Palin aide claims that cross hairs were "surveyor symbols"

[likearock 2]

Palin Aide: Symbols Weren't Rifle Sights, but Surveyor's Marks

Jan 9 2011, 2:50 PM ET
Updated 6:48 p.m.

Sarah Palin new media aide Rebecca Mansour sought to deflect attention from an electoral map Palin posted on her Facebook page last March in an appearance on Tammy Bruce's radio show Saturday. The images long described as crosshairs or rifle sights were actually just surveyor's symbols, Mansour said.

The exchange, via Weigel:

MANSOUR: I just want to clarify again, and maybe it wasn't done on the record enough by us when this came out, the graphic, is just, it's basically -- we never, ever, ever intended it to be gunsights. It was simply crosshairs like you see on maps.

BRUCE: Well, it's a surveyor's symbol. It's a surveyor's symbol.

MANSOUR: It's a surveyor's symbol. I just want to say this, Tammy, if I can. This graphic was done, not even done in house -- we had a political graphics professional who did this for us.

While there is no evidence the alleged Tuscon shooter ever saw the electoral target list of SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee -- let alone took it to heart as an instruction -- what is clear is that Palin's history with weaponized rhetoric and imagery will be -- and already has been -- cast in a new light by the shooting in Arizona. And the former Alaska governor seems certain to continue to draw unflattering attention in the months ahead, if only because martial metaphors have been such an essential part of the Palin rhetorical quiver and we are now entering a moment of reflection on the wisdom of brandishing such tropes.

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.

As well, there has been no national political figure in American life more eager to correct media misconceptions in real time that Palin, raising questions about why she did not object in the spring of 2010 when controversy erupted over her imagery, which even Giffords described on national television as representing gun "crosshairs."

One clue to Palin's actual intent comes from a Nov. 4, 2010 Twitter posting where she crows about her record using the targeting map. "Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)," she wrote.

What do you think of Mansour's explanation? Please leave your thoughts in the comments, below.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Palin Aide: Symbols Weren't Rifle Sights, but Surveyor's Marks

Jan 9 2011, 2:50 PM ET
Updated 6:48 p.m.

Sarah Palin new media aide Rebecca Mansour sought to deflect attention from an electoral map Palin posted on her Facebook page last March in an appearance on Tammy Bruce's radio show Saturday. The images long described as crosshairs or rifle sights were actually just surveyor's symbols, Mansour said.

The exchange, via Weigel:

MANSOUR: I just want to clarify again, and maybe it wasn't done on the record enough by us when this came out, the graphic, is just, it's basically -- we never, ever, ever intended it to be gunsights. It was simply crosshairs like you see on maps.

BRUCE: Well, it's a surveyor's symbol. It's a surveyor's symbol.

MANSOUR: It's a surveyor's symbol. I just want to say this, Tammy, if I can. This graphic was done, not even done in house -- we had a political graphics professional who did this for us.

While there is no evidence the alleged Tuscon shooter ever saw the electoral target list of SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee -- let alone took it to heart as an instruction -- what is clear is that Palin's history with weaponized rhetoric and imagery will be -- and already has been -- cast in a new light by the shooting in Arizona. And the former Alaska governor seems certain to continue to draw unflattering attention in the months ahead, if only because martial metaphors have been such an essential part of the Palin rhetorical quiver and we are now entering a moment of reflection on the wisdom of brandishing such tropes.

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.

As well, there has been no national political figure in American life more eager to correct media misconceptions in real time that Palin, raising questions about why she did not object in the spring of 2010 when controversy erupted over her imagery, which even Giffords described on national television as representing gun "crosshairs."

One clue to Palin's actual intent comes from a Nov. 4, 2010 Twitter posting where she crows about her record using the targeting map. "Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)," she wrote.

What do you think of Mansour's explanation? Please leave your thoughts in the comments, below.

The remarks are stupid
Better to have said nothing

However, that said it is still a non-issue.

Just politicat gotcha bullshit we have come to love

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And now I see the report that the Daily Kos targeted Gifford for defeat and, add the fact that the shooter is now being identified by classmates as a left wing pot head, he most likely saw or read the “target” her type comments there.

Dam libs need to stop inciting violence.

Quote

By Theodore Kettle

Liberals may be making the wild stretch of blaming Sarah Palin for Saturday's shooting of Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but one of the Internet's most popular progressive activist sites targeted Giffords for electoral defeat in 2008 in much the same way as Palin's "cross-hairs" map did in 2010 — with Daily Kos founder and publisher Markos Moulitsas even using the term "bull's-eye."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

I thought the remarks were stupid at first. I had never seen the 'crosshairs'. I assumed that the rhetoric about 'targeting' districts was derived from the 'crosshairs'. I went out and googled the map in question. Sure enough. Those are not crosshairs in my book. Moreover, I came across an image of a home-made poster where someone compared a genuine sight reticle with a peace symbol. They clearly mis-represented what was on Palin's website.

I think you are going to see what you want to see in most instances. I am ambivalent toward Palin, but an avid shooter. I don't see a sight recticle. I don't see a surveyor's reticle either. It's just a plus sign with a shaded circle on top of the middle of it. Just something to mark a spot like the pushpins used on google earth.

I think Palin's camp has won a rather moot point on this one. The media is making much about nothing again.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I thought the remarks were stupid at first. I had never seen the 'crosshairs'. I assumed that the rhetoric about 'targeting' districts was derived from the 'crosshairs'. I went out and googled the map in question. Sure enough. Those are not crosshairs in my book. Moreover, I came across an image of a home-made poster where someone compared a genuine sight reticle with a peace symbol. They clearly mis-represented what was on Palin's website.

I think you are going to see what you want to see in most instances. I am ambivalent toward Palin, but an avid shooter. I don't see a sight recticle. I don't see a surveyor's reticle either. It's just a plus sign with a shaded circle on top of the middle of it. Just something to mark a spot like the pushpins used on google earth.

I think Palin's camp has won a rather moot point on this one. The media is making much about nothing again.

Agreed on all counts

BTW
just finished putting together my first 6.5 grendel

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>The remarks are stupid . . . Better to have said nothing

Well, better to have said something like "yeah, they might have looked like sights, even though we didn't intend that; sorry." Starting with the silly denials makes it look like they have something to hide.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The remarks are stupid . . . Better to have said nothing

Well, better to have said something like "yeah, they might have looked like sights, even though we didn't intend that; sorry." Starting with the silly denials makes it look like they have something to hide.

It's not a silly denial if it indeed it has nothing to do with the claim. Silly is giving credence to the claim (say birth records in Hawaii).

The whole subject is silly. Having an electoral map with crosshairs on it doesn't tell its readers to shoot the opposition. The ProLifers did have such an example when they provided doctor addresses on their website and started crossing out the dead.

[billvon 3,118]

>It's not a silly denial if it indeed it has nothing to do with the claim.

It's a silly denial if they start changing their story to deflect criticism. "They weren't gunsights. They were bullseyes. No, wait, that doesn't work either. They were crosshairs. No, they were surveyor symbols. Yeah, that's the ticket."

>Having an electoral map with crosshairs on it doesn't tell its readers
>to shoot the opposition.

Agreed. It does, however, create an atmosphere in which such acts are more likely - and for that reason, such violent imagery is a bad idea.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>The remarks are stupid . . . Better to have said nothing

Well, better to have said something like "yeah, they might have looked like sights, even though we didn't intend that; sorry." Starting with the silly denials makes it look like they have something to hide.

Sure makes you wonder, when you see a response like that. Makes all kinds of little red flags go up.


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The remarks are stupid . . . Better to have said nothing

Well, better to have said something like "yeah, they might have looked like sights, even though we didn't intend that; sorry." Starting with the silly denials makes it look like they have something to hide.

That would have been better too

Best would have been it had never even been brought up because is it stupid

It is now biting them in the butt seeing how many others have used the same types of tatics

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Having an electoral map with crosshairs on it doesn't tell its readers
>to shoot the opposition.

Agreed. It does, however, create an atmosphere in which such acts are more likely - and for that reason, such violent imagery is a bad idea.

there are actions that charge up the atmosphere. This isn't one of them. It's a graphic on a piece of reading material.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>It's not a silly denial if it indeed it has nothing to do with the claim.

It's a silly denial if they start changing their story to deflect criticism. "They weren't gunsights. They were bullseyes. No, wait, that doesn't work either. They were crosshairs. No, they were surveyor symbols. Yeah, that's the ticket."

>Having an electoral map with crosshairs on it doesn't tell its readers
>to shoot the opposition.

Agreed. It does, however, create an atmosphere in which such acts are more likely - and for that reason, such violent imagery is a bad idea.

Do you think the book about assignation Bush or the movie showing Bush being killed added to the atmosphere the left is claiming?

How about Obamas statement about if they bring a knife we will bring a gun?

Has any news reported the judge killed was a republican appointed by the elder Bush?

How about an MSNBC host that says Rush Limbaugh need a CO2 cartridge in his head so it will explode?

The list goes on

And all of this to try and connect the tea party to violence so as to discredit them

when the words seem more vitriolic from the left

and all I listed above were widely condemned by the media and the left right?



........right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Remember the condemnation for this?

Quote

Ex-Clinton Strategist: Obama needs event ‘similar’ to OKC to ‘reconnect’ with voters

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/148609

That is one hell of a wish.

Or how about this?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/10/13/matthews-someones-going-jam-co2-pellet-rushs-head-hes-going-explod

No violence here and much condemnation too...



....right?


The double standard hypocrisy is sickening.

Point is?

It is a bullshit tactic

It is being seen as a political oportunity for Obama


Story on that today

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110110/pl_nm/us_usa_shooting_rhetoric1_2

Setting the table to sensor I think

Sick bastards

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>Do you think the book about assignation Bush or the movie showing Bush being
>killed added to the atmosphere the left is claiming?

I didn't know there was a movie showing Bush being killed. If there was, then absolutely - it would contribute to a similar atmosphere, and would be a very bad idea for any democratic candidate to participate in such a movie.

>Has any news reported the judge killed was a republican appointed by the elder Bush?

Yes, they all have.

>How about an MSNBC host that says Rush Limbaugh need a CO2 cartridge
>in his head so it will explode?

Yes, that's just as bad as the GOP blogger who recommended people throw bricks through people's windows. Had someone then tried to kill Limbaugh with a CO2 cartridge, the right would be screaming bloody murder.

[sundevil777 102]

I think it is really stupid to have used cross hairs on anybody in anyway.

I think it is really stupid for well known journalists to wish death upon V.P Cheney, for movies and books to depict the assassination of Pres Bush, for Chris Matthews to hope for someone to kill Rush Limbaugh, for members of congress to say that conservatives are killing children (trying to inciting violence), to use Paul Wellstone's funeral for similar purposes, and on and on and on.

Liberals should be the first to be pushed to cut it out.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rushmc 23]

Had someone then tried to kill Limbaugh with a CO2 cartridge, the right would be screaming bloody murder.

[billvon 3,118]

>>Had someone then tried to kill Limbaugh with a CO2 cartridge, the right
>>would be screaming bloody murder.

>The right would have
>Not the media

Of course they would. That's what they do; that's how they make money.

[livendive 8]

Do you guys realize that all the "but the the other guys..." stuff sounds like the tattle-taling of a 5 year old?

The hypocrisy is on both sides in approximately equal doses. The right gets a slight edge in volume due to the greater popularity of right wing commentators than left wing, but Olbermann almost counts as two. Whether you typically vote D or R, regardless of the flavor of your "news", and regardless of whether you prefer Beck, Limbaugh, or Olbermann, espousing hatred and intolerance will get you the same.

I think there can be a proper time and place for a violent overthrow of a government. However I don't think we're even remotely close to that situation and we have many civil/legal options remaining to effect whatever change it is we want to see.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

Quote

Palin Aide: Symbols Weren't Rifle Sights, but Surveyor's Marks

F'in' idiot. Absolute worst way to have handled that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Stop trying to be reasonable. This is SC, you're either with us, or against us.

- Dan G

[sundevil777 102]

Of course I realize.

It is really stupid, just like the automatic reaction from libs. But this is SC, if we can't say stupid stuff here, where can we?

But libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,118]

>But libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

I think that had a GOP senator been shot after a democratic candidate had put a crosshair/sight/"surveyor symbol" on them, then yes, an apology would be in order.

Given that that didn't happen, and given the right wing's recent overheated rhetoric about "second amendment remedies," violent overthrow of the government, throwing bricks at people, hoping Obama dies etc then your point makes little sense.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>But libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

I think that had a GOP senator been shot after a democratic candidate had put a crosshair/sight/"surveyor symbol" on them, then yes, an apology would be in order.

Given that that didn't happen, and given the right wing's recent overheated rhetoric about "second amendment remedies," violent overthrow of the government, throwing bricks at people, hoping Obama dies etc then your point makes little sense.

But Gifford had "sights" on her from lib groups also, and hatred was directed toward her for voting against Pelosi. That, along with her not towing the line established by her Dem leaders in congress can lead one to presume (with equally flimsy/unjustified validity) that the guy was motivated by liberal philosophy.

Kinda like how Tim McVeigh was accused by Clinton of being motivated by Limbaugh, when he admitted explicitly that it was the Waco fiasco that pushed him over the edge.

Even Obama has been guilty of plenty of explicitly violent rhetoric. Perhaps Obama inspired him.

Libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>But libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

I think that had a GOP senator been shot after a democratic candidate had put a crosshair/sight/"surveyor symbol" on them, then yes, an apology would be in order.

Given that that didn't happen, and given the right wing's recent overheated rhetoric about "second amendment remedies," violent overthrow of the government, throwing bricks at people, hoping Obama dies etc then your point makes little sense.

But Gifford had "sights" on her from lib groups also, and hatred was directed toward her for voting against Pelosi. That, along with her not towing the line established by her Dem leaders in congress can lead one to presume (with equally flimsy/unjustified validity) that the guy was motivated by liberal philosophy.

Kinda like how Tim McVeigh was accused by Clinton of being motivated by Limbaugh, when he admitted explicitly that it was the Waco fiasco that pushed him over the edge.

Even Obama has been guilty of plenty of explicitly violent rhetoric. Perhaps Obama inspired him.

Libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

The Daily Kos has pulled a bunch of blog posts that specifically referenced Giffords, today

Many are copied and out there.
Nasty stuff

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>But libs should be the first to apologize for pushing the level of vitriol so far.

I think that had a GOP senator been shot after a democratic candidate had put a crosshair/sight/"surveyor symbol" on them, then yes, an apology would be in order.

Given that that didn't happen, and given the right wing's recent overheated rhetoric about "second amendment remedies," violent overthrow of the government, throwing bricks at people, hoping Obama dies etc then your point makes little sense.

Speaking of advocating violence:

Damn Sarah Palin for saying stuff like:

They bring a knife, we bring a gun
Get in their faces
Punch back twice as hard
I want people to be angry
Punish our enemies
Hand to hand combat
bombthrowers / hostage takers

Oh, wait...that was Obama.

Well, damn the Tea Partiers for intimidating bank executives
Beating up people at townhall meetings
Biting people's fingers off

Oh, wait...that was SEIU folks

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706