Yep. It describes the nature of the other party's dialogue (by definition, it seems).
I think something is being lost in the past week's discussion, however. American political discourse has always had its share of vitriol. Nothing new here (or even necessarily bad). Calling out the other party as an enemy of the state/constitution who is worthy of elimination, by firearms if necessary, takes the customary vitriol too far IMHO. There are people who are screwy enough to belive this (whether or not Loughner was).