Posted on 01/12/2011 4:51:04 AM PST by careyb
Here are the portions of Palin’s speech where I feel she portrays herself as a victim:
“I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.”
“But, 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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
“And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.”
The implications that I see, and you’re free to disagree with me on this, are that Sarah can be understood to be saying: “I was sad that people blamed ME, The ‘blood libel’ inciting hatred against ME is reprehensible, people are trying to muzzle ME with shrill cries.”
It comes across like she is a victim. Anything that she said today was going to be viewed as a response to her being linked to this tragedy, by pointing the finger back, justifiably or not, she’s acknowledging those attacks, and acknowledging that they hurt. I would have preferred to see her keep the focus on the real victims of the tragedy and not mention the debate over political rhetoric at all. To acknowledge it is to give it credence.
At least, that’s how I felt after hearing her speech. I know I’m in the minority here, but I feel that it’s important to say. You’re entirely welcome to your view, though I maintain this is the first implication she’s not running in 2012. She’s going to sit back and play Kingmaker.
Here are the portions of Palin’s speech where I feel she portrays herself as a victim:
“I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.”
“But, 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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
“And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.”
The implications that I see, and you’re free to disagree with me on this, are that Sarah can be understood to be saying: “I was sad that people blamed ME, The ‘blood libel’ inciting hatred against ME is reprehensible, people are trying to muzzle ME with shrill cries.”
It comes across like she is a victim. Anything that she said today was going to be viewed as a response to her being linked to this tragedy, by pointing the finger back, justifiably or not, she’s acknowledging those attacks, and acknowledging that they hurt. I would have preferred to see her keep the focus on the real victims of the tragedy and not mention the debate over political rhetoric at all. To acknowledge it is to give it credence.
At least, that’s how I felt after hearing her speech. I know I’m in the minority here, but I feel that it’s important to say. You’re entirely welcome to your view, though I maintain this is the first implication she’s not running in 2012. She’s going to sit back and play Kingmaker.
I saw it before you did ;0)
She played the victim. Wether she is or not is irrelevant, that’s not something a person who intends to run for president does.
Wow.
I already knew Sarah Palin is a lot smarter than her critics say she is. I had no idea she was capable of a speech this brilliant.
Great job, Sarah Palin.
Well, you're free to read things into Sarah's speech that she didn't exactly articulate, but just understand that you're doing the same thing that the left does to us every day.
Sarah said what she said in clear English, and I take her comments without any re-interpretation, or attempts to read between the lines. She nailed the left for precisely what they're guilty of, without question. For you to draw the conclusion that she's playing the 'victim', seems to me to be an effort on your part to protest the very fact that she's calling them out for their despicable actions.
And to then take your reasoning further, and to insist that this statement is a virtual surrender of the 2012 campaign on her part, is simply ludicrous, in my estimation.
You obviously don't have to take my advice, but I would suggest you take Sarah's words at face value, and not try to impart meanings to them that she didn't intend.
The left is already way ahead of you on that front.
Yes you are, and no it wasn't.
Return quickly to The Cartoon Channel, lest you miss the conclusion of today's feature.
Thank you, Governor Palin, you are truly inspiring to so many.
I agree, I am protesting that she called them out for their actions. I don’t think she should have. She’d already won that argument without saying anything. America knows she didn’t have anything to do with it. By calling them out, by using the term ‘blood libel’, however accurate, she handed the ball back. She had the opportunity to appear Presidential and I feel she missed.
I don’t think she missed accidentally. She knew what she’d say would appeal to the Conservative base and she’s solidifying her position there (not that she really needs it) to play Kingmaker in 2012.
I don’t believe she can win the election without at least paying lip-service to the ideas of bipartisanship and consensus-building. No one actually expects it of politicians, but everyone wants to hear it.
By NOT making that move, I think she’s telegraphing an intention not to run. Obviously, I could be wrong, but we’ll see.
I would have predicted the opposite...you are making the mistake of misunderestimating Ms. Palin.
I think you are misreading her.
I think it shows the opposite.
If Sarah Palin is going to lead the Conservative cause for the next decade or so, she needs to be the best she can possibly be. I’d think that constructive criticism from her friends and allies would help in that regard. Hence, why I feel it’s important to make such criticisms when I think they are warranted.
Way, way off topic, but great picture of Badger Bob on your page! Can I be put on your hockey Ping list?
>> but I don’t think there is a candidate out there who can show such grace under pressure.
She’s amazing. I also detect she’s been changed by this incident. If this is any indication of how Sarah plans to present her views, she will be unbeatable in the upcoming elections.
I now I understand the reported criticisms made by Krauthammer - Palin looked deftly Presidential, a threatening characteristic to her detractors.
>> Whatever reservoir of goodwill I had toward liberalism
It was the Left that assailed and defamed Palin. Some Liberals went along for the drive-by, but not all.
Solidifying her position with the base to play kingmaker? You can't be serious. Someone of Palin's almost-unheard-of stature doesn't need to "solidify" her position with the base just to play kingmaker. You are truly misunderestimating this woman, if you believe that's the sum total of her aspirations for public service.
Perhaps you've only recently taken Sarah Palin seriously enough to give her more than a cursory glance, but she's been a leader throughout her life, both private and public.
Of the four people who ran in the 2008 presidential election, she is the ONLY one who had a long-established record of executive leadership and experience. Most conservatives watching at the time, understood from the moment we saw her, that our ticket was upside-down, and it was Sarah who should have been running for president.
Trust me - that is the very last time you will ever see Sarah Palin play second fiddle to anyone. Sometime after the loss in 2008, she was quoted as saying, "Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes." Now, what do you suppose she meant by that? That she was seeking to be the number one "kingmaker" in the country? Think again.
I don’t believe she can win the election without at least paying lip-service to the ideas of bipartisanship and consensus-building. No one actually expects it of politicians, but everyone wants to hear it.
Perhaps you didn't follow the results of the 2010 midterm elections. Bipartisanship isn't what the people voted for. No, they voted in nearly unprecedented numbers for a return to conservative leadership and core American values - neither of which the Democrats have shown. Bipartisanship? Not on your life. If Sarah came out with a milquetoast line like that, support for her would drop like a stone. It's precisely because she's so stridently PARTISAN to the right, that she enjoys such huge popularity.
Looking at the historic gains just made by the right (across the country), do you honestly believe that the American people voted for bipartisanship, and that Sarah Palin is making a mistake by not 'reaching across the aisle'?
You've drawn the wrong conclusions here, my friend. What you're saying does not compute.
Yes, some posts make no sense at all. Thanks again.
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.