It’s like using the word slavery to describe some minor inconvenience of government”
Not at all. The people the left libels often end up in gulags or killing fields. The blood libel Palin referred to was an effort to discredit an entire group of people to which, incidentally, we both belong. If history gives them the chance they will, to borrow a phrase from Congressman Kanjorski, put us up against a wall and shoot us. There is no trace of hyperbole in Palin’s use of the term blood libel. If you think there is, you haven't been paying attention.
If she can make that argument (and I think such an argument COULD be made, but also should have waited a “respectable time” after the shootings so as not to take focus from the shootings), I will applaud her.
I’m not sure that was where she was going — it’s a very risky strategy, to claim, in a time when most of us on our side are arguing that militaristic words are just normal politics and shouldn’t be used to claim responsibility for violence, that the opposition is using words to incite violence against us.
Not that it might not be true, just that it muddles the message. What IS our message? That the right uses combat terms but just politically and nothing more should be read into it, but the left’s words are meant to get people to kill us?
I just don’t say Palin going that route. It doesn’t quite seem in her nature — it would be more of something I’d expect from a Mark Levin than Sarah. She seems much more into bridging the divides and bringing us together, not so much into the “they are trying to literally kill us” argument.