# Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228 "2011-01-11T16:29:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/321 "2011-01-13T11:28:22Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > OP, if you are listening: _Death of a President_: valid example of left-wing aggressively violent imagery, or not? Obviously not. It was neither left wing nor advocating his killing. In fact if anyone actually sat thru the boring piece of crap they’d see it was about all the bad shit that would happen if someone did that thing. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/322 "2011-01-13T12:47:01Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You just can’t seem to wrap your mind around the possibility that a film, book, or any piece of "art’ can carry a political message. Also, I’m not sure if you are naive or if you are trying to be coy about the fact that both the book and the movie play to the far-left wet dream of GW Bush being assassinated. So, yes, I put both the book and the movie on the same level with any other commentary. I honestly have no response to this. If you think that the movie and the book were both written to pander to some supposed “far-left” assassination fantasy… well, I’d say that says more about \*you \*than it does about the subject at hand. > [@yorick73](#): > > I’m not the one fascinated with them. I mentioned them both in addition to a list of left-wing lunacy. _You_, on the other hand, have kept this discussion going for 6 pages. Maybe you should look in the mirror. You brought them both up, I’ve attempted to correct you. You seem unwilling to accept that correction. \*\*Lightnin’ \*\*0, Ignorance 1. > [@yorick73](#): > > Please…enlighten me. It seems you believe Palin was trying to instigate violence. Is that what you _really_ believe? Uh-uh. Answer the question, please. I asked first. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/323 "2011-01-13T13:09:57Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The lefties looked like dartboards, the righties looked like gunsights. Both are targets, but darts are a lot less threatening. I commented on this in the Pit thread and am surprised to see this repeated. They aren’t both targets. One is a target, and the other is a device you use to _aim at_ a target. Whether or not the difference is significant is debatable, but surely they are different, no? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/324 "2011-01-13T13:18:07Z")
I have to agree with your there, Dinsdale. A target is a passive thing, that just sits there waiting to be hit. Crosshairs are an active thing, which are moved about to find something to hit. They are two related metaphors, and I believe the choice of one over the other does show something about the attitude of the chooser. However, I do not believe that either choice was made to actively encourage violence. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/325 "2011-01-13T13:57:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > As noted [earlier](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13345170&postcount=206) > > Really, the reaction to that comment makes the point that it does not play well to enough on the Democratic side. Again, this is really very simple. A large stream of the Conservative movement, and certainly the enthusiastic stream of the movement right now, is populist. The liberal side, at this point in time, has a much smaller populist thread and is more dominated by those who consider themselves the intellectual elite and statists. You appeal to populist movements in all or nothing, absolutist, terms - Good vs. Evil - not in shades of grey and nuanced positions. That messaging sells well, no doubt, but it can more easily veer into over the top regions. At the start of election season, it was conventional wisdom that any Republican would have a fairly easy time of defeating Reid. His popularity and poll numbers were so low that it was assumed he had little chance of being elected. Then Sharron Angle came around and, among other wacko crap, said the second amendment remedies line. And Reid won. Not just barely squeaked in a win, rather a rather large lopsided win. So, by the same logic you apply to a Democrat, doesn’t that prove that ‘a large stream of the Conservative movement’ does not support violent rhetoric? Following your logic, doesn’t it pretty much show how dead wrong you are on the rest of what you said? Or when you decided to hand wave away an obvious and over the top example of an elected Democrat calling for violence in far more direct terms than anything Palin has said, did you not realize you were disproving your own arguments? Really this is getting tiring. The claims on why Palin/Beck/Limbaugh are evil keep changing. First were implications they caused the shooting. Then it became they use more violent rhetoric than democrats. Then it became well sure, some democrats say the same thing but not elected democrats. Then it became well sure, some elected democrats do the same thing, but they didn’t win re-election. The only consistent thing about this discussion so far is that a shooting occurred and some are using that as an opportunity to try and trash Republicans. For denouncing a culture of divisiveness in politics, some sure are doing a good job of contributing to it now. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/326 "2011-01-13T14:05:38Z")
> [@godix](#): > > So, by the same logic you apply to a Democrat, doesn’t that prove that ‘a large stream of the Conservative movement’ does not support violent rhetoric? Yes, it does show that a large stream of them does not\*. However, a large stream of them _do_ support it, as well. Whereas, only the first part of that equation is true for Democratic members. \*(although a substantial number of the anti-Angle Republicans voters would be not-true-scotsmenned out of the Conservative movement _by the teabaggers themselves_, so while I would agree that many anti-Angle Republicans were _conservative_, it wouldn’t be as accurate to consider them to be part of the conservative _movement_). ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/327 "2011-01-13T14:17:00Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > They are two related metaphors, and I believe the choice of one over the other does show something about the attitude of the chooser. However, I do not believe that either choice was made to actively encourage violence. I agree wholeheartedly. It just sort of surprised me to repeatedly see this type of “sloppy” word use - especially when we are essentially discussing the subtlties of word/image use and their implications. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/328 "2011-01-13T15:37:23Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > They are two related metaphors, and I believe the choice of one over the other does show something about the attitude of the chooser. However, I do not believe that either choice was made to actively encourage violence. I agree with you. The crosshairs are a message to potential voters, that these candidates need to be taken out. Their time is done. It’s tone is one of neccessity. It’s purpose is to inflame the passions of the voter to give money and to vote against these candidates. And for the most part the messages were effective. Was that type of message necessary? Who knows? With a less pointed message, would voters feel as impassioned to act as intended, with their $ and their votes. It’s propaganda and marketing. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/329 "2011-01-13T16:52:59Z")
> [@godix](#): > > At the start of election season, it was conventional wisdom that any Republican would have a fairly easy time of defeating Reid. His popularity and poll numbers were so low that it was assumed he had little chance of being elected. Then Sharron Angle came around and, among other wacko crap, said the second amendment remedies line. And Reid won. Not just barely squeaked in a win, rather a rather large lopsided win. > > So, by the same logic you apply to a Democrat, doesn’t that prove that ‘a large stream of the Conservative movement’ does not support violent rhetoric? … Indeed the fact that she was not elected says something positive about the conservative voters in Nevada. And I most certainly agree that a large stream of the Conservative movement does not support violent rhetoric. Never claimed anything else. Most people, liberal and conservative, are reasonable people and more moderate than extreme. Yet compare and contrast the Sharon Angles case with the Kanjorski case. After Kanjorski lost no large contingency of Liberals rallied around him. He does not have huge numbers of people supporting him across the country. No movement of liberals thinks of him as a leader. His next time in the national spotlight was his recent bemoaning violent rhetoric, and getting mocked for his saying that by a liberal blog (HufPo) who reminded everyone that he is a hypocrit and is as guilty of over the top out of bounds rhetoric as any Conservative. What happened after Angles lost? She remained very popular across the country among those who identify as Tea Party and those who so identify supported her strongly during the election after her statement. Her [Tea Party PAC](http://www.newser.com/story/107457/sharron-angle-starts-tea-party-pac-for-2012.html) formed after her loss gets great support from across the country. She has come out to [defend](http://veracitystew.com/2011/01/12/sharron-angle-defends-her-2nd-amendment-remedies-statement/) her “second amendment solutions” statement. If significant Tea Party and other Conservative sites are mocking her, and identifying her behavior as part of the problem, then I have not seen it. There have been no changing of claims, and the issue has never been whether or not Palin/Beck/Limbaugh are “evil”. The claim, from before the shooting, was that the rhetoric is over the top and that there should be calls to tone it down before someone gets hurt as a result. Giffords had expressed that concern about the gunsight graphic put on her name. No one knows if that graphic and the reload oratory had any impact on pushing this particular crazy from private delusion to action or not but when a kid is killed at a corner where parents have been yelling for stop sign to be placed, you can bet that some will be upset, even if the driver was drunk and it is not clear that a stop sign would have mattered in that particular case. Maybe it would have, maybe not. But the stop sign is still needed. Yes it is natural for those appealing to the Tea Party demographic to use gun metaphors more than Liberal groups do. More Tea Partiers own guns and hunt than do Liberals and it will be a metaphor that appeals to them more. Over the top rhetoric sells books and gets eyeballs/earpans. Especially to those whose mindset is to distrust the “elite” of this country, who suspect that the government is going to take away all their rights, and who are motivated by that concern. And it is legal speech. But it can still be reckless. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/330 "2011-01-13T17:04:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thanks. > > Most people here seem to have adopted the position that to concede even the smallest point means instant death for them and their puppies. I appreciate someone bucking the trend. I love to argue with you, but better it be over something I actually believe to be true. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/331 "2011-01-13T17:31:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Over the top rhetoric sells books and gets eyeballs/earpans. Especially to those whose mindset is to distrust the “elite” of this country, who suspect that the government is going to take away all their rights, and who are motivated by that concern. And it is legal speech. But it can still be reckless. Before I go into my response, let me say something right up front. I am not accusing you of wanting to violate someone’s right to free speech. Nor am I defending the positions I’m describing. I’ll be talking about perception, not reality. That being said, let me make sure I understand this correctly. You’re talking about a minority of extremist on the right? The type who thinks liberals want to take away all their guns, despite the second amendment. The type who thinks Obama’s Presidency is unconstitutional because of his place of birth. The type who thinks the liberal media censors conservative voices. The type who looks at Rangel or Daschle’s greed and think that represents all politicians. The type who basically thinks the government is the largest threat to their rights, not the defender of them. These are the people you want to tone down their language? Now take a moment and look at all the reaction from their viewpoint. Some politicians are pushing legislation to control what can be said, and how, about politicians. Some are pushing a fairness doctrine to limit conservative pundits. Some are pushing for various forms of gun control. And that’s just what politicians are trying to use the force of the law to do. Add onto this a massive piling on of people asking them to watch watch what they say. So, given this, might it be possible that the frontal assault we’re seeing on their speech be viewed as yet another example of liberals using the power of the government to remove their 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Might the reaction we’re seeing from liberals actually push them into even further heights of rhetoric against the government? In other words, from a purely tactical point of view, might the entire tone of this thread be the exact wrong thing to do if civil discourse is really the end goal? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/332 "2011-01-13T17:43:26Z")
> [@godix](#): > > That being said, let me make sure I understand this correctly. You’re talking about a minority of extremist on the right? The type who thinks liberals want to take away all their guns, despite the second amendment. The type who thinks Obama’s Presidency is unconstitutional because of his place of birth. The type who thinks the liberal media censors conservative voices. The type who looks at Rangel or Daschle’s greed and think that represents all politicians. The type who basically thinks the government is the largest threat to their rights, not the defender of them. These are the people you want to tone down their language? How do you define a “minority of extremists”? [A sizeable minority of Republicans in general think Obama’s Presidency is unconstitutional.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40644.html) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/333 "2011-01-13T17:45:31Z")
> [@godix](#): > > That being said, let me make sure I understand this correctly. You’re talking about a minority of extremist on the right? The type who thinks liberals want to take away all their guns, despite the second amendment. The type who thinks Obama’s Presidency is unconstitutional because of his place of birth. The type who thinks the liberal media censors conservative voices. The type who looks at Rangel or Daschle’s greed and think that represents all politicians. The type who basically thinks the government is the largest threat to their rights, not the defender of them. These are the people you want to tone down their language? You were pretty good in that paragraph until you got to the last sentence. Why do you claim **DSeid** or anyone else here wants do anything about the speech of regular, non-public-speaking rank and file right wingers? I haven’t seen anyone propose that in any of the numerous threads on the subject. What we’re saying is we want _public_ figures not to confirm and exacerbate the worst biases of their audience. We want them to stop using the language and symbols of violent confrontation, and to stop painting their political enemies as irredeemable domestic enemies. Because their audience contains a non-negligible percentage of folks who already believe the things you listed. ETA: and it would be exceptionally groovy if the rabble rousing was discouraged from others inside the same political party or interest group. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/334 "2011-01-13T17:53:59Z")
> [@godix](#): > > That being said, let me make sure I understand this correctly. You’re talking about a minority of extremist on the right? The type who thinks liberals want to take away all their guns, despite the second amendment. The type who thinks Obama’s Presidency is unconstitutional because of his place of birth. The type who thinks the liberal media censors conservative voices. The type who looks at Rangel or Daschle’s greed and think that represents all politicians. The type who basically thinks the government is the largest threat to their rights, not the defender of them. These are the people you want to tone down their language? No. I am talking about those with large media soapboxes who are trying to pander to those people, who recognize that those people are “enthusiastic” enough to come out and vote, especially in primaries. And who recognize that over the top gets people reading and watching, even if to just gawk (see Jerry Springer). > [@](#): > > Now take a moment and look at all the reaction from their viewpoint. Some politicians are pushing legislation to control what can be said, and how, about politicians. Some are pushing a fairness doctrine to limit conservative pundits. Some are pushing for various forms of gun control. And that’s just what politicians are trying to use the force of the law to do. Add onto this a massive piling on of people asking them to watch watch what they say. > > So, given this, might it be possible that the frontal assault we’re seeing on their speech be viewed as yet another example of liberals using the power of the government to remove their 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Might the reaction we’re seeing from liberals actually push them into even further heights of rhetoric against the government? In other words, from a purely tactical point of view, might the entire tone of this thread be the exact wrong thing to do if civil discourse is really the end goal? That depends on if one believes that that very vocal minority of people are the people you are trying to reach or not. I do not think that those people are going to be moved off their position one way or the other. But I do think that the cost, in terms of broader based support, in terms of becoming more marginalized, of pandering to them with over the top rhetoric can be increased. If it is made clear by the vast middle, which includes that large stream of conservatives who do not find such rhetoric appealing, that such rhetoric, no matter who makes it, will be met with disgust and disapproval, then the tone may be improved … a bit. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/335 "2011-01-13T17:56:07Z")
The more I consider it, the more problems I have with the argument that asking for more civility among leaders is a bad tactic because of the way their followers might perceive it. The point of moral leadership is to persuade others into good behavior / out of bad behavior. That’s what we’re asking for from the folks who comport themselves as authorities and present themselves as fit leaders. Not too much to ask; probably not _enough_ to ask. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/336 "2011-01-13T18:08:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > How do you define a “minority of extremists”? [A sizeable minority of Republicans in general think Obama’s Presidency is unconstitutional.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40644.html) Totally unrelated to the topic, but 15% of DEMOCRATS think Obama was not born in America? What. The. Fuck. 15% of Democrats must have had pacifiers dipped in lead as babies, that’s the only possible explanation. > [@xenophon41](#): > > What we’re saying is we want _public_ figures not to confirm and exacerbate the worst biases of their audience. We want them to stop using the language and symbols of violent confrontation, and to stop painting their political enemies as irredeemable domestic enemies. Because their audience contains a non-negligible percentage of folks who already believe the things you listed. To a large degree, the reason Palin & Beck are pubic figures is they use the language they do. Remove that and I strongly suspect they fade into obscurity. Then someone who is now a rank and file tea party member who does use that sort of language will be elevated to a public figure and in a few years people will be pushing for them to tone it down. The issue really isn’t what Palin and Beck say, the issue is why what they say is accepted and resonates with some. > [@DSeid](#): > > That depends on if one believes that that very vocal minority of people are the people you are trying to reach or not. I do not think that those people are going to be moved off their position one way or the other. But I do think that the cost, in terms of broader based support, in terms of becoming more marginalized, of pandering to them with over the top rhetoric can be increased. If it is made clear by the vast middle, which includes that large stream of conservatives who do not find such rhetoric appealing, that such rhetoric, no matter who makes it, will be met with disgust and disapproval, then the tone may be improved … a bit. The problem is, it isn’t the vast middle who endorsed rhetoric like this to begin with. It never has been. You think independents were going ‘Hot damn, a chance to shoot a politicians picture! Get the kids honey, we’re going to a political rally with our AK47!’ This type of thing has always appealed only to the the vocal minority. If that vocal minority aren’t engaged in debate, and I really do mean engaged in debate instead of just lecturing them, nothing will change. The level of rhetoric will rise and fall as politics comes in and out of peoples minds, but it will always be there ready to pop up as long as 1 in 5 American are so upset with government that they identify with the Tea Party. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/337 "2011-01-13T18:14:15Z")
Not endorsing is different than condemning. If the vast middle does not endorse but still tolerates it, then there is no cost for the behavior and that faction that eats it up is a net gain. If the vast majority makes it clear that they actively disapprove, that is another thing. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/338 "2011-01-13T18:26:29Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I honestly have no response to this. If you think that the movie and the book were both written to pander to some supposed “far-left” assassination fantasy… well, I’d say that says more about \*you \*than it does about the subject at hand. Both were nothing more than assassination porn for the left. Baker wrote the book because of his fury over Iraq. Range used the assassination of GW Bush to probe ideas about racial profiling, just war, civil disobedience, and civil liberties. Whether or not either was digested by the left is beside the point. Do you measure Palins intent by how many eyes saw her graphic? > [@Lightnin](#): > > You brought them both up, I’ve attempted to correct you. You seem unwilling to accept that correction. \*\*Lightnin’ \*\*0, Ignorance 1. Yes, I brought them up in one sentence 6 pages ago. I’ve seen you respond to little else in this thread. You are welcome to believe that you have corrected me if it makes you feel better > [@Lightnin](#): > > Uh-uh. Answer the question, please. I asked first. I’ve already answered that question. You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that Palin deliberately instigated violence. Maybe Palin should have made a movie about the assassination of all those legislators she was targeting…then it would have just been considered “entertainment” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/339 "2011-01-13T18:29:51Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > If the vast middle does not endorse but still tolerates it, then there is no cost for the behavior and that faction that eats it up is a net gain. The majority of the vast middle, wouldn’t have one iota what Sarah Palin was up to except for the love affair by the mainstream media of her and anything they can say negatively about her. She has been dubbed the de facto leader of the Republican party, although she holds no office, is not an appointed leader of the Party, and according to most polls has not a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination let alone winning the 2012 Presidential election. Picking on Boehner can only go so far (orange complexion and crying too much for a man) so she’s an easier target. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/340 "2011-01-13T18:30:58Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Both were nothing more than assassination porn for the left. Baker wrote the book because of his fury over Iraq. Range used the assassination of GW Bush to probe ideas about racial profiling, just war, civil disobedience, and civil liberties. That certainly makes the latter example sound like more than “porn.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=18)