Something is missing from the internet

Strange. The above map with 20 Congressmen identified by the crosshairs of a gunsight is no longer available on Sarah Palin’s website today. I wonder why. Lucky for her I have a screen shot of her site before the map went away. Also missing is the Tweet shown below in which the former Governor of Alaska tells supporters “Don’t retreat. Instead – RELOAD”

36 Responses to Something is missing from the internet

  1. Barry says:

    OMG Dick….are saying Palin wanted them all shot dead??
    I think the items were removed because it’s wrong to show them because of what happen today.

  2. Jack Mitchell says:

    Palin was scorned from the day those crosshairs hit the intertubes. She smirked, scoffing her detractors as PC She laughed it off as she cashed the checks that filled her perky pockets.

    But now there are bodies……

    Barry, please mull over this “we told you so” moment. I am. Passionate belief in ideology is not the domain of the Right. However, when passion turns to psycho, a time out needs to be called. When I come across Lefties that are a few cards short of a deck, I move along. I don’t encourage them to phone bank or go to a rally. I have seen “quality control measures” employed by several Democratic campaigns. Winning just ain’t that important.

    This simple concept has evaded the GOP for maybe a decade. But lately? Phew!

  3. Barry says:

    Because a congresswoman (and others) were shot today. As you have shown there was a web page showing crosshairs on other members of congress.
    Some would take this to believe she wanted these members shot. I believe it was removed for this reason.

    Why did you post about this page being removed?

  4. DickH says:

    So it’s OK to use imagery that suggests Congressmen should be shot until they actually get shot which then makes it in poor taste? If it is wrong after one of the “targets” got shot, it was wrong from the beginning.

    Palin didn’t use a check mark or a red X or a gold star or any other of an infinite collection of symbols to mark the Congressmen she wanted to see defeated, she used the crosshairs of a gunsight. I hope that this tragedy puts an end to the insane and perilous rhetoric politicians have lately been using, urging supporters to “Lock and Load” and marking opponents with crosshairs and warning of resort to “Second Amendment Solutions”. That kind of talk has no place in our politics or our public discourse.

  5. Shawn says:

    Yeah.. jump on that bandwagon.

    Having trouble remembering?:

    There is nothing yet to show what set this kid off.

    Are you implying that perhaps all freedom of speech should be checked, or just that messages should be approved by some government agency before they are published?

    Palin used an imagery that made its point to an audience she was targeting (no pun intended). That was obviously not the New England liberals.

    As has been said many times before.. the signs were there, the kid had problems, and not enough was done by friends and family to help or deter him.

    Grabbing past imagery and making a convenient link to the current issue of the day, is very middle school debate club.

    How bout we talk about mental health, the breakdown of family and society, and lack of personal responsibility rather than just point to some prominent person on the other side and blame her?

  6. Dave says:

    I’m pretty sure that Palin was not implying that somebody should go out and shoot the Congressmen and women that represented the places marked by crosshairs.

    This is a pretty big stretch, Dick. And claims like this (from both Democrats and Republicans) drive me absolutely bonkers.

  7. Bob Forrant says:

    Claims that in the name of free speech it does not cross the line to yap ‘don’t retreat, reload’ and put ‘crosshairs’ over the names of one’s political opponents ‘drives me absolutely bonkers’ Dave. How does such an approach enliven political discourse, advance the intellectual content of political debate? Twitter politics from all sides are reduced to bitter politics, an approach designed to enflame, get the base’s blood boiling, but not create a reasonable way to move a thoroughly messed up economy forward.

    Can we at a minimum here all agree that over-heated political rhetoric that likens one’s opponents to something that ought to hunted is well beyond what civil political discourse should consist of? And, can we perhaps also agree that their are too many freakin’ guns in the hands of all sorts of unstable people just waiting for some sort of cosmic or web-based signal as to who they ought to aim their easily-obtained gun collection at?

    On another post here right after events in Arizona I stated, and still believe, Ms Palin did not want this to happen. But, is she (and her enablers) not responsible in some limited way when much of her political persona is based on such a hyperbolic approach to getting her message across.

    Gun-based political appeals, whether from the left or the right, have no place in our political process. Free speech says its ok – I know. But, we ought to hold our leaders, elected and assumed, to a higher standard than this when their words are out their for millions to read and hear. The politics of hate and personal vilification-so prominent last November-get us where we are today.

    And, as for the point above with respect to mental health care, cuts to the public health budget and a lack of health insurance coverage have produced a situation where lots and lots of people who ought to be in a care facility, or at the very least treated regularly on an out patient basis, roam the land because our mental health facilities and infrastructure are crumbling.

    We are becoming an unhinged society!


  8. DickH says:

    “We’re on Sarah Palin’s target list . . . but the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.” — Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a March 2010 MSNBC interview available here

    I guess someone besides me believed there was danger in the natural and probable consequences of using a gun sight to target an opponent, even rhetorically. Some people have a hard time distinguishing rhetoric from reality, but I’ll leave the psycho-analysis to the Palin apologists.

  9. Michael Luciano says:

    People should’ve taken notice last year when this happened:

    “In a jailhouse confession, a California man accused of plotting to kill employees at the ACLU and Tides Foundation says he was inspired by watching Glenn Beck on Fox News. Forty-five-year-old Byron Williams made national headlines in July when he was arrested after he opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers on an interstate highway in Oakland….Two officers were injured in the assault.”

    When you stoke fear and paranoia so much for so long, you kind of lose the ability to credibly throw your hands up and say, “What? Me?”

  10. Dave says:

    I’m sure there are plenty of people besides you that think the same way, Dick. There are also quite a few nutjobs out there who would reference the “Bush as target” images the same way if an attempt was made on his life.

    I’m far from a Palin apologist…I am not impressed by her or her ideals. But I’m also objective and to ascribe this insane person’s actions to any political philosophy is just silly. And quite frankly it begins to undermine any legitimate arguments you may have on other topics.

  11. Andrew says:

    I think everyone realizes that it takes someone who is a psychopath to do something like this. The question is what tips them over the edge. Yes, these things will happen regardless of political rhetoric, but we also see them inspired by political rhetoric, as with Timothy McVeigh.

    Regardless of whether this incident was inspired by political rhetoric, the rhetoric of violence needs to stop. No, no one is suggesting we infringe on free speech. What we’re suggesting is that the public officials and members of the media who have engaged in such rhetoric grow up and stop acting like children. They are a disgrace. That type of discourse has no place in a democracy.

    But it’s not just violent rhetoric. We have seen an amazing amount of arguments from the political right over the past two years that the left has not right to govern, suggesting that the consequences of allowing the left to govern our country would destroy it. You have seen nothing similar from the left in the wake of the last election; we’ve simply pointed out that the Republicans are not actually going to reduce federal deficits and that the Republicans will try to repeal everything we’ve accomplished. But they’re not going to destroy the country.

    The challenges our country faces need to be dealt with rationally with our political leaders making informed decisions. I am sick of the political leaders who act like children, making emotional appeals to rile up their supporters that have no basis in fact. And yes, they exist on both sides of the spectrum, but their degree of influence is quite different. During the healthcare debate, we watched the leadership of the Republican Party, not just a few ideologues on the fringe, give floor speeches lying about the content of the reform bill.

    The conservative politicians in this country, and the fringe leftists who act like them,, need to grow up. This shooting probably wasn’t motivated by their irresponsible and juvenile behavior, but several incidents that have already occurred were. If they don’t change, if they don’t stop the rhetoric of violence and the irresponsible rhetoric of saying the President is a terrorist or socialist or our to destroy America, how long until more innocents are dead?

  12. PaulM says:

    I agree with Andrew’s point about the scorched earth talk coming out of the hard Right for the past 30 years. What I hear is a consistent charge that Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/the Left are not a legitimate option for governing the United States of America. It’s not an ideological difference of opinion—it’s “these people cannot be trusted with our nation’s decisions and they must be removed and figuratively wiped out.” There’s no middle ground for the hard Right with talk about “real Americans” and “taking our country back.” Taking it back from whom? Party representatives who won a majority vote? Sarah Palin was arrogant and ignorant to play with fire in her talk and imagery. She is not a serious person, but had become some kind of American Idol candidate of choice for lots of people. And there is not an equivalency in rhetoric on both sides despite what the media might be inclined to say in a heated moment like this. The harsh talk is way out of balance on the hard Right. Give us more Olympia Snowes, Susan Collinses, and Arlen Specters coming out of the GOP root system. These are reasonable, serious people.who identify as conservatives or moderates in the old sense.

  13. Michael Luciano says:

    @ Dave

    Your comment is contradictory,

    “But I’m also objective and to ascribe this insane person’s actions to any political philosophy is just silly. And quite frankly it begins to undermine any legitimate arguments you may have on other topics.”

    Even if you thought Dick was wrong about this, how could that possibly “undermine any legitimate arguments [he] may have on other topics”? Far from being objective, that would be a nice example of the Genetic Fallacy.

  14. Prince Charming says:

    We are not a banana republic. People cannot preserve democracy by assassination.

  15. Brian Flaherty says:

    @Andrew – are you really saying that the Left is always above the fray and polite and kind to the Right? Please, don’t be so naive. Recall the Broadway play calling for Bush’s assisnation? Harry Reid calling Bush a “loser.” Michael Moore. The Nazi references? Family Guy implying Nazi’s supported McCain/Palin.

    The Left is just as guilty and trying to pretend otherwise doesn’t change anything.

  16. C R Krieger says:

    I tried this in the AM, but it died when I hit “submit comment”, if I may put it that way.

    Palin is the gift that keeps on giving.  On the other hand, while first reports are usually wrong, it does appear that Jared Loughner, the shooter, is disturbed.

    It also turns out he was against the Congresswoman before Sarah Palin appeared on the national scene.  On the other hand, that notorious Right Wing Nutcase, Markos Moulitsas, put a bulls eye on the Congresswoman way back in 2008, or rather, he said she had put the bulls eye on her district by one of her votes.  And, 2008 was the year of this quote:  “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    Picking on Gov Palin is easy.  Sorting through and deciding how this will impact future political rhetoric is very important.  Today we see pushback on the condemnation from the local (Pima county) Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik.  Including this from Slate, no right wing radical rag.

    What is the limit for curtailing political talk?  Where is the knee in the curve?  Which is the marginal word?

    I don’t think I would use the bulls eye map, but I do talk in terms of political campaigns.  Is that wrong?

    Regards  —  Cliff

  17. Jack Mitchell says:

    @Brian How about we each work on stopping the hate rhetoric on our respective sides. If you insist there is an equivalence; a notion I reject, but for the sake of arguement I’ll entertain. Let’s work on shouting down the hate-mongers. Shall we?

    Of course, that will leave the Left short a small contingent of supporters. While the Right will be forced to seduce the “RINO” activists the rabid purists have chased into the proverbial hills.

    No one I know thinks there are no “good” Republicans. But it is widely held these folks have been bound and gagged by teabaggers, evengelicals & wingnuts fluffed by greedy media moguls.

  18. Jack Mitchell says:

    Sorry Shawn. It’s the crowd you choose to run with. That is what they are.

    I know folks like Sandi Martinez are Tea Party. Hell, Sandi was Tea Party before Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers ever dreamed of inventing the Tea Party.

    BUT, for you to pretend that there is not such thing as a teabagger is insulting to the sensibilities. These political oddballs need to be told be to go back to the island of misfit toys.

    Unfortunately for the GOP, purists have burned bridges with moderates and level headed far Right types. Yes I do believe there is such a thing as a level headed far Right type.

    Get a handle on those that want to purge our lands of those they deem unfit or not “real Americans.” That sort of talk simply makes it impossible to grow and move forward.

    The working class is divided along political fault lines. Do you think this “just is?” Or, maybe, there is a design to keep us apart?

    I got plenty of Tea Party in me. Get rid of the teabaggers and then we can talk.

  19. Righty Bulger says:

    A request for Dick and the rest of the Liberal writers/commentators on this blog. Please provide me links to your prior outcry over Liberals calling for George Bush’s death.

    When I see that, I’ll take your comments on this thread a little more seriously.

    In the aftermath of Saturday’s tragedy, Palin and her ilk obviously need to rethink the imagery used to get their ideology across. Only extreme demogogues, the type which you coincidentally decry in this post, come to the conclusion that any rational human being using political rhetoric intentionally hopes to sput this type of lunacy.

  20. Shawn says:

    Jack.. the point I was making was that in one line yoiu asked for everyone to tone down the rhetoric.. and in less than 2 paragraphs you’re doing it still.

    Name calling, hate, etc. it never ends with you guys.

  21. Renee Aste says:

    I think disparaging Republicans in the most nastiness of ways was very normal for my husband and I, because of the homes we were raised in. It’s been some time but, but husband use to be on the DCCC email list. Yes, Democrats are filled with vitriol. Even if the Democrats were right on some issues, it was a turn off for us.

    Vitriol works well with both bases of the two parties.

    I do consider myself a Palin sympathizer, not necessarily a political supporter, but I do admire her in other ways. At one time I did support her politically, probably because I was one of the few that knew of her prior to 08′. At this time due to events mostly in how the Democratic party has reacted to her, I don’t wish for any more polarization of the nation.

    My father leans to the Democrats, it easy to listen to him because he doesn’t take constant ‘cheap shots’ at Palin, instead he does a great impression of Speaker John Boehner crying.

  22. Bob Forrant says:

    JB crying is a god one – Saturday Night Live did it up the other night and probably on YouTube by now. I am uncomfortable with calling anyone names and attempting to argue against particular points of view with invective. It has always struck me as the laziest of ways to ‘win’ an argument and it seems to me at its roots it is a form of bullying.

    “You’re stupid.” “No, I’m not, you are.”

    Edifying this.

  23. C R Krieger says:

    Did anyone note that those were not gun sights, but crop marks?  I thought it a little strange that the lines went outside the circles, but accepted what I was told, until I read an explanation of what they were, and then I remembered seeing them in other venues.

    Regards  —  Cliff

  24. Jack Mitchell says:

    Would someone like to address the notion that; when reduced to a regional rump party in 2008, the GOP dragged the bottom to find donors and activists.? That this mob is now emboldened and the grownups are unwilling to, and unsure how to, put the genie back in the bottle.

    We can talk about vitriol and rhetoric, ad nauseam. The “moonbats” are not in control of the Democratic Party. The “teabaggers” ARE legitimately vying for control of the GOP. Just ask Mitt Romney. Scott Brown rode the wave. Yet now, he turns his back on conservative radicals? Sarah Palin fans the flames, all the way to the bank. As does NewsCorp.

    Faced with the energy of Obama’s “change,” the GOP deftly pivoted on the global economic crisis. I actually think it is plausible that they crashed the economy on purpose. Then, they turned populism into outrage and split the nation wide open.

    This mess is bought and paid for by the corporate masters of the GOP. I will not bother to convince the unpersuadables. The case must be made to the “independents.” They can swing the pendulum. no one else.

    Certainly, it should be noted that a change in tone is in order. But, the GOPers need to step up. There is no sense in unilateral disarmament. They cannot be trusted. And by they, I do not mean street level GOP members that we talk to daily. I mean the national operatives that are shilling for the corporate wolves, intent on gorging on the meat of the American middle class, as they take their profit centers to 2nd and 3rd world labor forces.

  25. Righty Bulger says:

    Jack, the moonbats are very much in control of your party. Perhaps you can’t see it because you’re one yourself. The proof is in the pudding my friend. The continuous election day losses over the last two decades prove the GOP is much more mainstream than the donkeys.

  26. Jack Mitchell says:

    @Dave Your point is only half baked. The DLC map is targeting states. The Palin map is targeting people. It would be nice if you would acknowledge the very real difference.

    @Cliff You can plausibly dodge the assertion that those are crosshairs. I don’t buy it, based on Palin’s incessant pandering to gun clingers. Plus, there is the other matter of the Twitter comment that reinforces the predisposition to show force, gun force.

    The crosshairs make sense in the weird, perky, idiom that is “Palin’s Real America.”

    @ Righty Me? Moonbat? Pfft. Puhleeze.
    If you could pull you nose off of the rightwing boobtube, you would find that “conservaDems” like Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and the House “Blue Dogs” more than hold their own in our Party. But please go on. No sense in letting reality get in the way of your boorish spin.

    @Dick Please bear with my heavy handedness here on you relatively calm blog. I cannot simply be idle while the aggitators, that have comingled themselves with assailants of our American civic values, blather on, feigning victimhood and false equivalency.

  27. JoeS says:

    Why don’t we all admit that the Palin promotion was wrong and then work for more civil discourse on the differences that we should narrow by that discussion. There are too many difficulties facing us to spend our efforts arguing all the time.

  28. Righty Bulger says:

    Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh as examples of your party tolerance for moderates. LMFAO! You just made me snort Pepsi out my nose!

    Um, Jack, have you been hiding under a rock the last decade? One guy quit your party after once being its vice-presidential nominee to run as an independant. Oh, by the way, he happened to win his race. The other, a middle america centrist, quit his seat because of frustration over the ever increasing moonbat leadership. Is that the best you can do?

    The Democratic Party of which you speak is dead. Your moderates are deserting it in droves or getting beat at election time in areas where anger at the liberal extremists in California, Massachusetts and New York is dragging down even the moderates in the south and heartland.

    Joe LIeberman and Evan Bayh. LOL. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  29. Renee Aste says:

    In defense of Jack Mitchell,

    “This mess is bought and paid for by the corporate masters of the GOP. I will not bother to convince the unpersuadables. The case must be made to the “independents.” They can swing the pendulum. no one else.”

    He’s right.

  30. Righty Bulger says:

    Do the “equally as wealthy and corrupt as the corporate masters” that run Labor Unions and liberal special interest groups ever get any blame from you guys?