Posted on 01/12/2011 2:04:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin didn't retreat. She reloaded. And she proved, again, that she is a ruinously incompetent politician.
Over the weekend, liberal pundits overeagerly speculated that she may have inspired the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). After learning more about alleged shooter Jared Loughner, many of those same commentators restrained their criticism of the former Alaska governor, and polls showed that Americans are skeptical of any connection. People recognized Palin had been unfairly implicated in the Arizona massacre. She didn't even have to mention it in her response to the tragedy and the resulting debate. Everyone would have been thinking it. Even her critics would have had some sympathy.
This was political T-ball. All she needed to do was acknowledge the tragedy, condemn violence and praise unity in times of national crisis. If she really had to, she could gently warn Americans not to let partisanship color their reactions to public tragedy. She would be praised for her restraint, and with reason; for once, she would have been the more adult party in the debate.
Instead, she decided to appear partisan and opportunistic. As Greg Sargent notes, she accused her enemies of acting in bad faith. Not only that, she, somehow, raised the rhetorical stakes by charging her opponents with manufacturing a "blood libel," language associated with centuries of anti-Semitic murder. I bet she didn't know the historical genesis of the phrase. Which merely makes her recklessly careless in a time of national mourning. And she rejected any notion that her overheated rhetoric was ever overheated -- by using yet more overheated rhetoric about her opponents, who "mock" America by "muzzling" her First Amendment rights. Most of America is willing to let you say what you want, Ms. Palin, but we don't have to like it....
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
I can’t explain why Sarah wanted all them folks dead. She must have thought them were mooses.
Good for Sarah...they punched, and she waited the appropriate amount of time and counter-punched.
I also saw the silly, envious comments of the testosterone-challenged Little Wolfie. Was that stupid, or what?
I won’t be able to raise $2m, but I will support Sarah Palin all the way to the White House. She is it for me.
Hey New York Times! Be careful what you wish for...
Why wouldn’t she want to point out how sick the media is? The msm are still very powerful and influence a lot of Americans. And she’s not supposed to mention their blood libel? Oh, I guess they want her to play the game of pretending their insane conduct didn’t happen. Newsflash: That GAME is OVER.
1. apologize and go into hiding?
2. admit your guilt and plead for leniency from the media?
3. tell them to go to hell
...................................
4. pretend it never happened like RINO’s do.
Good point.
Where are the Republicans in this??
If the won’t stand up to the press when this happens then why should we think they can be President?
Mental illness, has to be.
Gee, Stromberg’s a JEW! Who would have guessed? What a shock! Liberal male communist libtard Jew attacking a god-fearing religious Christian woman! What a surprise! Stromberg has his tongue so far up Obama’s ass his eyes have turned black! Keep it up you commie bastard!! Sarah Palin will be the NEXT President of the United States because of your efforts!
>>>GAH! Dont use that word!!!
Target? It’s a word. Appropriate. When you’re over one, you catch a lot of flak. Can I say “flak”, or is that off limits too now?
My thoughts exactly. Not only are the rabid liberal media acting in bad faith, but they are setting a new standard in that direction that is incomparably worse than anything ever imagined before Palin was perceived as a threat. I can't list all of the obvious examples of bad faith in the anti-Palin attacks that have gone on for well over two years. Even the shocking ones, on the scale of the sexual jokes involving Willow, the suggestions that she was really Trig's grandmother, and the stalker moving in next to her are too numerous to list. So, yes, she did imply that liberals acted in bad faith yet again. I doubt that one sane person could honestly disagree with her.
Or, to quote the loser in chief, I guess if they brought a knife . . . .
This was a very tragic, localized shooting spree perpetrated by a lone nutjob. This wasn't the World Trade Center. "National crisis"? How do simple mice like Stromberg even get published by reputable newsp...
Oh.
Nevermind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.