Fuck its silent in here.......

[Quality Start Machine]

Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

[Slaky]

Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Slaky beat me to the punch.

[Eli]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

[Internet Apex]

Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Slaky beat me to the punch.

Punch? Punches kill too! Aint you seen Rocky IV?

[R-V]

The term "violent rhetoric" has been tossed around a lot lately - this does a good job of identifying what is rhetoric and what isn't.

Katrina Trinko's attempt to tu quoque Keith Olbermann is particularly enlightening, as it describes a number of angry statements by Olbermann that are neither violent nor rhetorical, e.g.

In 2007, Olbermann called rival network Fox News "worse than al-Qaeda ... for our society" and said the channel was "as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Neither of those statements are rhetorical because neither of them attempts to call its audience to action.  For them to be rhetorical, as per Aristotle in On Rhetoric, they would need to be intended to persuade.  Moreover, they would need to be intended to persuade a particular audience to undertake a particular action.

It stands to reason that if we want to understand what "violent rhetoric" entails, we must focus on whose images and stories are stoking whose imaginations and to what effect.  Pointing out that Keith Olbermann associated Fox News with terrorist organizations foreign and domestic does nothing of the sort because the audience and intended effect of his statements is unclear.  How unclear?

If we posit his intended audience is liberals and leftists who believe President Obama is a centrist—which strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment—then we need to ask what the intended effect on that particular audience of associating Fox News with al-Qaeda would be.  Keeping in mind that we are currently at war with al-Qaeda, are we to believe that Olbermann is encouraging liberals and leftists to join a military-like organization and wage an Afghanistan-type offensive against Fox News?  Given that his audience is composed of people who are, generally speaking, opposed to war, does that make any sense?  Or is it more likely that he is simply attempting to create an association of like-with-like in which the likeness is supremely unflattering?  His rhetoric here is pathetic and inflammatory, but from the perspective of what it is intended to persuade its audience, it is also incoherent.

On the Palin map:

Here the intended audience is those who believe President Obama is a radical leftist and associates itself with the center-right.  Unlike the audience of liberals and leftists, who oppose war and favor a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment, this audience is more hawkish and more likely to support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  I would contend that this is an example of "violent rhetoric" not because it contains crosshairs aimed at "the candidates" who represent "the problem" in need of "solution," and despite the fact that talking about "solving" human beings has a rather untoward history, but because its violence is a product of whose imaginations are being stoked and how it is being done.

The intended effect of this image is not to encourage the assassination of candidates; however, the pathetic appeal being made to this particular audience is certainly intended to stoke their imaginations in ways related to their ideological belief in an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.

[Quality Start Machine]

Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Since the Republicans was so successful in attaching the economy to Obama, the credit he'll get for the recovery that's beginning will take care of that anyway.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

I agree with this point.

Also, I question what the intended effect was when Sharron Angle used the phrase "second Amendment remedies."  That's a pretty galling phrase.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

I agree with this point.

Also, I question what the intended effect was when Sharron Angle used the phrase "second Amendment remedies."  That's a pretty galling phrase.

As near as I can tell, the intended effect was to drive moderates away from her and lose the election.  Worked like a charm.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

I agree with this point.

Also, I question what the intended effect was when Sharron Angle used the phrase "second Amendment remedies."  That's a pretty galling phrase.

As near as I can tell, the intended effect was to drive moderates away from her and lose the election.  Worked like a charm.

Indeed.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Slaky beat me to the punch.

Punch? Punches kill too! Aint you seen Rocky IV?

If he dies, he dies.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

Well, there's this from the DCCC



And each of those was linked to a "targeted Republican".



This map is intended to get partisan Democrats (like Gil) to engage in a very specific kind of behavior.  It's designed to get them to make donations to the DCCC.

The word "target" has two different meanings and people will use the other meaning.

A "climate of hate" did not shoot people in Tuscon.  One deranged nutcase did.

[Internet Apex]

Democrats target people like this. Repulbicans target people like this.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

Well, there's this from the DCCC



And each of those was linked to a "targeted Republican".



This map is intended to get partisan Democrats (like Gil) to engage in a very specific kind of behavior.  It's designed to get them to make donations to the DCCC.

The word "target" has two different meanings and people will use the other meaning.

A "climate of hate" did not shoot people in Tuscon.  One deranged nutcase did.

Oh, come on!

[Oleg]

The term "violent rhetoric" has been tossed around a lot lately - this does a good job of identifying what is rhetoric and what isn't.

Katrina Trinko's attempt to tu quoque Keith Olbermann is particularly enlightening, as it describes a number of angry statements by Olbermann that are neither violent nor rhetorical, e.g.

In 2007, Olbermann called rival network Fox News "worse than al-Qaeda ... for our society" and said the channel was "as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Neither of those statements are rhetorical because neither of them attempts to call its audience to action.  For them to be rhetorical, as per Aristotle in On Rhetoric, they would need to be intended to persuade.  Moreover, they would need to be intended to persuade a particular audience to undertake a particular action.

It stands to reason that if we want to understand what "violent rhetoric" entails, we must focus on whose images and stories are stoking whose imaginations and to what effect.  Pointing out that Keith Olbermann associated Fox News with terrorist organizations foreign and domestic does nothing of the sort because the audience and intended effect of his statements is unclear.  How unclear?

If we posit his intended audience is liberals and leftists who believe President Obama is a centrist—which strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment—then we need to ask what the intended effect on that particular audience of associating Fox News with al-Qaeda would be.  Keeping in mind that we are currently at war with al-Qaeda, are we to believe that Olbermann is encouraging liberals and leftists to join a military-like organization and wage an Afghanistan-type offensive against Fox News?  Given that his audience is composed of people who are, generally speaking, opposed to war, does that make any sense?  Or is it more likely that he is simply attempting to create an association of like-with-like in which the likeness is supremely unflattering?  His rhetoric here is pathetic and inflammatory, but from the perspective of what it is intended to persuade its audience, it is also incoherent.

On the Palin map:

Here the intended audience is those who believe President Obama is a radical leftist and associates itself with the center-right.  Unlike the audience of liberals and leftists, who oppose war and favor a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment, this audience is more hawkish and more likely to support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  I would contend that this is an example of "violent rhetoric" not because it contains crosshairs aimed at "the candidates" who represent "the problem" in need of "solution," and despite the fact that talking about "solving" human beings has a rather untoward history, but because its violence is a product of whose imaginations are being stoked and how it is being done.

The intended effect of this image is not to encourage the assassination of candidates; however, the pathetic appeal being made to this particular audience is certainly intended to stoke their imaginations in ways related to their ideological belief in an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.

Here's something that's a little more obvious.

Last summer, Ms. Giffords found herself challenged by Jesse Kelly, a Republican candidate with Tea Party backing, who assailed Ms. Giffords on health care and immigration. He held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. This was playing out against a backdrop of a souring national economy and rising unhappiness with Democrats everywhere.