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 ...
I agree with your statement as amended.
I don’t really listen to the media. I’m just commenting on what we are discussing in this thread. I do note that when I searched for the words “blood libel” I saw a lot of hits related to Sarah Palin, and they didn’t seem to be discussing how great her speech was.
I think it’s nice to have cheerleaders for candidates. I’m never going to be one of the cheerleaders, I’d rather discuss issues than “have people’s backs”. But we need some of all types.
Welcome to FRee Republic!
I’ll write r.e.a.l. slow since you’re a newbie.
1. The Tea Party was listed by liberals and the MSM as one of the causes of Jared Lee Loughner shooting and killing innocent people in Tucson, Arizona.
2. I am a member of the Tea Party Movement. By that association, *I* (metaphorically, look it up) killed that little girl and that judge, among others.
3. Sarah Palin not only defended HER good name, she pointed out how reprehensible and irresponsible it was for the MSM and liberals to continue blaming the “Tucson Tragedy” on her and members (like *me*) of the Tea Party et al. That’s gonna get ‘brownie points’ from a lot of people.
Frankly, with all the discussion today, and poking around, I don’t think it was as bad a use as I thought at first. That doesn’t answer the issue of the phrase distracting from the speech, but that is a separate issue that will reveal itself over time one way or another.
She's not even running.
LOL, I wouldn't try to convince you of anything, there is enough information out there for you to make decisions by yourself.
Oh and cute dig, it reminds me of when I tried to have a reasoned conversation with you in the past.
You couldn't sew my mind shut then either.
: > )
Only to the ignorant, the uninformed or those with an axe to grind.
And I say this as someone who is not the biggest Palin fan. I think her critics are her biggest asset. If you would ditch your Pavlovian response to every word she utters, she would largely recede from the national political spotlight. But you can't help yourself. Your unhinged response makes her a more sympathetic character.
So far, you're the only one hammering her. I suspect you'd find something to get your panties into a twist no matter what she said.
If you're the middle, then you're not that important.
For those of you who don’t like the term “blood libel” because of the historical connotations, find me another way to describe what the left in this case (and in previous cases) has been trying to do to the right in general, and to Governor Palin in particular, that isn’t either a synonym for it, or close enough that it’s a distinction without a difference. Good luck.
"Then some people on the television said I use mean words, and that was exactly the same as all the Jews being killed."
Oh for heaven's sake.(can I say that?) You're not worth posting to if you're that dense about the history and meaning of those quotes.
Congratulations on picking the perfect freep-name.
No less than Alan Dershowitz stated earlier today that this was a term that had passed into common usage to describe an effort to ascribe murderous intent to the actions of others in order to inspire hatred. He did not find it offensive in the least. Nor should you.
In some respects, her timing was worse than her choice of that one phrase. Others were also accused, and they very ably pushed back against the Left's crap. The public relations battle had largely been won.
Palin was like a firefighter who arrived late to a structure fire and, upon seeing only smoking embers, threw gasoline to revive the flames rather than water to cool the embers.
Thank you. And you picked the perfect way to insult to the victims of 911.
Clyburn singlehandedly brings down the average IQ of the SC delegation to the double digits. He is so stupid his party had to invent a leadership post for him lest he exercise any real power.
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.
What would have been the correct time for her to defend herself against the invective hurled against her...in your opinion...???
Since the public, as demonstrated by recent polling data, already understands that she is in no way responsible for the events, she shouldn’t mention the media, or the attacks on her AT ALL.
Sarah Palin is above the media, she needs to start ignoring them instead of sparring with them. Every time she shoots back, no matter how brilliantly or perfectly, she feeds them and their narrative.
And the term ‘blood libel’ was poorly chosen, as the wounded congresswoman is Jewish. It just made it too easy for the MSM to spin her words. They were going to do it anyway, but whoever chose that phrase gave them the handle to do it with.
Thank you for citing the Dershster! I think some on here will object that he is simply not Jewish enough to defend Palin, however.
As soon as her name was first dragged into it. Waiting until the day of the official memorial service, and after the public relations battle had already been largely won, is extremely poor timing.
One earlier said she should have waited longer, and one says she came too late.
One had her throwing kerosene on the fire, another gas.
At least the talking points vary a little...
And we won't be seduced into believing the public relations battle has been won.
Knowing the leftists, and watchin moment by moment the continuation of their vitriolic rantings, it must be fought sufficiently.
Those that don't like Palin have to point to everything she does as shortcomings.
You can smell the fear.
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.