You might as well remove all the other terms that have cropped up in the professional political culture. Terms like “Campaign”, “opposition research”, “scorched earth” “target opportunity” and reconnaissance are derived from military parlance and vocabulary and both parties use them. I think it is incredibly simplistic of Olbermann to suggest that Palin campaign “targets” were geniune incitements for people to actually target public officials literally is irresponsible and wrong.
I read the liberal the central and even the conservative blog to gain perspective. I consider myself a reasonable person with an average intelligence and I could not reconcile that crosshairs viewpoint with anything but aggressive campaign rhetoric.
To my way of thinking, the Olbermann commentary was an attempt was an attempt to control the direction of rhetorical political speech by cowing opposition (presumably conservatives) into a defensive posture that frees liberals to say whatever and attack whomever they wish without consequence. This comes from a man who regularly regards and award individuals with the “world’s worse person” designation and regularly those he comments or questions those he opposes with slights and insults, if not flat out contempt.
In my Opinion, this wasn’t so much about control of the vitriol and the hatred of a political party or ideology and to call this opinion commentary an explanation of the event is charitable at best. It does appear to be enormously opportunistic on Olbermann part to silence political rhetoric and provide an absurd linkage of the tragic event to Sarah Palin, The Tea party candidates and smear them as violent and ill informed buffoons. Anyone painted in these broad strokes have a great justification for anger.
I pray for the rapid recovery of congresswoman Gifford and those otherwise harmed by the event. I morn for those killed. This is a true tragedy as Gifford is an extraordinary Leader and far less a politician… the type of individuals we need in office to get things done.