Dem posted map with targets in 2008? What say you?

[crim son]

The site that shall not be named links to a Democratic Leadership Council webpage which features a map that looks an awful lot like Palin's. Is this for real?


http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

[tridim]

1. Targets != crosshairs

[hlthe2b]

2. Targets, not RIfle Sights... no names and no threat, implied or not

For Gawd's sake, do you not see the difference? Dart targets, not rifle sights.

[Ian David]

Those are not gunsights. Those are archery targets. Big difference.

A gunsight goes on something you want to kill.

An archery target is an inatimate object that is safe to shoot at.

[SoCalDem]

3. not gunsight markers.. Target Stores use a target..bars have targets for darts

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-09-11 07:39 PM
Original message

" I will fight for you".. Let's hit them hard",

These (and others) are phrases used by dems during an election.. Of course a republican (Neal Boortz) claims to be angry at hearing these words uttered by Obama, but the facts show something different

Dems did not yell "KILL HIM" or "TRAITOR" when McCain's name was mentioned

Dems did not invade republican town hall meetings & shout down the speakers or storm the stage

Dems did not intimidate attendees by wearing/carrying guns & signs that threatened gun violence

I don't think any Dem stepped on a republican head

there may have been a few scuffles ( Franken was involved in one :)..),

Bullets ..real bullets have maimed & killed real people on the "left".. The righties may have had mussed hair & a wrinkled shirt here and there, but I don't think any of them fear being hunted/stalked, shot & killed by any of "ours"..

[Chipper Chat]

4. Looks like the Target Store logo

and no crosshairs.

[MorningGlow]

5. Lefties didn't see the target marks as an invitation to start shooting

A crazy right-winger did. And therein lies the divide.

[stray cat]

6. If someone who posted on DU did something violent; people could look back and see posts

that appear to advocate violence.

[Teaser]

7. you fail hard

with this.

[crim son]

56. If I fail by asking a question, then so be it. n/t

[immoderate]

8. The Democratic map says, "Win these states."

Palin's map says, "Shoot these people."

--imm

[Barack_America]

19. Exactly...

If there ends up being a nuclear attack that decimates one of those states, get back to me.

I highly doubt any unstable person would look at that 2008 map and think, "I can do that, I can take out that state". However, when you've got crosshairs coupled with the name of a specific person, the message that unstable person gets is very different.

[Riftaxe]

9. That's from 2004 (nt)

[Lifelong Protester]

10. That target looks like the precursor to the new Dem logo to me.

[AspenRose]

11. I don't see lists of names of people being targeted.

I see STATES. Not people.

Oh and someone tried to make this same point last night, and the topic was deleted.

[Jamastiene]

16. Also there is no mention of reloading and none of those politicians were shot. n/t

[woo me with science]

52. ...

The hairsplitting here is getting ridiculous.

[doc03]

12. Wait a minute to be honest here I remember a big fuss a few

years ago when a right winger put the same target over Bill Clinton's face.

[Jamastiene]

13. I don't see any names listed, nor do I see any violent rhetoric about reloading, and

none of those politicians were shot.

[SmileyRose]

14. Heh. I blame the department store "Target".

[blondeatlast]

20. We're colluding with Wal-Mart, ya know. nt

[Xenotime]

15. Targets are not crosshairs.

[tabatha]

Those are map markers.

There is no gun association at all.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. When di the DLC

Hold town meetings and rallies all over the country using this to rile up the left and get US to town hall meetings with guns?

And this is not really news - it was being discussed on MSNBC this weekend.

[NightWatcher]

18. Where's the "reload", "armed &dangerous" and "2nd Amendment remedy" rhetoric?

I don't see anger, encitement, and vitriol here. Nor do I see fervent anti-government screeds.

[Barack_America]

21. Amongst the HUNDREDS of examples of violent RW rhetoric and actions, THIS is all they've got?

A Dem map targeting entire states for victory?

That pretty much speaks for itself, does it not?

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. How many of the targets have been shot?

Sometimes, it's about the audience.

[krispos42]

23. Crosshairs are for aiming what is doing the shooting, almost always a gun

Targets are what you are aiming at.


The "crosshairs" that Palin used could also have been any of these:




For example:

Sighting down a rifle with iron sights, probably a Garand:




Sighting through a rifle scope:




It's all the same... aiming a gun.

[Mojeoux]

53. Yup. People don't shoot at bulls-eyes with guns.

They use the cross hairs of their guns. In the shooting galleries that the police department uses, they don't have colorful bulls-eyes. Colorful bulls-eyes are for Archery ranges.

[EarlG]

24. This is a RW red herring that they're using to confuse the issue.

It is and always has been extremely common to use language like "targeting" in politics. That's not what sensible people are objecting to.

The first difference between this map and Palin's is that this map targets states whereas Palin's targets individuals. But even that isn't the issue. The issue is that Palin's map was presented in the context of dozens of other comments by her and other RW luminaries talking about politics in terms of violence, war, and revolution. "Don't retreat, RELOAD," for example. "Second amendment remedies." "If ballots don't work, bullets will."

How many times did you hear people at Obama rallies in 2008 shouting "Kill him" about John McCain? Because that's what they were yelling about Obama at McCain rallies. How many liberals turned up at GOP town hall meetings in the summer of 2009 carrying signs that said things like "We came unarmed -- this time"?

It's not JUST Palin's map that's the issue here -- her map is merely one high-profile chapter taken from the volumes of eliminationist rhetoric that RW leaders and followers have been spouting since Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee.

[krispos42]

64. The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box

I think that's how the revolution is suppose to happen. Of course, they had just come off of holding the House for 12 years and the Senate for nearly as long, as well as stealing two elections for themselves.


I agree that the People are not being listened to, but the problem is not limited to deaf Democrats.

[pintobean]

25. You are now in the crosshairs

of the character assassins. Right wing troll accusations are coming.

[crim son]

55. Laughing. I expected that and it's fine.

I want to know what people here think and am being informed.

[woo me with science]

26. They are both stupid charts. Neither one caused this shooting. nt

[pintobean]

27. +1

[Teaser]

28. no rhetoric causes anything

but it can facilitate it.

[LibraLiz1973]

29. Rhetoric to a crazy person is like alcohol for Lindsay Lohan

It ALWAYS leads to disaster.

[seabeyond]

32. the illness caused it. the rifle scope, lock and load, kill liberals incites... nt

[PeaceNikki]

38. Rhetoric doesn't kill people,

not so thinly veiled references to murdering those you disagree with on ideological grounds interpreted by mouth-breathing slobs kill people.

When some lunatic plays Pin the Bullet on the Congresswoman, it's fair to ask who spun them around and shoved them towards the target.

[Mojeoux]

54. Rhetoric can halt decent people from following their good conscience.

They shut up and figure that it's useless because of all the shouting.

[ctaylors6]

45. +100

[Lucian]

47. No, but Palin's incites violence.

[joe_sixpack]

60. +2

[Chorophyll]

30. The targets seem to be on entire states,

not on individual people. I mean, we have a store called Target whose logo is a target and we understand (well, most of us do) that we're not supposed to throw darts at it.

[woo me with science]

43. ...

Seriously, the hairsplitting here is getting just silly.

[seabeyond]

31. it is a target that cannot hurt. looking down a rifle scope aimed at a person is DEATH. see

the difference, cause for me, it is HUGE

if they held crossbows at someone that would be bad. showing a target does not imply kill. holding a gun implies kill

[Obamanaut]

36. Putting a bullseye type target and using "targeted Republicans" might

be meaningful to some.

[slackmaster]

33. Those are roundels. Roundels are nice targets. Definitely not the same as crosshairs.

:crazy:

[NoGOPZone]

34. I say there's no comparison between putting a target on a state and crosshairs on individuals

Not to be snarky, but do you think that firing arrows into Arkansas is the same as firing bullets at a member of Congress?

OK, maybe that's a little snarky, but there's a huge difference between a target and a target acquisition device.

[lib_wit_it]

42. Also, as has been stated quite convincingly, it's mot just the cross hairs map.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/lets-get...

Let's Get This Straight

Posted by Melissa McEwan at Monday, January 10, 2011

Both sides are, in fact, not "just as bad," when it comes to institutionally sanctioned violent and eliminationist rhetoric.

An anonymous commenter at Daily Kos and the last Republican vice presidential nominee are not equivalent, no matter how many ridiculously irresponsible members of the media would have us believe otherwise.

There is, demonstrably, no leftist equivalent to Sarah Palin, former veep candidate and presumed future presidential candidate, who uses gun imagery (rifle sights) and language ("Don't Retreat, RELOAD") to exhort her followers to action.

- snip -

There is no leftist equivalent to Glenn Beck, host of a long-running nationally syndicated radio show, former host of a show on CNN and current host of a show on Fox, best-selling author, DC rally org

Thanks to this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x162079

[Obamanaut]

35. And they also use phrases like "targeted republicans", but not 'republican seats.'

One can also find that the dems consider themselves "behind enemy lines".

With the bullseye type targets, and phraseology such as listed above, it would appear that both sides have done similar things, but with slight differences.

Saying now "But we didn't mean it that way" does not change the overall picture. Weasels and evildoers are not limited to any single group. It just doesn't happen that way.

[NoGOPZone]

39. I don't see the phrase 'targeted Republicans'. Is it in this article

or one of the articles linked on that page? In Marshall's article I only see the phrases 'targets winnable states', 'likely targets for Democratic gains', 'targeting these states', 'target states', 'states should be ripe targets' in the "Enemy Lines" section and 'targeting swing voters'.

[Obamanaut]

44. Here's a link

http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/dccc_announces_12_house_republicans_targeted_in_major_grassroots_campaign/

and another one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/dems-target-12-republican_n_169113.html

[NoGOPZone]

50. OK, so it was a different document

My personal view is that the phrase itself is not inciteful, but it could might be depending on how it is used with other language or symbols.

[Obamanaut]

51. edited earlier post (#44) to include another, different, link nt

[AlabamaLibrul]

58. "both sides have done similar things, but with slight differences"

[LanternWaste]

37. I'm not too sure of any politicians assassinated by a long bow.

Looks like arrow targets... the kind used when I was in SCA.

I'm not too sure of any politicians assassinated by a long bow.

[WilliamPitt]

40. I don't recall them telling people to bring assault weapons to rallies.

Maybe I missed a memo.

[RamboLiberal]

41. In retrospect I don't think Dems should've used those targets either

or the "Behind Enemy Lines" in the caption.

Just like KO did a "mea culpa" in his special comment.

If we are going to call out the Right then let's not give them anything to point back & say you do it too!

[Lucian]

46. Targets aren't crosshairs.

And there's no names associated with those targets. I don't see implied violence like I did on Palin's map.

Argument fail from those on that site.

[fadedrose]

48. Let the DLC know how you feel...

They're always trying to act like Republicans. Shame on them.

I hope the DFA, which I support financially, has better sense and better taste.....

[crim son]

57. Done. n/t

[fadedrose]

49. Send an email to the DLC...

emailto:

[e-mail]

[MrScorpio]

59. They look like dart boards to me

At worse, archery targets

Not gunsites.

[Rex]

61. The difference, of course, is in the way things are worded.

As you can see on that site, NO ONE is calling for their followers to RELOAD (I guess so they can kill Dems) and using wording to suggest going out and KILLING SOMEONE. No where on that map or in the article does the wording turn into assassination/malaise toward the repukes...just bullseye targets of certain states.

So are we to infer the Dems are telling their voters to go out and bomb (I guess from stolen military aircraft) certain states!? Ridiculous and no comparison.

[trayNTP]

62. Dart games are different from gun scopes. Besides, the supporting rhetoric matters more.

[Apollo11]

63. The huge difference is they are NOT targetting named individual Members of Congress

Saying that certain States are targets for political gains is NOT the same as putting crosshairs on an individual House District together with the name of the Member you are trying to remove from office.