Hi wtc911. Prior to the Left's use of this atrocity to smear conservatives, I wasn't a Palin fan. Still not in the sense that I'm not on anyone's bandwagon. There are several reasons why I've been skeptical of Palin as a potential presidential candidate, and they haven't been resolved for me by her statement today.
Having explained where I'm coming from, count me among those who think the words she spoke were spot on. She was being blamed personally for inciting Loughner, so had every right to defend herself. In addition, for better or worse, Palin presently is the voice of the conservative movement. So her statement must be seen in that context as well.
There isn't a thing she said with which I disagree. What I disagree with is her timing, and I think her delivery was poor.
Regarding her use of "blood libel," I had no idea, literally, until reactions to Palin's statement were published today, that "blood libel" is supposed to be an anti-Semitic term. The only context I've ever heard it used was by Israelis and others to describe vile Muslim propaganda intended to incite hatred of Jews. I've seen it used in that context many times by Jews and non-Jews alike. So I always thought it meant libel in which someone is falsely accused of murder and bloody atrocities.
I had no idea whatsoever that "blood libel" is yet another term scratched off polite society's permissible phrases list, because it is deemed offensive to a group or class of people. When did that happen?
Palin is something of a deliberate polemicist, and today's statement is another example of this tendency in her. She's not as edgy in that regard as Ann Coulter, but she definitely prefers the use of polemics. It's the primary reason she's so popular among conservatives hungry for a national leader to push back against the Left's excesses on their behalf. It's also one reason why I'm skeptical of her as a potential presidential candidate.
Although polemics do have their place in political rhetoric, there are times when presidents must rise above and set a higher, calmer, more noble tone. So far, Palin doesn't seem to know when throwing red meat is appropriate and when it's not. So, although I agree with everything she said, I don't think her timing was right, nor do I think her deliberate use of a potentially incendiary term like blood libel was smart under the circumstances. The controversy was dying down, and the public relations battle was largely won. The dead have yet to be buried. Releasing her statement today seems too opportunistic, too ham-handed and tone deaf to what is actually required of presidents and potential presidents in a moment of share national tragedy.
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.
That's because it's a common figure of speech for falsely accusing someone of murder. It has been for centuries.
When did that happen?
Political correctness, narrow world views and poor educations aren't really new either.
I agree with your assessment of Palin’s response. By making reference to the media attacks, however warranted, Sarah portrayed herself as a victim. By using the phrase “blood libel” she, intended or not, portrayed herself as a victim on the same level as the most persecuted ethnic group in history.
While it clearly made a great many people in the Conservative movement happy to hear, and has played to resounding cheers here on FR, I don’t think it was the right thing to do if she has presidential ambitions.
I am not one of those who doubt her intelligence. I believe that she knew what she was saying and meant what she said. I believe that this is the first clear signal we’re getting that Sarah Palin is not going to run for President in 2012. I believe she’s decided that she can be more effective in her role as Conservative champion without the constraints that being a politician places on someone.
She can sit back and play the role of “Kingmaker” handing her blessing (and twenty million devoted voters) to the candidate she feels most likely to a) win and b) represent her views in Washington.
It may sadden a great many on FR, and no doubt there will be much gnashing of teeth and bloodletting amongst conservatives, but I don’t think she’s wrong in her assessment of her own power and potential.