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 ...
For what it’s worth, I think I disliked her long before the media did. If this has become the 24/7 Palin fan club, count me out. Jim has always had the means to send me packing, so have hope dirtboy, I won’t survive a Palin purge, because I’m not a fan and have no attention of even granting her my quiet acquiescence.
Athenagoras defended Christians against the charges of cannibalism (a mischaracterization of communion, the “body and blood of Christ”) as well as incest and atheism. This was blood libel of Christians in early church days. http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses2/glimpses186.shtml
Excellent post.
Can you prove that?
At least you are consistent with your assuming. It seems to be a trait with you.
Facts don't matter.
If it makes Palin look bad. Sycophantisizing.
Jumping in with condescending statements.
Engage brain before sending those messages to your fingers.
That's not only low, but supremely stupid on your part. If we start limiting comments to those who've run larger organizations than the candidates they criticize, I don't think we're going to see a lot posts. I'm sure you sit on the board of 499 of the fortune 500 companies, so you alone should be privileged to voice your opinion. Or maybe not.
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=6625Yes, she did accurately use the words “blood libel.”
An excellent 7 1/2 minutes of clarity and compassion.
Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Mr. Ed etc.
ACTUALLY -Leftists call ‘Blood Libel’ Criticism.
You're the dumbass here. Palin ran a state. Did OK at it from what I have seen. Yet you call her stupid.
As I recall, you thought Rudy was OK. Telling.
Thank you. I’ve decided that I don’t care if my posts are popular. I normally keep my comments about Palin to myself, or heavily self-edit. I’m not doing that anymore. I have zero faith in her abilities, so I’m going to have to say so from now on.
Funny, we have zero faith in yours, given your statements on this thread, which are nothing more than uninformed emoting.
Now you’re giving me way to much credit. If you think I’ve had any effect at all, let alone caused any damage to anyone, anywhere you’re certifiably nuts. Nope, the few people who’ve read my posts either agreed with me before they even stumbled upon them, or disagreed with beforehand. No minds were changed, sadly.
Now as I’m unlikely to have any influence on the lives of anyone here, it’s not really important that you or anyone have any faith in my abilities now is it? I can always tell when someone doesn’t have a genuine rebuttal when they shift the conversation to me, personally, rather than the issue at hand. Now that my friend, is truly telling.
Now, we can either get back to talking about candidates and issues or you can ask me what my favorite color is, your choice. Either way, it’s not about me, and your attempts to make it about me are just smokescreens and you know it. Or at the very least you should know it.
(There you go again, thinking much too highly of yourself and inserting your assumptive spin into my comments. Believe me I don't .)
You are refering to this?
It's the damage you are doing here at Free Republic dimwit.To: MelasGod himself only knows the damage that someone chock full of ideas but low on intellect could do in a few shortyearsposts.Edited to describe you Mel as.
Hi wtc911. Prior to the Left's use of this atrocity to smear conservatives, I wasn't a Palin fan. Still not in the sense that I'm not on anyone's bandwagon. There are several reasons why I've been skeptical of Palin as a potential presidential candidate, and they haven't been resolved for me by her statement today.
Having explained where I'm coming from, count me among those who think the words she spoke were spot on. She was being blamed personally for inciting Loughner, so had every right to defend herself. In addition, for better or worse, Palin presently is the voice of the conservative movement. So her statement must be seen in that context as well.
There isn't a thing she said with which I disagree. What I disagree with is her timing, and I think her delivery was poor.
Regarding her use of "blood libel," I had no idea, literally, until reactions to Palin's statement were published today, that "blood libel" is supposed to be an anti-Semitic term. The only context I've ever heard it used was by Israelis and others to describe vile Muslim propaganda intended to incite hatred of Jews. I've seen it used in that context many times by Jews and non-Jews alike. So I always thought it meant libel in which someone is falsely accused of murder and bloody atrocities.
I had no idea whatsoever that "blood libel" is yet another term scratched off polite society's permissible phrases list, because it is deemed offensive to a group or class of people. When did that happen?
Palin is something of a deliberate polemicist, and today's statement is another example of this tendency in her. She's not as edgy in that regard as Ann Coulter, but she definitely prefers the use of polemics. It's the primary reason she's so popular among conservatives hungry for a national leader to push back against the Left's excesses on their behalf. It's also one reason why I'm skeptical of her as a potential presidential candidate.
Although polemics do have their place in political rhetoric, there are times when presidents must rise above and set a higher, calmer, more noble tone. So far, Palin doesn't seem to know when throwing red meat is appropriate and when it's not. So, although I agree with everything she said, I don't think her timing was right, nor do I think her deliberate use of a potentially incendiary term like blood libel was smart under the circumstances. The controversy was dying down, and the public relations battle was largely won. The dead have yet to be buried. Releasing her statement today seems too opportunistic, too ham-handed and tone deaf to what is actually required of presidents and potential presidents in a moment of share national tragedy.
No, I can't. I'm not that homeless guy, or ex-homeless, or whatever he is today....;^)
Other than the minutes you’re losing with each reply, exactly what damage am I causing? And calling me a dimwit and with your cohort several other names in the same vein, isn’t making either one of you look nearly as superior as you seem to think.
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.