I wonder who explained that term to her? Sarah Palin charges critics with 'blood libel' By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 1/12/11 7:13 AM EST Sarah Palin released a video statement Wednesday calling the rush to pin blame on conservatives for the shooting in Tucson, Ariz., a “blood libel.” “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said. “They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.” In the eight-minute video, Palin says, “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.” Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” — which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover — touched off an immediate backlash. (see: Full text of Sarah Palin's statement) “The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews — the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.” (see: The Arena: Palin's 'blood libel' defense fair?) Palin has faced criticism this week for images that look like gun cross hairs she used to identify the districts of Democrats who were vulnerable in the 2010 elections, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was shot on Saturday. (see: Shooting presents 2012 test) But in her first extended response to the shooting — released hours before President Barack Obama is to visit Tucson — Palin said that “responsibility lies not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, 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.” (see: Obama hopes for healing in Arizona) Though some “claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently,” Palin said, it has always been “heated.” “When was it less heated? Back in those ‘calm days’ when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?” she asked. “In an ideal world, all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So we must condemn violence if our republic is to endure.” Palin said that “America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week.” “We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy,” she added. “We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country.”
To be honest, the Left is too quick to blame each one of these acts of violence on the rhetoric of the Right and the Right is too quick to deny that their word choices do have meaning. What motivates the Left to accuse the Right is that fact that the vast majority of these attacks are against people on the Left or government entities. What motivates the Right to deny that their words have any consequences is that they would then have to take responsibility for those consequences which doesn’t seem like it is going to happen anytime soon judging by Palin’s response. Both sides are taking positions that are neither entirely honest nor entirely based in reality.
Out or curiosity, just what is it that you think Palin lied about? Although I do not agree, I can at least understand your disliking her choice of words. That does not rise to being "either entirely honest nor entirely based in reality".
I don't think Palin lied about anything. I think that she has more adopted a state of complete denial which as I just said isn't entirely honest. The reason Palin is so center stage in this tragedy is because Giffords specifically voiced her concern about the rhetoric Palin was using over the past year to target Democrats like Giffords. It just seems all too coincidental to many folks that Giffords openly warned us that this kind of rhetoric could lead to violence and that she ended up being shot with 19 other people. I guess the buck doesn't stop with Palin nor does she think her words have any meaning. Nobody can honestly deny that words do have meaning. Dog whistle political language is not a new phenomena, it has been used for decades. What reasons does Palin have to believe that the things she says have any less meaning that what others say? How does she intellectually exempt herself from this responsibility?
Okay, once more: Has there been any shred of evidence that would even remotely suggest a link between this tragedy and any political rhetoric. Any at all? The connection just seems so random & unfounded and for the left to keep propagating it is despicable.
That is so lacking of logic, I cannot even begin an answer. Let's see. Giffords had ESP therefore Palin did it with her dog? Am I close? Oh, and let us not forget. Palin did not lie, she was just not entirely honest. BTW, the libs are faultless because BO's guns don't shoot. I guess that pretty well summarizes it
I don't think offering multiple examples of Dims using the same "cross hair" rhetoric is an attempt to defend anything- just demonstrating that the thing you & other libs are blowing out of proportion is nothing more than everyday political metaphoric speech used by all parties.
How about removing "political metaphoric". "...............is nothing more than everyday speech". Period!
Wow! If mindless rambling had a screen name... Well at least you were correct about not even being able to begin to answer. I wish that you were able to form a more cogent thought but I guess we are just stuck with what we have. You have single-handedly lowered the average IQ of this forum even more substantially than David and in a shorter amount of time. Each day, I have to convince myself to bother responding to your posts and it just seems like a bigger waste of time each day. You simply can’t think beyond the surface of any issue no matter what the topic. You’re divorced right? I just can’t imagine any woman being able to live with someone like you. What a negative person you are. Yuck!
A week after Palin's little speech it seems that most people saw it as petty, ineffective and as Tina Fey said, "one part sassy and a little dash of high school bitchy". I think she was obligated to say something given the warnings specifically about her rhetoric from Giffords herself that were rerun again and again but Palin didn't need to put herself in the role of a victim as a result of this incident. People just are not buying that position.
Not true! A staffer probably explained it to her about 10 minutes before she read it....and then reminded her of what it meant 5 minutes later. I'm just sayin' that I do think she knew what it meant when she actually said it. And she said it anyway!
Who knows? She probably read a book about it, studied it and taught a course on it. Maybe she's an expert on the subject and testifies in court on blood libel cases. Maybe she read it off her teleprompter. I enjoy how Sarah Palin frightens the liberals.
