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 ...
She’s right, it is a libel against an entire group of people. By the way, is that the only thing the Times can get out of this speech?
I’m really tired of this. The Times will twist the news to the Democrats’ advantage every time. I don’t pay attention to the Times any more. I don’t regard them as serious people.
CORRECTION: about Grant’s: = about Grant’s drinking:
A liberal nitwit in the Philadelphia Inquirer tried to 'prove' that the Tea Party and Palin influenced the Tucson shooter because the target was a Democrat.
Congratulations, yet again, you resort to the same lame logic as the MSM types bashing Palin.
That would give most Freepers pause, but it appears to not hinder your PDS one bit.
But that's Sarah Palin's fault: it was a stupid, stupid choice of words.
The term "blood libel" is inflammatory and strange, and pretty much guaranteed to suck up all the attention. It makes her sound just like what she was accused of being -- someone whose rhetoric incites crazies to murder.
You'd think she would have figured out by now, that she needs to be careful of what she says, and how she says it.
Just another example of how Sarah Palin can be her own worst enemy.
wtc911 appears to have reasonable language skills, and could have said “Palin is anti-semitic” if that was the intent. So unless you have ANY evidence to the contrary, you should assume that he said exactly what he meant.
It is far more likely that you simply failed to understand what he was saying, and misrepresented it; I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was through the ignorance of youth, rather than a purposeful attempt to turn someone’s words and twist them for political gain.
Maybe you should try doing some research, and then debate wtc911 on whether the term “blood libel” is anti-semitic or not.
Thus the term will resonate in the ears of the 80% of Jews who voted Democrat, and make them stop and think seriously about what their Democrat leaders and lapdog media are really engaged in here.
She is less nervous,her speech is less halting and high pitched,and she has learned a lot since she became a national figure.
Yes, your rant was off base.
Yes blood libel is used against Jews. It is not an anti-semitic term by itself.
The people who attacked Palin libeled her using the blood of the victims. Your own bias and desire to bash Palin has clouded your thinking.
Oh, genius, how would you describe the attempts of the MSM, in defiance of all evidence, to pin this on the Tea Party and Palin and Beck.
It is a classic example of blood libel.
You'd think she would have figured out by now, that she needs to be careful of what she says, and how she says it.
Funny, that is exactly what the MSM is saying about the entire Tea Party. And they just want us to shut up, period. It seems to me that you are the one who should take a moment and think about what you are saying, given you are parroting the MSM here.
Wow, a person who won’t be cowed by the liberal BS machine.
Krauthammer made a very important point. He said the debate we should be having should be about how society deals with severely mentally ill people like Loughner, so as to prevent things like this from happening.
As for the Democrats, they will continue to do what they’re doing, because they think it works.
Probably just to piss you off.
If it were anti semetic, Palin wouldn’t use it. She is a huge supporter of Israel. To say otherwise is pathetic.
On the map, they actually defended it pointing out that the symbols were not cross-hairs (as anyone who has used a real gun, or even played a good shooter video game would know), but standard map surveyor symbols, used to mark locations.
Also, they weren’t “hovering over districts”, they were set on the 2-dimensional map. The use of “3-d” imagery was meant to add to the illusion that it was a gun site targeting the state.
I’ve been wondering this this charge was made — what symbol are we EXPECTED to use to indicate locations on a map? At my work, the evacuation maps have a “you are here” with a big red X; but certainly an X over a district would suggest you were trying to “X” them out, i.e. kill them. What mark on a map wouldn’t be considered “targeting” (how would you say “targeting” without using the word?)
_________________________________________
No, brilliance would not include the use of an inflammatory phrase that will (and has) become the single talking point issue of a three page statement. What should have been a widely recognized and irrefutable spanking of the media will be (and has been) turned back on her.
In the world or politics, business and PR any verbal mis-step that gives your opponents an opportunity to claim higher ground or that gives them a hinge-point upon which to turn the argument back against you constitutes failure.
I contend that it is stupid to use the phrase specifically because it opens Palin up to even more obvious and predictable attacks. If it is her intention to escalate then she has succeeded but one would ask why?
The phrase "blood libel" has been so over-used that you may as well step away from its original meaning. I've been seeing it crop up on FR posts in exactly the same context. One used to hear it primarily in relation to the Palestinian allegations that the Israelis kill Palestinian children and use their blood to make Jewish recipes. A lot of Jews used it in describing Mel Gibson's film The Passsion of the Christ by describing it as a "blood libel" because it depicted the jews as being culpable in Christ's death.
Let's face it; it has become a figure of speech. Palin used in a way as if to say "these accusations against me and those of my ilk are tantamount to a "blood libel". That is to say, "blood libels" are ridiculous, unfounded and over-the-top accusations like the ones being used against Palin and other conservatives.
I do not mean to flame you, or any others who are upset over her use of the phrase. But making too much of it is a lot like the libtards who are saying "heated rhetoric" cause the killings. It is strong language; but a blood libel or even a "virtual blood libel" requires a strong denunciation. The libs are so over the top on these idiotic attacks they have to be met head-on. I admire Sarah Palin for doing so. She is IMO the only republican on the national scene who has the guts to do this and the only one who will get attention for doing so.
I hope people ask what she meant by "blood libel". People need to see how pathetic and stupid the libs and their compliant media are.
Worse yet, he’s examining a gnat and then telling us all it’s ringworm and then get all cranky & fussy when we don’t agree with his diagnoses
Wrong The left was after a blood libel connection a She called them on it!!
Which means, of course, that the lefties will interpret it in its literal meaning rather than the metaphorical way she meant it. Just like the word "target".
She didn’t escalate anything. It’s an analogy. She’s defending her fellow conservatives against the charge that they caused this shooting.
Brilliant use of words. Memorable, accurate and effective IMO.
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.