Not surveyor scope marks.

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 @ 1:28 am | Clueless Conservatives

So, there’s this excuse running around on the right that the marks on Sarah Palin’s map

…were surveyor marks, not gun sights.

First of all, it was gun sights until Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Now we find out it’s just a surveyor’s scope after somebody’s been shot? Ah, but don’t waste your time:

A shooting target, of course. Or still a gun sight, there’s no reason to think otherwise.

As far as damage control efforts go, I’d call this one a backfire. The surveyor’s scope story should be a red flag to any reasonable person that they’re being sold snake oil by a GOP lackey. I don’t think this story is going to gain much traction though. Too much slime to gargle…

-hw

22 Responses to “Not surveyor scope marks.”

  1. Dana Says:

    Since I don’t have administrative access, perhaps you can post this picture for me: from the Democratic Leadership Committee, with targets — and yes, the word “targets” is used specifically — on states where President Bush won by less than a 10 point margin in 2004. You can find the original article here. Hat tip to ALa.

  2. cbmc Says:

    Well, that certainly must mean it’s perfectly all right to do, then, eh, Dana?

  3. Henry Whistler Says:

    Dana, those are clearly beanbag targets! Or at least targets for arrows. Real gun aficionados don’t shoot at such images!

    But who knows, a Republican may wind up with an arrow through the head, so I better watch out…

    Seriously, Dana, that’s a good counterexample, but not nearly enough to counter the bulk volume of gun talk, eliminationist rhetoric and threats coming from the right since President Obama took office. If you don’t believe me, take the Secret Service’s word for it.

    I think everybody can agree to avoid this stuff in the future, but the game of pretending Democrats were just as bad with the crazy violent talk is just a game. Pray tell, Dana, what is a “Second Amendment solution”?

    Whatever her aide now says about the target list, there is no question that Palin has reveled in creating a political image bristling with weaponry and gun talk, from her support for aerial wolf-hunting to her hunting and halibut-clubbing adventures on TLC’s show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”

    Indeed, the same day Palin posted the image with the scopes over congressional districts on her Facebook page, she tweeted, “Don’t retreat, Instead – RELOAD” and asked her followers to check out her Facebook page for details.

  4. Henry Whistler Says:

    I think my larger point is that the Palin map, coupled with her own word, is damaging enough that the surveyor scope lie was manufactured and many on the right are gobbling it up.

  5. mike Says:

    I don’t even think it makes a good counter-example. Am I to assume that the map is supposed to encourage would-be assassins to shoot the state of Iowa?

  6. Dana Says:

    Mike wrote:

    I don’t even think it makes a good counter-example. Am I to assume that the map is supposed to encourage would-be assassins to shoot the state of Iowa?

    And that would be different from the map from Mrs Palin, which also had targets on states, not on people’s faces, how?

    All of the maps, Republican and Democratic, which used targets, referred to targeting states or congressional districts for electoral action, as places where a strong effort could change the party result of the previous election. The “bullets” or “arrows” to be directed at those targets were votes!

    And y’all knew that perfectly well. It’s just that you believe you can get some sort of political advantage because it was a Democratic congresswoman who was shot.

    Patterico documented the “why,” of course:

    Every single one is about how the Republicans really need to tone it down — especially when seeking to repeal health care.

    And those loud angry voters did something y’all really can’t stand: they voted for Republicans! Two years from now, with 23 Democrats and only ten Republicans up for re-election in the Senate, we’re going to take that away from y’all, too.

  7. Henry Whistler Says:

    You guys can’t try (pointlessly) to repeal health care without talking about getting your guns out to fight the Democrats?

  8. mike Says:

    And that would be different from the map from Mrs Palin, which also had targets on states, not on people’s faces, how?

    Oh, so that’s the new hoop I have to jump through to satisfy your criteria? I can’t believe you still think you can pull those types of parlor tricks around here like we’re a bunch of rubes. Well, either that or you, like the fevered John Hitchcock (who has lost his fucking mind over this affair), feel that defending a rapidly fading right-wing media star is somehow a display of chivalry. She’s on her way out, Dana. I don’t know at what point you’re going to unhitch your wagon but the sooner the better before you ride off the cliff the same way you did with George W. Bush.

    And y’all knew that perfectly well. It’s just that you believe you can get some sort of political advantage because it was a Democratic congresswoman who was shot.

    “Y’all”? Don’t try and tar me with this shit storm you designed. I haven’t made one peep about the situation.

    And those loud angry voters did something y’all really can’t stand: they voted for Republicans! Two years from now, with 23 Democrats and only ten Republicans up for re-election in the Senate, we’re going to take that away from y’all, too.

    Argument ad populum.

    Some schizo with a gun blows a woman’s skull apart and you’re the one ranting about election cycles. Interesting that you think you’ve got the moral authority to come here and lecture others about political ambition.

    And regarding your ongoing delusion about health-care equaling Stalinist Russia: you true-believers can go blow smoke up each others asses all day because as I’ve stated here you’re only fooling yourselves. In the real world outside of talk radio fantasy realms your Tea Party brethren have delivered a new batch of Republicans that only took twenty four hours to reveal that they have absolutely no interest in pursuing your deficit reduction fantasies and are more than eager to jump into bed with whatever lobbyist is offering them a fat fist of cash. That includes the billion dollar health care lobby which just wrote the bill that you refer to as Obamacare.

    Quick question, Dana:

    This bill that just delivered twenty million new customers to private health insurers. Do you think they’re going to give those customers up because a bunch of weepy, cringing drunk TV hosts and nut bag bloggers invoke the names Cloward and Piven?

  9. mike Says:

    BTW…the Palin map has three targets on the state of Arizona. I’ll trust in your judgment and take that to mean that Republicans need to try three times as hard to vote out the Dimmocrats.

  10. Henry Whistler Says:

    Dana says, hey, maybe he’s full of crap but he can keep winning elections. Yet when the Democrats won in a landslide in 2008 giving them huge margins, it meant nothing to him except to fight harder, and oppose everything they ran on during the election, regardless of the results.

    And we’re supposed to believe it’s because of their deeply felt convictions that the health care plan of the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney employing private insurance was a fundamental threat to liberty.

    Dana, too much it just sounds like a game to you. The policies don’t really matter in the end, it’s just a football game between the Noble Hardworking Right and the Lazy Greedy Lefties, where the ending is predetermined and the supposed good guys must always win. The more arguments we win, the madder and pluckier you guys get and by gosh ya just keep on plowin’ forward! Go team!

  11. cbmc Says:

    This bill that just delivered twenty million new customers to private health insurers. Do you think they’re going to give those customers up because a bunch of weepy, cringing drunk TV hosts and nut bag bloggers invoke the names Cloward and Piven?

    hahahaha BOOM. You can bully politicians into voting for this or that but good luck bullying enormous corporations into caring about how many crazy people you can bus in to shout down a congressman at a town hall meeting. The insurance companies will not be letting go of their windfall because of undermedicated talk-radio listeners yelling about “socialism” and birth certificates. Good luck trying!

  12. mike g Says:

    Yeah, it’s funny alright but it’s not a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious about how they plan on going up against BCBS and Humana. It’ll be impossible if these palookas are stuck jabbering about The Red Menace. They’ll be push overs.

  13. cbmc Says:

    They don’t. This is one of those permanent-winner Republican agenda items, like abortion. There isn’t a single Republican politician who’s even remotely serious about reversing Roe v. Wade; Roe v. Wade is the golden goose for these guys– keep talking about how much you hate it and the anti-crowd will vote for you, imagining that the guys they elect intend to work for their values. “Repealing Health Care” is a shorter-term but identical strategy: talk a great line to get votes and contributions, do absolutely nothing. The HMOs know & understand this & don’t care, they’ll be contributing to both sides as usual.

  14. cbmc Says:

    (Will there be symbolic restrictions on health care a sop to the base? Of course; that’s what things like mandatory ultrasound laws are, too. Keep ’em thinking you’re going to do what they want you to do; solicit donations & votes from ’em on these grounds. This strategy will never stop working, either, because it sucks to admit that the guys who say stuff you like don’t actually share your values.)

  15. Phoenician in a time of Romans Says:

    I think my larger point is that the Palin map, coupled with her own word, is damaging enough that the surveyor scope lie was manufactured and many on the right are gobbling it up.

    Nope. It’s bullshit and they know that it’s bullshit. They also believe that if they simply keep pushing the bullshit without stopping, no-one will ever be able to call them to account.

  16. mike Says:

    The first thing that I said to Jeromy after the shooting was “I’m sure we both can all agree that the real crime here is liberal demagoguery”.

    Of course the first reaction amongst the wingers was to circle the wagons and trawl the Internets for any and all signs of perceived grievance on behalf of “librulz” and use that as a buttress for their ongoing campaign to try and portray themselves as the victims regardless of whatever violent atrocity has been perpetrated on their political enemies. At least one of them over at the cesspool that has become CSPT has been honest enough to just come out and admit that he believes that victims of hate crimes don’t deserve to live because they are mere “organisms”.

    The entire political banter is a red herring. The first reaction should have been to ask “why was an obvious paranoid schizophrenic passed through concealed carry classes and granted a CCW license by the county sheriffs department without any regard to his past and/or current mental health status?”

  17. Dana Says:

    Mike wrote:

    Quick question, Dana:

    This bill that just delivered twenty million new customers to private health insurers. Do you think they’re going to give those customers up because a bunch of weepy, cringing drunk TV hosts and nut bag bloggers invoke the names Cloward and Piven?

    Insurance companies are in the business to make the maximum profit possible. If they can make more profit with the twenty million new customers, they’ll be happy with them

    But if they can’t make a greater profit, they’d prefer the smaller number of customers with the larger profit. When they have to extend insurance to someone who is HIV positive or who was diagnosed with lymphoma, they are going to see a net loss on that customer, and it just might turn out that the twenty million new customers, who include the previously uninsurable, will, as a group, turn out to be a net loss.

  18. Dana Says:

    Mike wrote:

    The first reaction should have been to ask “why was an obvious paranoid schizophrenic passed through concealed carry classes and granted a CCW license by the county sheriffs department without any regard to his past and/or current mental health status?

    If I assume you are referring to Jared Louchner here, he didn’t need a CCW permit in Arizona.

    However, you can compare this to the Virginia Tech shooter as well: both were nuts, but neither was legally nuts, neither had any report made to law enforcement, in a form which would stand legal scrutiny, which would have been sufficient to restrict their rights to keep and bear arms.

    Yeah, in hindsight, a lot of people have come forward and said, in effect, “You know, I always knew he’d do something whacko.” But that doesn’t seem to happen very much before the events, unless there is a specific potential victim, like in a domestic abuse case.

    Mr Louchner was pulled over for running a red light the morning of the shooting, but the police officer had no probable cause to search the car, and wound up letting him go without even giving him a ticket. The Army had rejected him for enlistment, but the reason was kept private due to the Privacy Act, and couldn’t be reported to law enforcement.

    We probably could tighten up on the crazies, if you are willing to allow every contact with every governmental body and mental health evaluator to be immediately become part of the record, accessible by all. But the question then becomes: is that cure worse than the disease?

  19. mike Says:

    But if they can’t make a greater profit, they’d prefer the smaller number of customers with the larger profit. When they have to extend insurance to someone who is HIV positive or who was diagnosed with lymphoma, they are going to see a net loss on that customer, and it just might turn out that the twenty million new customers, who include the previously uninsurable, will, as a group, turn out to be a net loss.

    So you think that the insurance lobby unanimously endorsed a bill that would cost them more money? I guess the answer would explain why you’re stuck with having to conflate the uninsured with the uninsurable. Nice try but you still have to deal with the fact that you can’t talk about Obamacare without relying on some limping Red Scare metaphor despite the facts that the bill was endorsed by companies that you would refer to capitalist and voted on by a democratically elected representatives who ran on the health care issue from day one.

  20. Henry Whistler Says:

    More to the point, the mandate is the only way the companies can remain profitable unless we allow them to return to the days of denying or dropping coverage for anybody who’s had a blister and forgot to tell them about it.

  21. Dana Says:

    Dudes! Explain this one, before it disappears.

    To be fair, it is a location tracker for politicians making speeches or having fund-raisers, and it includes Democrats, Republicans and some TEA Partiers. But Politico is more of a left-favoring site than conservative, even though they occasionally try for some “objectivity.”

  22. Henry Whistler Says:

    I looked, I don’t get it. Did they change something?

    Besides, liberals hate Politico, Dana, you just never listen to what liberals are saying;) I realize by not being like FOX News and deliberately shilling for Republicans that makes them “left-favoring” but nah, not so.