a number of cartoons about the Tucson shootings, ranging from "weepers," which serve the important purpose of informing people that death is sad, to those suggesting a direct, specific correlation between the rhetoric and the action, as if the right wing had purposefully delivered a detailed "to do" list into the hands of the shooter.
I haven't seen many that managed to make a persuasive point, but I would count this as one. Jen Sorensen has, I think, done the best job of taking down the most offensive, irresponsible rhetoric with a use of sarcasm that doesn't stray from the task of mocking all the washing-of-hands that has been going on since the weekend.
As for countering her examples, feel free, but I want to see something more persuasive than the time Obama explained his planned debating style with a flippant reference to Sean Connery's advice to Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables," or a DNC map that used traditional archery-style bull's-eyes to show the areas in which they planned special efforts. Don't waste my time unless you have specific examples of times nationally-known progressives used rhetoric about "refreshing the tree of liberty" or "reloading" or encouraged people to bring firearms to political rallies.
Meanwhile, I think words can be persuasive, or I wouldn't bother writing. And, since I didn't start doing this yesterday, I know that persuasive words can sometimes have unintended consequences.
Which is why I think we all ought to watch our rhetoric and not call for revolution if we're not prepared to accept the blame when somebody -- unbalanced or not -- listens.