If you have to dig down to anonymous postings on Free Republic to get such a graphic you really haven't shown much about the Right (generally, or even "Insane"), have you? I mean, if one wants to play that game, you can go to the Zombietime site and find dozens of members of the "Looney Left" who were willing to march and be photographed in public with posters saying "We support the troops when they shoot their officers" or "Bush did it, 9/11 was an inside job." Either of which is a more offensive sentiment than "Obama is using 9/11 for political gain", the message of the satirical graphic you just posted.

So while I agree that the satire is offensive and unfair (in that the Coakley ad was really not an attempt to exploit 9/11), I call bullshit on your "Far Worse" claim.
 

The "far worse" is an ongoing series, usually to do with the threat of right wing violence. While this graphic is just a picture, it certainly symbolizes the dehumanizing nature of the right's eliminationist rhetoric.

The graphic is just one of 100s of truly insane things said in the past few days. I stand by my claim.
 

So was this graphic "just one of 100s of truly insane things"? -- or is it "perhaps the most disgusting American political comment I have ever seen on the web, and I have seen a few"? The distinction rather matters, because if it was anything close to the latter, then your post actually tended to refute your broader claim about hateful and eliminationist rhetoric, didn't it?

You've stepped back by several orders of magnitude in your specific claim. Would it be too painful to avoid paradoxically then writing "I stand by my claim"? Especially when you cannot show me right-wing writings which are more hateful than claiming Bush ordered 9/11, or that US soldiers should shoot their officers.

I'll concede that you can occasionally publish an error without the whole edifice of liberalism falling down. Why don't you concede it as well?