Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’

New York Times ^ | January 12, 2011 | MICHAEL D. SHEAR

[upsdriver]

“Blood libel? Wierd way of putting it. That normally applies to an ethnic group.”

Here you go, watch the video. Let Sarah give you an education.

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=6625

[pillut48]

And FR loves Sarah Palin! (Well, the most important person on FR does! :-)

[Melas]

Agreed. Don’t get me wrong. That wasn’t meant as a defense for or in favor of her. My single issue with her is that she is simply just not smart enough. I can’t fathom how anyone can listen to her speak for more than a minute and not immediately come to that conclusion.

[dirtboy]

FreeRepublic desperately -- and I do mean DESPERATELY -- needs more posters who do not just simply go along with the popular flow here.

So let me get this straight. We are in the middle of probably the most unprincipled attack yet on the Tea Party and conservatives. And in your mind we should, at this time, engage in petty ankle-biting against someone at the forefront of the counterattack, instead of putting aside differences for a few days so we can pull together.

Yeah, like I would want you on my team again the next time the sh** hits the fan. Sometimes you need to go with the flow when the situation warrants such.

[Syncro]

. She just didn’t realize how potentially incendiary “Blood Libel” was.

Step back and look around.

That is your take on it, backed up by all the leftists and a few people working against what Free Republic is all about on this thread.

Your little cabal is detrioating before your very replies.

Yes, it burns you up (incendiary) that Pain is more relavant than the leftists.

Live with it.

[Just mythoughts]

I agree with most of what you’ve said. However, I think the explanation is a simple one. She just didn’t realize how potentially incendiary “Blood Libel” was. To use your analogy about throwing red meat, I don’t think she has any idea what she’s throwing, she’s just tossing it out there.

Hey you have the 'freedom' to believe whatever you want, however there is NOTHING incendiary in Sarah calling what was what is.... The lying libelous liberals just never ever expected that anyone especially Sarah would call them just exactly what they are.

So you get 'falsely' accused of being the 'cause' for the death of an innocent 9 year old amongst several others and you will take that evil accusation as oh hum I must check in to see what response I can give that is 'politically correct'....

[dirtboy]

She just didn’t realize how potentially incendiary “Blood Libel” was.

Funny, I don't see you posting how incindiary attempting to link the Tea Party and conseravtism to the Tucson shootings is. It's quite telling what you are taking issue with here.

And it so happens that the National Review and the Wall Street Journal are also using the term blood libel in this matter. Wanna call them stupid as well, you anal Rudybot?

[TigersEye]

She just didn’t realize how potentially incendiary “Blood Libel” was.

Perhaps she just doesn't accept the Victim Card. Not all retailers do.

[dirtboy]

I can’t fathom how anyone can listen to her speak for more than a minute and not immediately come to that conclusion.

I can't fathom how anyone who professes to be a conservative is spending far more energy bashing Palin over using the term blood libel than they are counterattacking the MSM and the liberals here for trying to blame such for the Tucson shootings. We see what your priorities are.

[9YearLurker]

I think it would have been a nice gesture of contrition if she’d offered to campaign for Barry in 2012.

[Wolfstar]

My single issue with her is that she is simply just not smart enough. I can’t fathom how anyone can listen to her speak for more than a minute and not immediately come to that conclusion.

My reaction has been not to question her intelligence, but her depth. To me she seems very shallow. Since she could very well wind up as the Republican nominee next year, I keep waiting for her to prove my impression wrong. So far, she hasn't, although my mind is definitely still open.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

“She’s doing what all conservatives should do -

stand up against the media and call them out.”

---

Exactly. She’s doing what Bush SHOULD have done, and didn’t. She’s speaking up in her own defense.

It’s not that hard to understand. What is wrong with some of the weenies we have as so-called “leaders”????

[Syncro]

It's ironic that the Left has been attacking conservatives for exercising their freedom of speech, while on FR anyone who does not agree wholeheartedly with the prevailing popular point of view here is subjected to swarming nastiness intended precisely to shut them up.

That's patently untrue the way you mean it.

But if you don't agree with the "popular point of view" which just happens to be conservative and positive towards fighting the attacks from the leftists, then you are in the wrong place.

Do you have any problems with the nastiness of the left?

It will always be countered on this website, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not.

[Wolfstar]

And in your mind we should, at this time, engage in petty ankle-biting against someone at the forefront of the counterattack, instead of putting aside differences for a few days so we can pull together.

Uh, no. I'm saying that the free speech rights of conservatives are under attack by the Left. The last thing we conservatives should be doing at this time is taking a page from the Leftist playbook by attempting to deny others their free speech rights. So what if there are FReepers who do not support Palin. Where is it written that they must?

[Presbyterian Reporter]

It is sad to see the anti-Palin crowd on FR be so blinded that they ignore it was also talk radio, tea party, conservatives in general, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck who have been assaulted by the leftist rhetoric claiming we all were the cause for the shooting in Tucson.

[dirtboy]

The last thing we conservatives should be doing at this time is taking a page from the Leftist playbook by attempting to deny others their free speech rights.

I'm curious how someone's free speech is curtailed by Jim deciding what he wants posted on his own website.

So what if there are FReepers who do not support Palin. Where is it written that they must?

There is a time and a place for such scrums, and they have been freely happening for months. But this is not the time for ankle biting. All Tea Partiers and all conservatives are under attack here, and only those with an axe to grind against both are spewing MSM talking points here.

[jurroppi1]

They already have tried multiple times to crucify her for perceived slights. The term blood libel is apropos.

[KC Burke]

“Blood Libel” is also a term that connotes a lie that cannot be tolerated. In old west parlance, “’dem’s fightin’ words” definition of what has been said saying that the statements made are so wrong and evil that they are tantamount to assault — the slap in the face with the dueling gloves that no one of character can leave unanswered.

Would the media have been happier with that equivalent expression? Hardly. But those two phases are the only that serve the point she was making.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm drawing a comparison between two similar attacks -- the attack of a totalitarian government on 1930s Germany on people with whom it disagreed and the attack of individuals who would surely like to be totalitarian upon us.

But, if you disagree with me, you might want to check out the words of Alan Dershowitz on the subject:

"“The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.” ~ Alan Dershowitz

But hey, Abraham Foxman agrees with you. Your trip to the shrink will be shorter than mine, sir.

[Wolfstar]

That's patently untrue the way you mean it.

Actually, it's quite true, unfortunately.

But if you don't agree with the "popular point of view" which just happens to be conservative...

Your premise is false and I won't debate you on its terms. The popular point of view I was referring to is the near slavish devotion to Sarah Palin here. That is not conservative. It is a cult of personality. What you seem to be saying is that if someone is not a Sarah Palin groupie, then they are not conservative. You'll either browbeat Palin skeptics into accepting her as the be-all-and-end-all of the conservative movement, or you'll do everything possible to shut them up, marginalize them, demonize them.

There is much to like about Sarah Palin, but she is not a plaster saint. She is human. As such, she has her weaknesses as well as her strengths. Also, there are other excellent conservatives in politics. Keeping an open mind more than a year before the first caucuses and primaries is not only smart, it's wise.