Twitter Logo
Rex Sorgatz

The side-benefit of dating Jewish girls in this silly city: my Words With Friends gameplay has become much better!

jan 9
2011

Those Aren't Crosshairs....

Palin's camp says, "Those weren't crosshairs; they were surveyor's marks! And shame on you for suggesting otherwise!"

3 comments

Wait...that story says that the interviewer said it. Or is the interviewer also part of the "Palin camp?"

(Instead of "Palin's camp," it might be more accurate to say a woman who works for SarahPAC, but didn't appear on the podcast in question on their behalf.)

Or am I reading these pages wrong?

OR, was this a "clever" effort to troll... and I fell for it?

This is actually a pretty good example of what kept me off the Internet yesterday.

posted by CRZ at 4:02 PM on January 9, 2011

Mansour (the staffer) said they weren't targets. Bruce (the interviewer) suggested they were surveyor's symbols. "Mansour agreed." Mansour, by virtue of being a "staffer" is in "Palin's camp." Regardless of quibbling and dissecting the statements, the article goes on to note the "reload" rhetoric. Given the context -- and whether or not it really "matters" -- it seems laughable to me that they are suggesting they aren't gun targets.

BTW, Tammy Bruce is the lady whose half-joke about "homos" and "looking under the bed" was retweeted by Palin last week, resulting in a lot of speculation about what Palin meant by retweeting it. The most likely explanation seemed to be that she didn't get the joke in the way it was intended. link

posted by adm at 4:42 PM on January 9, 2011

First, DailyKos had a target on his website with Giffords name on it. It actually said target. Judging by the killer's info, he was more likely to have read Kos than Palin. But this is all INSANE speculation.

from Glenn Reynolds "To be clear, if youre using this event to criticize the rhetoric of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then youre either: (a) asserting a connection between the rhetoric and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) youre not, in which case youre just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for Americas political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?"

posted by R popp at 9:41 AM on January 10, 2011




NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.