It took four days for Sarah Palin’s handlers to teach Palin the speech she gave in response to the criticism she has rightfully received over her own violent speech and her targeting Gabriel Giffords with gun sight crosshairs. While responsible people on the left are not saying that Jared Loughner is one of her followers, or anything other that a very sick mind, we have said that Palin and others of her ilk contributed to a culture of violence, specifically gun violence, that may have contributed to this tragedy and has already resulted in other deaths. Not only has Palin denied accountability for her part in that culture, but also, has accused us of manufacturing a “blood libel”. According to Wikipedia, a blood libel is the false claim that religious minorities, most commonly Jews, murder children to use their blood in religious ritual. That false claim was then used as an excuse for European persecution of Jews and violence against them. In short, Palin is accusing us of using a vile false claim to make her a target for violence.
Sarah Palin’s Facebook page essay [Bullseye Bimbo delinked] and video in response to the Tucson shootings – a tragedy in which she found herself the centerpiece of a debate over civility in political discourse – was crafted as both a defense of her own actions as part of the grand tradition of "our exceptional nation," and a strike against her critics.
That she waited four days and then issued such a delicately calibrated and polished statement also displayed a trait not normally associated with the former Alaska governor: discipline.
In Palin’s version of events, her controversial actions represented common cause with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who a few days before being critically wounded in the mass shooting had read the First Amendment on the House floor.
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," Palin said in the statement. "They 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, 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."
Palin’s statement contained an instance of provocative religious imagery that might be missed by more secular voters who read her statement, but which likely will be recognized by the religious conservatives who constitute such an important part of her following.
"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," she wrote. "That is reprehensible."
"Blood libel" is a phrase that refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander – the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals – that has been used as an excuse for persecution. The phrase was first used in connection with response to the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal [Murdoch delinked] and has been picked up by others on the right.
Palin’s defensiveness was apparent in the indirect reference to criticism of a map on Palin’s Web site during the midterm elections that showed districts of congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat marked with crosshairs.
Giffords, whose district was one of those 20, had publicly complained that this was an invitation to violence… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
Palin claims to have received assassination threats. That may or may not be true, as claiming threats against them has been a common practice used by a variety of Republicans when called on their own statements encouraging violence. If there have been, I hope you will join me in denouncing threats of violence against Palin. Threats of violence are a Republican tactic, not fit for civilized people to use.
That said, Palin is portraying her as a victim. She is not. The manner in which she has chosen to defend herself makes her deserving of vilification, ridicule and distain, but not violence.
Off topic: Check out today’s open thread for a great pic.
22 Responses to “The Bullseye Bimbo Claims “Blood Libel””
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I like many others have known for a long time that Ms. Palin and her speechwriters are utter morons. Using the term Blood Libel to describe this is just hilariously dumb. I have thought for a long time that her and most people like her are actually holding human progress back (think idiocracy). But in this case I see her point.
We currently have no idea what set this gunman off. He’s clearly unhinged, but we have no idea what makes him tick. I think that it would be a stretch to think that he is paranoid schizo, obsessed with Sarah Palin and that her crazy and/or poster set this guy off on a shooting spree. I mean maybe, but I think it’s unlikely. Most likely this guy is just bat-sh*% crzy and Ms Palin has nothing to do with it in any way what-so-ever.
In general this is what I see going on. Lots of people saying crazy things when the truth is: We have no idea what this guy was all about and should maybe wait for an investigation to be closer to complete before spewing more hateful rhetoric towards the other side (goes for both parties) and telling them it’s their fault that these poor people were shot.
Welcome Ryan! 🙂
I agree insofar that we do not know whether or not this particular maniac was set off by anything Palin did. However, Palin’s rhetoric of gun violence was over the top long before this nut-case murdered these people. She had an opportunity here to come forward and say sometrhing like: “I never intended or desired for someone to actually shoot anyone, but I’m sorry someone did and I’m going to dial back the violent references.” Instead, she tries to BS us with surveyors’ symbols, and when exposed in that by her “bullseyes” tweet, tried to position herself as the victim with this outrageous “blood libel” screed. She has earned the blowback she is getting.
Palin’s getting some serious push-back from Jewish groups as well as others for her mendacious (or dog whistle) use of the term “Blood libel”
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/12/palin-blood-libel
Lest we forget, the last time a prominent Republican was shot …
It was Dick Cheney who was doing the shooting!
And as I said before to Sarah, you’re not allowed to blow dog whistles to incite your bloodthirsty hordes nor yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and then wash your hands of the blood when it all goes bad.
PS:
Did you noticed the Teleprompter reflected in her glasses as she read her “I’m-the-Victim” statement?
VICTIM??? Oh, that POOR little rich girl is crying all the way to the bank!! 👿
This latest might just be her swan song.
I did. I also noticed a “deer in the headlights” look of desperation.
Nameless, several Jewish Groups have condemned her for this.
After the shootings thehusband said Palin could get shot, I said nobody is gonna shoot her because the conservatives love her and the liberals don’t murder.
Excellent point, Sue. However, I would not put it past the Cheney/Rove set to take her out lest she win the nomination when she cannot win the general.
Back in 1980 I worked with a guy who was very religious, and he said, “In this world the evil ones and the hypocrites are rewarded because Satan rules the earth.” Now, I’m not very religious but AMEN to that! 😉
I’m not so literal in my interpretation, but the state of the world does not support my view.
Everything’s ok now. Liberals can go back to sleep again. Obama made a speech. Facebook and threads buzzing with delighted Dems. President really kicked ass tonight. It’s all about PR anyway. Who needs effective policy when all it takes is a stirring speech every few months to satisfy Dems. Along with “Oh, so you want Palin to be president?” whenever anyone criticizes Barry.
Oso, it was an excellent speech, but it will take far more than that.
When you put gun targets on peoples’ faces and someone gets killed, you should expect some blowback. 😡
Even if this particular shooter did not act on Republican hate speech, others have, and more will.
I’m sure Palin did receive 3 death threats but I’d bet they were all from Todd.
One might have been from Cheney.
Even Phred Phelps of the Phamous Phool church condemned her as a witch…for scrubbing her sight of the targets. That constitutes one eternal death threat.
Why am I not surprised that Phelps would say that? 🙄
Let us just hope and pray that this will put an end to her political ambitions. Frankly, I think she is too stupid to have a clue about the phrase blood libel and wonder which of her keepers came up with it. Just wondering how stupid her writers are? Still no words from Dubya or Cheney about the shooting. Do you think they even know about it?
Charles, in her dominionist theology, supply-side Christians are the new perfected Jews and have therefore replaced the real Jews as the heirs to all the Biblical promises to Israel.