Skip to comments.Schultz Suggests Palin Used 'Blood Libel' As 'Appeal To Extremist Christian Conservative Base'
Posted on 01/12/2011 3:55:57 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Call it a libel squared . . .
Ed Schultz has suggested that Sarah Palin employed the term "blood libel" to describe the way her critics have tried to hold her responible for the Arizona shootings "as an appeal to an extreme Christian conservative base for 2012."
Citing no evidence for his grotesque allegation, Schultz first floated it during his opening monologue. He raised it again with his first guest, Dem congressman Jan Schakowsky, and took things a despicable step further. Schultz suggested that Palin "got help from the speech from somebody who knows exactly what 'blood libel' means."
Put up or shut up time, Schultz. View video after the jump.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Ed Schultz has earned my utter contempt. Ping to Today show list.
That is funny.. I never heard the term until today
Schultz your an IDIOT!
In politics, what is real is not important. The important is what appears to be real to the gullible. And what appears to be real is purveyed by the media and purchase by the gullible.
Schultz you’re an IDIOT!
Did anyone see or hear Charles Krauthammer slam Sarah Palin for her response to the rhetoric! Charles has become a worthless tool of the left!
Another card-carrying member of the Loughner Left.
Charles is a hater of Palin.
Of course, I'm not making any charges or assertions, I'm merely asking legitimate questions as a matter of public policy interest.
The ADL’s only complaint is the term has an anti-Jewish connotations based on the term's lineage.
Okay - so you can slam a person for using an absolutely correct term. What's next?
I wonder if his other nine viewers feel the same way?
If Palin had complained of being crucified by the press no one would have noticed. Somehow using the equally poweful imagery of a blood libel is offensive.
****Did anyone see or hear Charles Krauthammer slam Sarah Palin for her response to the rhetoric?****
No. But notice how the MSM is accusing Sarah of ‘attention getting’ when she is rightfully confronting the libel that she caused the tragedy.
Whereas, Bill Clinton is not being criticized for drawing attention to himself by jumping into the fray.
I caught it, unfortunately. Used to be a time when I wouldn’t miss the panel on Bret’s show because of Krauthammer. Now I rarely watch it, because of Krauthammer. I do like Steve, though, and always have.
One minute the MSM’s calling her “dolt” who never reads anything... and now she’s a savvy, calculating expert on the nuances of historical phrases like “blood libel”??
I think I warch it just to see what bit of nonsense he (Krauthammer) comes up with. And, yes! Steve is the only one on the panel now that has any common sense. Oops, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention S.E. Cupp. She, too, is good on the panel.....and, hot!
I had heard it before, but I didn't realize that the phrase had been copyrighted, and could only be used with a specific historical reference.
I just thought it meant grievously slandered.
And in this case it applies:
Conservatives have been 'libeled' (slandered without basis in fact) about an event where blood was spilled (5 slain, over 10 wounded). Except for the copyright protection of this phrase, 'Blood Libel' is a good definition of the slander which has been spewed by the MSM.
I just heard that Alan Dershowitz, who is neither Christian nor conservative, defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”.
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.