Posted on 01/12/2011 5:42:46 AM PST by reaganaut1
Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Gabrielle Giffords, had increasingly become the symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In and interview with The Caucus on Monday, potential 2012 rival Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.
But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.
She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state.”
“Not with those who listen to talk radio,” she added. “Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their first amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
you don’t think the media is an ethnic group?
At some point, you’re going to have to stop being afraid of the mainstream media and trust that people will understand what she is saying here. It’s perfectly clear from context what’s meant and it has the added bonus of being true.
She is indeed a supporter of Israel. This incident is however, a perfect example of why this woman will never get close to the executive office.
I’ll tell you straight up, that she meant no offense at all with her blood libel comment. She just didn’t think it through. I doubt she even knew the connotation or history of the phrase. She had a basic understanding of blood and libel, heard the phrase and thought it sounded right on. So, she used it without any knowledge of it’s deeper meaning. I believe whole-heartedly that she’s a decent person who wouldn’t have used the phrase had she understood it’s meaning, especially since Giffords is Jewish.
Like I keep telling you, this woman is no brain trust, and is not suited for higher office. Being conservative (she is), having good values (she does) is not enough to lead the free world. Leaders have to be the best of us, and Sarah is intellectually mediocre at best.
And what research could be to the point? There is no shadow of a scintilla of a hint of any reason to think that the term “blood libel” is antisemitic. Debating the point is like arguing over whether the verb “to lynch” is inherently rascist. The question is gobsmackingly stupid.
When you string somebody up without benefit of trial it's a lynching. That's what the word means and using it indicates no disrespect anyone. Similarly, when you accuse a group of complicity in murder for the purpose of discrediting the members of that group you are guilty of a blood libel. That's what the words mean and every competent speaker of the English language knows it. Blood libel is exactly what the media has been spewing for the last several days. As usual Sarah hit the nail squarely on the head.
The left doesn't like it when we tell the truth about them bluntly but we have no choice. Rolling over and playing dead isn't a winning PR strategy. Fighting back will make them mad, but what can they say that's worse than accusing Sarah of being an accomplice to murder?
Sarah wasn't just defending herself in this excellent speech. She was defending all of us. We are all in the media's dock accused of complicity in the Arizona murders. The left is trying to define all conservative ideas as beyond the pale of civilized discourse and we have to fight back. Sarah is leading the charge and it would be nice if there weren't any self-described conservatives taking pot shots at her from behind.
Words and phrases take on new meanings all the time in the English language. It is obvious this meaning is the feeding frenzy (sharks going after blood) of the main stream media and liberal commentators going after Sarah Palin and other conservatives IMMEDIATELY after this tragedy was reported WITH ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS TO CORROBORATE THEIR STATEMENTS.
Sarah Palin had NOTHING to do with Jared Lee Loughner’s attack on Congresswoman Giffords, and neither did the Tea Party, or Christians, or any other conservative. There is absolutely no evidence at this time backing up these contentions of the MSM and liberals. That is what the main point of Governor Palin’s speech is all about—the irresponsibily, mean-spiritedness of those using a horrible incident to politicize their own un-American agendas. That is wrong.
Yes, yes, yes to what you said. When I heard Sarah’s remarks this morning, I pumped my fist and said “YES!”
Your statement is very good! Thanks!
I think it's an appropriate phrase. It's a "blood libel" in that liberals think conservatives are another mentality; another race.
Conservatives don't think that way. Liberals do. It's why slobs like Alec Baldwin can call for the stoning of Henry Hyde and death to his family, and he's rewarded with a TV show.
LOL nothing is your problem!You're one of that large group hereabouts that seems unable to tolerate opinions that don't stroke your own preconceptions.
Not my problem.
A trait of those that don't take responsibility for their actions/words.
Your exact same comments can be seen on MSNBC and other media outlets.
Thanks for proving my point, you never fail to expose yourself.
There is heat in the kitchen, try some reasoned debate or slip out under the door.
I used the term here (post 2) in exactly the same sense yesterday. No doubt Palin's advisors track my posts to pick up the odd pithy phrase...
It’s all about whether ‘blood libel’ is appropriate for what they’ve done.
Ding ding ding ding ding!
The issue is now the vicious dishonesty of the enemedia, just as it should be.
Just to be accurate, the phrase “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” is from Federalist 51, James Madison.
“And for that, you don’t have to agree with how others interpret “blood libel”, because it makes no difference — the results of the use of the word are clear, and it makes no difference whether that result is justified or not, because reaction simply “is”, and a good politician has to be able to predict reaction, and choose words that maximize the proper reaction.”
So we should choose our words carefully so as not to offend the left? Why? They are perpetually offended anyway. We need to choose words for impact and that’s exactly what Sarah did. What possible percentage is there in making nice with the people who are accusing you of being an accessory before the fact to multiple murder? You’re quite right, there will be a powerful reaction to the words “blood libel” as there was to the words “death panel.” In both cases the powerful reaction will transform the debate to our advantage. Sarah has seized the high ground here and a simple “thank you” would be appropriate.
“Words evolve or are used to explain or analogize things.” They’re gonna try to “crucify” her for this!
“Sometimes, serious ideas can’t be reduced to two-word sound-bites. I’m guessing that’s what the use of “blood libel” was — a failed attempt to take that well-known phrase and re-appropriate it to gain sympathy.”
I think you nailed it as to why I’m a little uneasy with her use of this term.
I’d like to think she crafted this speech like most do -with the aide of a staff.
I don’t expect one person to always understand the history of every term or figure of speech - but with the aide of a competent staff you would think this topic would have come up?
And you would think the fact that the primary target here is jewish would have come up as well?
Which would have caused most people to pause and reconsider.
weird?
It is quite appropriate usage when the liberal media trys to resort to collective guilt and employing shameless tactics.
I doubt she even knew the connotation or history of the phrase. She had a basic understanding of blood and libel, heard the phrase and thought it sounded right on.LOL, I wonder who will use that first tonite, Matthews, Maddow or his twin sister, Olber(he's a girl!--Ann Coulter)mann?
I bolded it for you so they can find it easier.
his cooperation with the FBI
Did the FBI ever get into the house?
Oh, they ALL understand the “collective guilt” aspect...this is just FR’s regular snivelers who along with the media and the left want to DEFEAT Sarah Palin.
Why Jim allows these collaborators to remain is a mystery.
I get a good one off once in a while.
: > )
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.