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 ...
Seems a leftist Democrat wholeheartedly agrees with you:
A House Democratic leader on Wednesday lashed out at Sarah Palin, accusing the former Alaska governor of being intellectually incapable of understanding why she's faced criticism related to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (S.C.) said that Palin had missed the point by releasing a statement Wednesday morning blasting the media for "blood libel" for looking to assign blame in part to her rhetoric after the attempted assassination of Giffords last weekend.
"You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here."
Reference FR thread: Clyburn: Palin intellectually unable 'to understand what's going on here'
and just think, if she had chosen two different words, or used those two words differently, we would all be talking about the fabulous speech, instead of scratching our heads wondering how the entire media is talking about “blood libel”.
Which makes my point. You can disagree about the meaning of words, or their use, but reality is reality, and the reality at this point is that the conversation is driven by these words, and not by her speech, and I do not yet see that as being the desired outcome of her speech.
If it turns out this was part of the plan, we will know eventually, and I could be proven wrong.
I just really doubt that Sarah Palin intended to launch a national debate over the use of the phrase “blood libel”.
What Palin has been subjected to goes far, far beyond "criticism."
We commoners out here in fly overville are accustom in speaking in plain and simple terms. AND while the phrase appears to be proprietary to some, the words/phrase means what it means. Sarah, the Tea Party were accused to be the cause/reason for a lunatic to shed innocent blood. IT IS what it is, and those spewing the lies of accusation knew damn well what 'blood libel' literally means.
Please, God, let the Republicans use their heads and nominate someone who can actually get elected.
Perry/Palin sounds good to me.
Palin wisely chose “blood libel” to describe the assault by the leftist media and politicians upon those of us who are tea party members, Rush Limbaugh listeners, or Sarah Palin supporters.
We did not appreciate being accused by leftist media and politicians for the death of several innocent people in Tucson.
Palin gave us two words that aptly convey our distaste of the leftist mantra.
An Interview with Michael Weinstein , Philadelphia Jewish Voice (February 2008 Issue).
From Dictionary.com’s encyclopedia:
Blood libels are sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children.
Some of the best documented cases of blood libel focus upon accusations against Jews, but many other groups have been accused throughout history, including Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Mormons, neopagans, Native Americans, atheists and communists.
Your understanding of the term is woefully incomplete, FRiend.
I had heard the phrase before but didn’t take time to fully understand the history behind it until I read this thread.
I’ve read every single post so far.
There are alot of prediction about how this will help her or not help her.
There is high fiving going on and comments about how this is a great political moment for her - and how she’s possibly outdone Obama.
One can only speak for themselves.
I have “supported” Sarah in the sense that I voted for her in 2008 (not McCain!). I am thrilled with her pro-life message and her “real person” appeal.
Has this helped her when it comes to me and my vote?
As far as primaries go - I would have to say no (assuming there is someone other Mitt, Newt, and Huck ;) )
Would I pull the lever vs. Obama - absolutely.
I may not be so uneasy right now if Gifford were not jewish, and it is her jewishness that causes me to view the statement as insensitive.
While I do believe it is a good time for a statement of self-defense against terrible slander, I do not believe it is a good time to “appear presidential” or try to score political points - or to “know the MSM off message.”
6 people are dead.
A child has been murdered.
A jewish woman lays in the hospital with half her skull removed.
I do understand the anger and indignation that “we” have been accused of aiding this monster.
I just don’t think “we” should be trying to scoring our own political points today - on a day when the memorial should be about the victims.
I agree ... I’m just of the opinion that the phrase “blood libel”, which is pretty much about false accusations against Jews, was an awkward choice...maybe she or her writers could have come up with a new phrase that doesn’t have the Jewish background...magritte
You shouldn’t lurk.
Excellent post.
With each passing day, my understanding of the HATRED thrown at Sarah by the Left and their Media lapdogs is lessened, not increased.
They fixate on two words, Blood Libel, and ignore everything she says about the exceptional-ism of our wonderful country.
Intellectual dishonesty trumps common sense every time the Democrats try. They know that a certain segment of our society are dumber than a box of rocks and they waste no time in drawing them in when opportunity knocks.
Twitter:”AndrewBreitbart
Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz strongly defends @SarahPalinUSA for use of term ‘blood libel’. Coming soon on @BigGovt...
2 minutes ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply “
I think you're conflating the terms "blood libel" and "pogrom." If Sarah had used the latter term, I would definitely agree with you, but even by the most strict and clear-cut definition of the term "blood libel," it precisely defines the leftmedia's actions following the shooting.
A child disappears in medieval Europe - perhaps falling into a river or a pig pen. A frantic search is mounted for the child, to no avail.
Leaders of the town then loudly proclaim without a shred of evidence that the town's handful of Jews must have kidnapped the child, killed her, and used her blood for baking matzah, "because everyone knows that's what they do."
That action on the part of the leaders is what constitutes "blood libel."
When the leaders suceed in inciting a mob to burn down the synagogue and lynch the town's Jews, that is a "pogrom," not a "blood libel."
I hope this clarifies why Palin's use of the term "blood libel" is exactly precise and accurate.
Have the media aired any of their comments about this? Have you seen any video of statements made by any of those you mention, or Huckabee, or Romney, or Ryan? Nope.
(and who exactly is Michelle Bauchman? I imagine you meant Michele Bachmann, whom I respect and admire.)
Does it bother your conservative mind to have your thoughts linked to the liberal mindset?
You might re-read my post. I said thank you for providing, not you are a liberal.
You do know the fence belongs to the devil, don’t you? Chose a side and get on it.
You may be right that the term is 'risky'. As well, the statement was risky. Sticking ones neck out is risky. Confronting the left head on is risky... What some may call stupid and risky other call leadership.
Where are the establishment RINOs? Where is Romney? They hide like wimps still... Palin waited until the time was right and she delivered. The RINOs -those oh so wise, measured and calculated are but spineless WIMPS.
Agreed with you ...Gifford’s Jewishness makes it even more awkward...this video is a “draw” as far as politics go most likely. I will be curious to hear the current President’s speech later today...will he resist the temptation to score political points...I would hope that he does not use the word “dialogue”, or the phrase “make no mistake”, because I am required by House Rules to take a shot of tequila whenever he utters those during a television speech...I almost need a new liver...magritte
Seems to me that LFR is one of those for whom palin can do no wrong. It further seems to me that LFR is one of those who cannot imagine that thinking, intelligent adults could possibly have an opinion that differs from hers.
You really think there would have been a different reaction if she had said “blood slander?” The media would be doing exactly the same thing they’re doing now.
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.