Daily KOS has a "TARGET LIST"

nobobdy has a problem with peopele targeting certain politicians for relection.

EVERYONE should have a problem with pointing your crosshairs at a politican to effect some second amendment solutions to not winning elections.

Do you see the differeance?

You all on the right LOVE the corporations, now go ask the marketing directors of any major company and ask them if how you market an idea matters in how the public reacts to your product.

EVERYONE knows marketing can make HUGE impacts.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEAS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE


There is a woman lying in a hospital bed with a hole blown through her head and margeting matters.


There is a little girl in a morgue with a huge hole in her chest and marketing matters.

Do you actually believe this guy fired into the crowd because of Palin's map with crosshairs?

I have seen nothing connecting them.
 
The dishonesty in defense of Palin is quite impressive.

Written at DailyKos:

Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.

What the Dishonest Claim Was Written Daily Kos:

And that it says that these people have a "bulls eye" on them

No, it doesn't.

By contrast, Palin puts crosshairs on the map, says "we've diagnosed the problem, help us prescribe the solution," colors the target red for districts where the incumbent did not seek reelection and says "don't retreat. RELOAD."

Now, you can pretend its all the same if you want to, but it isn't.
 
The dishonesty in defense of Palin is quite impressive.

Written at DailyKos:



What the Dishonest Claim Was Written Daily Kos:



No, it doesn't.

By contrast, Palin puts crosshairs on the map, says "we've diagnosed the problem, help us prescribe the solution," colors the target red for districts where the incumbent did not seek reelection and says "don't retreat. RELOAD."

Now, you can pretend its all the same if you want to, but it isn't.


I have not defended Palin's bullshit. But I am certainly condemning all of those who are trying to connect that to this shooter.

I am condemning those who want to use this tragedy to further their own political party's agenda.

I am condemning all of those who either ignored the facts or did not wait for the facts before jumping out with this "The Tea Baggers are shooting at us" bullshit.
 
Actually, it wasn't backpedaling all, as the article describes the content of what Palin put forth as opposed to the Dems, and the ACCOMPANYING vitrol that oozed out of the GOP/teabagger/oather/birther campaign at the time.

And as any advertiser worth their salt will tell you, packaging is everything....a symbol of a bullseye signifies a target to be shot at, as opposed to arrows point to states that are targets for voting efforts.

Yes, hyperbol is not exclusive to either party....but only a fool would try to equalize the nasty, threatening hysterics of the GOP since the 2008 elections to the retalitory albeit rhetoric of the Dems.
The reality is, the one got coverage and big because it was Sarah, the other didn't because it was Kos. The reporting fit the regular dogma of the media nowadays and isn't surprising. They are, however, exactly the same thing. One was just largely ignored by the media.

Much like the Sheriff trying to dodge responsibility. 16 times the guy was reported for making death threats on people in the area, the Sheriff's office stated that "He was being well-handled by the Mental Health System"... Amazingly, had the Sheriff actually had the guy under mental evaluation he wouldn't have been able to purchase the weapon legally, yet he was remiss.

16 times.

The people responsible for this guy's actions would be the people who were there, and had the "serve and protect" responsibility, reports that he was dangerous, and direct information or threats on others that would make him a danger to others. The guy should have at least been forced into an eval, which would have made it so that he couldn't have bought the weapon legally...
 
The reality is, the one got coverage and big because it was Sarah, the other didn't because it was Kos. The reporting fit the regular dogma of the media nowadays and isn't surprising. They are, however, exactly the same thing. One was just largely ignored by the media.

Damo - that is fairly disingenuous. Palin's was a VP candidate, and is one of the frontrunners for 2012 - the comparison with "DailyKos" (regarded as pretty fringe, anyway) ends there.

Lest anyone question it, I am NOT blaming Palin for this incident. But, I do think a positive that could come from the incident is a re-examination of our political discourse, and some of the careless images & rhetoric that are thrown out there....
 
Damo - that is fairly disingenuous. Palin's was a VP candidate, and is one of the frontrunners for 2012 - the comparison with "DailyKos" (regarded as pretty fringe, anyway) ends there.

Lest anyone question it, I am NOT blaming Palin for this incident. But, I do think a positive that could come from the incident is a re-examination of our political discourse, and some of the careless images & rhetoric that are thrown out there....
Palin was not a candidate for anything when she made this list, just one more member of the media as a "consultant".

What is disingenuous is pretending that putting a target on somebody isn't the same thing as putting a target on somebody and then trying to say that one was "careless and dangerous" and the other not because it was Kos. Seriously, you have to be deliberately trying to fool yourself to believe that putting a target on somebody isn't the same as putting a target on somebody. They were the same. One was covered, the other was largely ignored and the other was covered (we agree here) because she was Palin, and (where we disagree) fit the dogma of the current media stream of consciousness.
 
Palin was not a candidate for anything when she made this list, just one more member of the media as a "consultant".What is disingenuous is pretending that putting a target on somebody isn't the same thing as putting a target on somebody.

That's missing the point. She is a candidate NOW, and this is something she did. That's why it's getting scrutiny. Obama wasn't a candidate when that nutty pastor was talking about chickens coming home to roost, either.
 
Palin was not a candidate for anything when she made this list, just one more member of the media as a "consultant".

Palin is not part of the media. She's a Republican political operative.

What is disingenuous is pretending that putting a target on somebody isn't the same thing as putting a target on somebody.

You really don't have any credibility on this point. I mean, you flat out lied about what was posted on Daily Kos.
 
That's missing the point. She is a candidate NOW, and this is something she did. That's why it's getting scrutiny. Obama wasn't a candidate when that nutty pastor was talking about chickens coming home to roost, either.
She still isn't a candidate. That's your own rubbish. It is, however, my point. She got coverage because she's Palin. Again, that is where we agree. What we disagree on, is why Kos was ignored. They are a player in the political stream.
 
Palin is not part of the media. She's a Republican political operative.



You really don't have any credibility on this point. I mean, you flat out lied about what was posted on Daily Kos.
Put up or shut up. I haven't "lied" about what was posted on Daily Kos. Her name was on a list where they stated (paraphrasing) "these people have a bullseye on them"...

You are flat being deliberately disingenuous. They put a target on her in exactly the same fashion and context as Palin did, they wanted her to lose her seat only they wanted it for somebody they supported. Only one was "outrageous" because you just don't WANT the other to be outrageous.
 
She still isn't a candidate. That's your own rubbish. It is, however, my point. She got coverage because she's Palin. Again, that is where we agree. What we disagree on, is why Kos was ignored. They are a player in the political stream.

Talk about rubbish. Palin is as much a candidate as any candidate in the history of politics; she is perceived that way in the media, and in the public.

VERY disingenuous of you to try to make that argument...
 
Talk about rubbish. Palin is as much a candidate as any candidate in the history of politics; she is perceived that way in the media, and in the public.

VERY disingenuous of you to try to make that argument...
Again, that's total rubbish. It is flat not true. It's like saying because it is "perceived" that the world is flat then it really is.

She isn't a candidate, even if you really really want her to be. At this moment she is not a candidate in any race at all anywhere. She's a "star" on a reality show nobody watches, she's a consultant for Fox, she's many things but one of them is not "candidate". Nor does that make any change in what I posted. One was reported because she's Palin. Because she was VP candidate, because she is on FOX because people have interest in her...

The other wasn't, even though they are a player in the current political stream, and (here is where we disagree) wasn't reported because it doesn't fit with the current media dogma.
 
Again, that's total rubbish. It is flat not true. It's like saying because it is "perceived" that the world is flat then it really is.

She isn't a candidate, even if you really really want her to be. At this moment she is not a candidate in any race at all anywhere. She's a "star" on a reality show nobody watches, she's a consultant for Fox, she's many things but one of them is not "candidate".

That's really sad, Damo - there is no doubt in anyone's mind that she's a candidate.

If you want to be taken seriously at all in this discussion, there is no other starting point. How absurd to suggest that she isn't...
 
Basically Onceler, where we agree. Palin was reported because she's Palin (whether or not you "perceive" her as a candidate).

Where we disagree: She was also more heavily reported because it fits with the current dogmatic approach of the media.

We also disagree on this point: Kos is a player in the current political stream and would have been reported if they weren't outside the current dogma of the media stream...
 
That's really sad, Damo - there is no doubt in anyone's mind that she's a candidate.

If you want to be taken seriously at all in this discussion, there is no other starting point. How absurd to suggest that she isn't...
That is just flat not factual. She is not a candidate for any office at this moment, it's fictional to say that she is because you want her "perceived" that way.

Here of all places we should be clear as to who is a "candidate" and who "may be" one. Talk about credibility, making a fictional report of a candidacy that doesn't exist is definitely outside the definition of "credible".
 
The dishonesty in defense of Palin is quite impressive.

Written at DailyKos:



What the Dishonest Claim Was Written Daily Kos:



No, it doesn't.

By contrast, Palin puts crosshairs on the map, says "we've diagnosed the problem, help us prescribe the solution," colors the target red for districts where the incumbent did not seek reelection and says "don't retreat. RELOAD."

Now, you can pretend its all the same if you want to, but it isn't.

You're describing how a rational or sane person would be able to parse the differences. This shooter was neither.

It seems to me we need some doctors or someone who can translate how minds of f'd up people like this guy translate normal rhetoric into their thought process.
 
You're describing how a rational or sane person would be able to parse the differences. This shooter was neither.

It seems to me we need some doctors or someone who can translate how minds of f'd up people like this guy translate normal rhetoric into their thought process.
Or we can require our sheriffs to simply get a psych hold on a person reported more than twice for death threats.
 
Put up or shut up. I haven't "lied" about what was posted on Daily Kos. Her name was on a list where they stated (paraphrasing) "these people have a bullseye on them"...

That's a lie. In an extended post about Democrats that may be primaried, Kos stated:

Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.

Saying, in thinking about primaries, these districts have a bulls eye on them" is not saying "these people have a bulls eye on them." People and districts are different things.


You are flat being deliberately disingenuous. They put a target on her in exactly the same fashion and context as Palin did, they wanted her to lose her seat only they wanted it for somebody they supported. Only one was "outrageous" because you just don't WANT the other to be outrageous.


No, Palin put crosshairs on a map and listed the people targeted below in blue. The header on the map said "We have diagnosed the problem . . . help use prescribe the solution." Later, when some persons targeted decided not to run of reelection, their names were colored in red. Promoting the map, Palin said "Don't retreat, Instead -- RELOAD."

If you want to pretend that what Palin did and the below are the same, go right ahead, but don't walk around lecturing people about being disingenuous.

As we've seen these past couple of weeks, we've got a problem in our caucus -- while we have been busy stocking up on more Democrats, fact is the good ones are being swamped by the bad ones.

Now we're at a disadvantage vis a vis AT&T. We don't have the millions to pump into campaign coffers, nor the lobbyists to twist arms in Capitol Hill. And those Democrats feel safe. Many are in solid (D) districts and have no fear of the opposition. Or they are in tough districts, and think that they are solid given the Republican alternatives. And that was certainly the case when we were in the minority or even with our tighter current majorities.

But things have changed. Democrats currently have a 37-seat majority in the House -- larger than any enjoyed by the GOP during its reign of corruption starting in 1994. That means that if we win 32 seats, well within the realm of possibility, we'll have a 101-seat majority in the House. Even if we gain a more realistic 20 or so seats, we're still talking a 77-seat majority.

And that'll give us breathing room to begin holding our party accountable.

Remember, we don't have the millions to compete with AT&T's lobbyists, and our best-crafted arguments can be easily ignored. All the while, Steny Hoyer buys loyalty by tirelessly campaigning and raising money for his fellow Democrats. So how can we overcome those obstacles?

Primaries.

So 2010 is going to be the year we pivot from taking control of our government, to holding out accountable. Like Al Wynn this year, the corrupt, the tone-deaf, and the reactionary within Democratic ranks will face the possibility of primary battles. The infrastructure we're building will be available for those courageous enough to take on the entrenched elite. But when we have candidates that inspire, and can develop the alternate funding sources to finance them, the combined might of the Pelosis and Hoyers won't be enough to effect change. Just ask Donna Edwards.

So you're angry about the Democratic capitulation? Don't take it out on the party. More House Democrats voted against this abomination than voted for it. The party isn't the problem, it's too many of its elected members that have forgotten who they serve and why. Hint: It's not AT&T lobbyists, it's not Steny Hoyer, and it's not access to their checks.

You want to do something? If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don't expect help from the local party establishment, they'll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They'd love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women's groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment ... you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.

Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.

And while people like me will focus on the task at hand this year, it won't be long after Election Day that we'll start looking at the 2010 map, looking for those great primary challengers.

Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

Ackerman, Gary (NY-05)
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Baird, Brian (WA-03)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Bean, Melissa (IL-08)
Berkley, Shelley (NV-01)
Berman, Howard (CA-28)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Bishop, Timothy (NY-01)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boucher, Rick (VA-09)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Boyda, Nancy (KS-02)
Brown, Corrine (FL-03)
Butterfield, G.K. (NC-01)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Chris (PA-10)
Castor, Kathy (FL-11)
Cazayoux, Don (LA-06)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cleaver, Emanuel (MO-05)
Clyburn, James (SC-06)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cramer, Bud (AL-05)
Crowley, Joe (NY-07)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Davis, Artur (AL-07)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Dicks, Norman (WA-06)

Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05)
Engel, Elliot (NY-17)
Etheridge, Bob (NC-02)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY-20)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Green, AL (TX-09)
Green, Gene (TX-29)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL-04)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Hastings, Alcee (FL-23)
Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD-AL)
Higgins, Brian (NY-27)
Hinojosa, Ruben (TX-15)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Hoyer, Steny (MD-05)
Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11)
Kildee, Dale (MI-05)
Kind, Ron (WI-03)
Klein, Ron (FL-22)
Lampson, Nick (TX-22)
Langevin, JIm (RI-02)
Lipinski, Dan (IL-03)
Lowey, Nita (NY-18)
Mahoney, Tim (FL-16)
Marshall, Jim (GA-08)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McCarthy, Carolyn (NY-04)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Meeks, Gregory (NY-06)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)

Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Murtha, John (PA-12)
Ortiz, Solomon (TX-27)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Perlmutter, Ed (CO-07)
Peterson, Colin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL)
Rahall, Nick (WV-03)
Reyes, Silvestre (TX-16)
Richardson, Laura (CA-37)
Rodriguez, Ciro (TX-23)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Ruppesberger, Dutch (MD-02)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Sestak, Joe (PA-07)
Sherman, Brad (CA-27)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Sires, Albio (NJ-13)
Skelton, Ike (MO-04)
Smith, Adam (WA-09)
Snyder, Vic (AR-02)
Space, Zach (OH-18)
Spratt, John (SC-05)
Stupak, Bart (MI-01)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Bennie (MS-02)
Udall, Mark (CO-02)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)
Yarmuth, John (KY-03

Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can't save their jobs, they'll pay more attention to those who can.

p.s. Four Blue Dogs voted to protect the Constitution -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-01). They apparently realized that being supposed "moderates" didn't necessitate selling out to Constitution for George Bush's imperial presidency.
 
That's a lie. In an extended post about Democrats that may be primaried, Kos stated:



Saying, in thinking about primaries, these districts have a bulls eye on them" is not saying "these people have a bulls eye on them." People and districts are different things.





No, Palin put crosshairs on a map and listed the people targeted below in blue. The header on the map said "We have diagnosed the problem . . . help use prescribe the solution." Later, when some persons targeted decided not to run of reelection, their names were colored in red. Promoting the map, Palin said "Don't retreat, Instead -- RELOAD."

If you want to pretend that what Palin did and the below are the same, go right ahead, but don't walk around lecturing people about being disingenuous.
:rolleyes:

Both of them had the exact same goal and used the same rhetoric. You can lie to your own mind and convince yourself it was "different" because of whatever excuse will make you feel better, but this is an example of the exact same tactic. They targeted seats that they felt were vulnerable, using the same imagery whether through words and letting the mind create it or through pictures it is simply the same political tactic.

You do whatever makes you feel better about your "side", but sane people can tell when you put a name to somebody and put a "target" or a "bullseye" on them, it's pretty danged much the same thing. Even if you really really don't want it to be because you would like to believe somebody else is "worse".

Nobody is "worse" or "better", this is a sane political tactic. Targeting vulnerable seats is a regular practice, so is that imagery. We've seen ads, etc. with the same type of imagery in this discussion here. It is pretty normal. Isn't why this kid did this, and it is stupid to suggest it is.
 
:rolleyes:

Both of them had the exact same goal and used the same rhetoric. You can lie to your own mind and convince yourself it was "different" because of whatever excuse will make you feel better, but this is an example of the exact same tactic. They targeted seats that they felt were vulnerable, using the same imagery whether through words and letting the mind create it or through pictures it is simply the same political tactic.

You do whatever makes you feel better about your "side", but sane people can tell when you put a name somebody and put a "target" or a "bullseye" on them, it's pretty danged much the same thing. Even if you really really don't want it to be because you would like to believe somebody else is "worse".


Like I said, you can pretend they are the same if you want, just get off your fucking high horse when accusing others of being disingenuous. I mean, "Don't retreat instead -- RELOAD" with reference to the target map is a little bit different from saying that certain districts should be targeted for primary elections.

And again, Kos didn't put a target or bullseye on anyone. He said that the districts had bulls eyes on them when thinking about primary elections.

Lastly, since you edited, I have made is quite plain that I don't think Palin had anything to do with so just stop with the bullsthit. It's pretty tired.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top