[Dr. Eckleburg]

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

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.

[xzins]

In an 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.

The above is some real information to take away from the NYT article. Pawlenty is not worthy of consideration....he's sounds like a groveler.

"Blood libel" in my understanding is the kind of libel that results in serious injury (blood) to someone. I don't see it as a matter of race or ethnicity. That would be "blood vendetta" as with Islamics killing Christians.

I'm guessing now that Pawlenty has something on his record that would make the NYT like him.

My frontrunners remain Governor Palin or Governor Perry, Texas.

[P-Marlowe]

I think it's an appropriate phrase.

When you manufacture stories and try to sell the idea that someone who has done nothing wrong has "blood on her hands", is there a more appropriate term than "blood libel"?

Dozens of Pundits have named Sarah Palin by name and accused her of being complicit in this crime. She should sue the pants off them. And those who claim that her use of this term is inappropriate need to tell us what term would have been more apropos.

How many liberals toss around the term "Holocaust" referring to everything from oil spills to McDonalds Hamburgers to global warming? But any time these liberals think they can turn a phrase into evidence of racism, they will do it. They can't help themselves. It is a disease.