Blood libel.
Seriously?
A little story: one that I am told is absolutely true. Now maybe it is, maybe it isn’t…but it makes the point.
In a town in Eastern Europe long ago, there was a small community of Jews who resided there and more or less kept to themselves. But their very presence was an irritant to many in the village, particularly so to one villager–a rabid anti-Semite–who decided the best thing to do was target the rabbi and turn the whole of the village against him.
And so, in the dead of night, the villager smothered his own six month old infant in the crib. Then he took the child’s corpse, stole over to the rabbi’s house and buried the child in a shallow grave.
Upon the morning, the alarmed mother discovered the absent child. Her screams summoned the entire village and the husband, “sharing” his wife’s ire, suggested that the Jews be investigated first since there had been tales of how they loved to use the blood of Christian children in their secret rites. So they converged upon the rabbi’s home and the newly turned earth of the grave was quickly discovered.
The rabbi was promptly hung and the rest of the Jews either killed or driven from the city.
Here’s an offer I will make you, on behalf of myself and my fellow Jews: I will continue not to use gun imagery and language in my discourse so that no one can possibly accuse me of having anything to do with acts of violence, and you keep your mouth shut about blood libels so that no one can possibly mistake you for being one of us.
PAD
• 
What a terribly sad story.
Ms Palin again shows her delusional attitude about her importance by comparing her plight to that of Jews.
Given that Rep. Giffords is Jewish, I’d say her comment was offensive and in poor taste.
Much like her map with ‘surveyors marks’ on them.
.
I said yesterday that nothing will be learned from this, and it only took a day for Palin to prove me right.
Well, color me stunned about Palin saying something offensive and in poor taste…
I’m not Jewish, but I’m about as Zionist and Jew-friendly as a raised-Methodist agnostic can be. And “blood libel” is predominantly used in an anti-Semitic sense, but not exclusively. It has become a term of definite political meaning — it was used to describe the late Representative John Murtha’s defaming of the US Marines and the Haditha incident (especially disgraceful, since Murtha had himself been a Marine.) Israel uses it to describe the slanders laid upon it by the Palestinians.
.
Palin is also extremely pro-Israel — she had three flags in her office as governor: the US flag, the Alaskan flag, and the Israeli flag. She’s also worn a pin with crossed US and Israeli flags in public on numerous occasions.
.
J.
It’s rare that I would say this, Jay but: If you’re not Jewish, you’re not gonna get it. There’s plenty of stupid stuff that she’s said in the past, and I’ve just shaken my head at how clueless she is. But I have never been as rip šhìŧ furious as I am right this minute. She dares…she DARES…to paint herself as a victim when there are real victims out there who are lying in hospital beds or graves, and while doing it uses something ripped from the worst aspects of anti-Semitism? She should be ashamed.
.
PAD
It’s rare that I would say this, Jay but: If you’re not Jewish, you’re not gonna get it.
.
Not the first time I’ve heard it, and won’t be the last, I’m sure.
.
The INSTANT the shooting happened, a HUGE portion of the Left dumped in Palin. You were a voice of reason, as was Stewart, but Kos immediately sent out a Tweet directly blaming Palin for it — and the hordes of Kossacks and the professional left piled on her and the Tea Party. We didn’t even know the shooter’s name before the lie was shouted worldwide.
.
It was well beyond a “bloody shirt” moment. It was… dammit, all the good metaphors would offend SOMEONE. I can’t call it “a blood libel” without stepping on the toes of those who’ve been subjected to THE Blood Libel, I can’t call it a “modern-day lynching” without going there…
.
Dammit.
.
The key element here, though, is that it was literally founded on a lie. There was not only no evidence showing the shooter admired Palin or the Tea Party, but considerable showing his inclinations leaned the other way — and that didn’t matter. It was factually and provably false, but the lies kept piling on. It had to be “refudiated,” and forcefully, lest it stick — much like the original Blood Libel.
.
On the balance, Palin’s statement was what needed to be said. I only hope Obama can do as good a job tonight.
.
J.
Fûçkëņáÿ, Peter. Fûçkëņáÿ. I’m no more Jewish than Jay is, but I get it, and I’m livid, too.
.
Palin’s support for Israel is purely for politics, guys. Trust me, she’s the kind of wardheeler political hack that Hunter Thompson hated. She’ll change directions on something in a nanosec if it’ll be to her political advantage.
Jay, you’re not getting it:
.
I don’t give a šhìŧ.
.
I don’t care what other people said about her. I don’t care what Kos (who?) Tweeted about her. I don’t care what the talking heads said.
.
I care about the fact that this woman is so gøddámņ clueless that she would dare paint herself as victimized when there’s a body count attached to this issue, and that she would invoke one of the most insidious calumnies against an entire race of people in order to paint herself in a sympathetic light.
.
Her attitude is monstrous; her phrasing is outrageous.
.
My God, what is this woman’s power, that it seems there is literally nothing she can say, no matter how insensitive, no matter how clueless, no matter how moronic, that people will still come running to support and excuse her? It’s unfathomable.
.
PAD
In deference to our host, whom I respect a great deal, I’m dropping the matter here.
.
J.
We didn’t even know the shooter’s name before the lie was shouted worldwide.
.
And in turn, the right-wing pointed fingers and claimed that, no, the shooter was a raging liberal with no real evidence to back it up. Because nothing screams liberal like reading Mein Kampf and shooting a Democrat.
.
Yet, I see little condemnation on your part for that. Instead, I see unwavering support for every stupid thing Palin says, no matter how absurd or insulting.
Craig, you forget the current, completely jaw-dropping attempt by the right to convince us that Hitler was a leftist.
.
“The INSTANT the shooting happened, a HUGE portion of the Left dumped in Palin. … We didn’t even know the shooter’s name before the lie was shouted worldwide.”
.
Whereas the reasonable people’s first response was to prove what political hacks they were by playing the game of false equivalencies to the nth degree and launch an attack on Kos and then follow that up by showing that their grasp on reality was so fragile and their head so far up the Republican talking points (I.e. massive exaggerations and lies) from the election with a theory that this was a Mexican drug cartel hit on Gifford.
.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/01/08/that-giant-flushing-sound-you-hear.php
.
And who wrote that post?
.
Hmmm… I think your glass house just fell apart.
.
And she could have refuted using far more appropriate language and imagery, but for Palin to suggest that her victimhood of being blamed for the shooting is remotely analogous to that of the Jews and blood libel is beyond conception.
.
If you want an idea of how deeply offensive this is, imagine instead that Palin suggested that by being singled out by liberals was like having a yellow Star of David pinned on her, being railroaded by the press was like being put onto a train to Auschwitz, and political opponents trying to destroy her being akin to Nazis exterminating Jews. Such trivialization of the Holocaust would be grotesque.
.
Ditto here.
The shooter is also apparently a fan of Ayn Rand, and a pro-lifer. Hardly liberal traits. This guy just can’t be pigeonholed politically.
Palin is also extremely pro-Israel — she had three flags in her office as governor:
Which makes this doubly offensive and in poor taste.
I mean, really.
And i wonder if that flag went with her when she bailed out of that office and didn’t have anyplace to show it off…
I think we can now expect to see a lot of googling to see how many of the people upset over this have used the term in the past to refer to something other than its original use as an excuse anti-semetic murder.
.
already we have Andrew Sullivan, The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, Military Religious Freedom Foundation founder and president Mikey Weinstein (ironically enough, he was accusing Palin of using one against Muslims), Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch describing accusations by republicans that Gore was trying to suppress the miltary vote in the recount, Either Joel Roberts or Andrew Cohen of CBS News (both names are listed) describing Ward Churchill, Andrew Cohen again describing critics of judicial activism, Alex Beam in the Boston Globe on accusations someone use the n-word, Newsday editor Les Payne on the argument that African-American journalists could not objectively cover Obama’s candidacy.
.
Ok, two wrongs do not make a right and 5 or 10 don;t either but I think it is semi safe to say that not only has “blood libel” been used in public and political discourse a lot but often for things that don’t even come remotely close to justifying it. I don’t think I’ve used the term, except when describing something like the recent accusations that Israelies were harvesting organs in Haiti (THAT’LL teach them to keep their big fat humanitarian aid out of other people’s countries!). I would advise against using it other than in those cases where something of that ilk is being claimed. But Palin is hardly breaking new ground here.
.
But ok, one can legitimately claim never to have seen these earlier examples, so I am not charging anyone with hypocrisy. Let’s call this a teachable moment. Whether or not “blood libel” must be restricted to attacks against religious minorities, Jews exclusively, or is no more religion specific than the word “crucifixion” is a conversation worth having.
There’s GØÐÐÃMN ACTUAL BLOOD involved this time, Bill. And she’s trying to paint herself as a victim using references to ACTUAL CALUMNIES in which ACTUAL PEOPLE have ACTUALLY DIED over the past century. Do you get that?
.
I don’t care what other people said. I don’t care what google said. I don’t even care what they said on Instapundit.com which is where I suspect you pulled most of your information from. You know why? Because there’s not gøddámņ body counts that can remotely be attributed to their statements in any way, shape or form no matter how much people try to pretend it. Instead I wish the usual suspects would, for once, pull their heads out of their gøddámņ right wing talking points AND STOP FÙÇKÍNG APOLOGIZING FOR HER.
.
PAD
Ok, I took your post as saying that the term “blood Libel” was one that should not be used by non-Jews unless describing the actual historical events that were its origin and that Palin’s use of it was some new low.
.
Me I actually find it more offensive to use the term to describe anything that DOESN’T have a body count–it diminishes the term to use it to describe mundane political points. Screaming that someone has made a blood libel against you because they suggested you might not be an objective fellow seems less appropriate, to me anyway, than saying it’s a blood libel to be falsely accused of murder or complicity in same.
.
But I don’t feel strongly enough about this or Palin to continue something that is causing way more distress than I would ever intentionally cause you so I will concede the point and move on.
It is fascinating to now see Palin embrace the first amendment. Previously, Muslisms choosing to worship near the site of a mass murder was offensive (even though there was no real connection between the two) but now she’s horrified that people would connect her own violence-charged rhetoric with the senseless deaths of people.
I think that is my issue with where the right wing has wound up. Growing up with Reagan and Bush, I thought there was at least a consistent philosophy — one I disagreed with but still, it was at least internally logical.
Palin and others like her espouse a philosophy that just flat-out never makes sense and constantly contradicts itself. Obama is just a big celebrity. A year later, she leaves politics for what appears to be a TV career. A Democrat using the word “retarded” is wrong. A conservative radio host doing so is fine — it’s “satire.” Now this.
Palin irks me for many reasons but she truly seems to have never learned the “if you dish it out, you must also be able to take it” message from childhood. She constantly plays the victim. I felt sorry for her daughter when Bristol commented on the controversy regarding her appearance on “Dancing with the Stars” as “Mom told me to ignore the haters.” It’s unfortunate that Palin is teaching that type of victimization to her kids. All criticism is motivated by “haters” on the other side. It’s “us vs. them.”
Politics aside, I just don’t see any admirable qualities about Palin. I think I *need* to somehow understand what admirable qualities people see.
I just remember a time when Nixon was the exception. You might disagree with Carter or Reagan but there was something to admire about either candidate aside from your politic views.
You know what it really is? She just pìššëš øff the right people. More than that, she gets them to do things that conservatives can gleefully use against them later. You have feminists who would have a conniption if a women were described as “strident” because that’s a code word but they will fire off a twitter calling Palin the b word, c word, other, longer c word, attack her kids, intelligence, looks, speculate on what position she used to get the VP nomination, and link to a hilarious photoshop of her head on the body of a fat woman and a review of the XXX hit Who’s Nailin Palin 2. Electric Buggaloo.
.
Oh yeah, THAT’S gonna come up again, next time Ms. Prissy gets all huffy about some perceived slight against the fairer sex.
.
So she’s good for that but let’s hope it doesn’t catapult her to something bigger.
You know what it really is? She just pìššëš øff the right people.
.
No, what it really is is that she’s an áššhølë.
.
But hey, fûçk it, let’s keep talking about putting her in high office. Because what you really want in the Oval Office is someone whose major ability is to piss people off.
.
PAD
She just pìššëš øff the right people.
.
Those with common sense and a bit of intelligence that can see right through her bûllšhìŧ.
.
Oh, right, I forgot: those are the people the Right really despise.
You know what it really is? She just pìššëš øff the right people.
You can pìšš øff people by kicking them in the groin and spitting in their eye when they’re down, but I’m not sure that’s the kind of “pìššìņg øff” you want to do.
.
No, to a degree Bill is correct. What Palin does best is pìšš øff the right people. This is backed up by the simple fact that she was instantly made the poster child for this flap despite the fact that some of the rhetoric that’s been given national attention prior to this and some of the rhetoric a lot closer to the home of this incident is by far much worse than hers and some of it was a flat out call for gun violence. But Sarah provokes many on the Left and is disliked by many on the Left. You can argue whether she’s rightly, wrongly, deservedly or undeservedly disliked later, but the fact is that she is very disliked by many key figures on the Left and in the more liberal opinion media and so she was chosen as the talking point face of this mess.
.
So now we’ve had a few days go by and she’s made her first official comment on the matter where she’s called for a return to individual accountability (while washing her own hands of having to be accountable in the least for contributing to the talk of violence and the climate that’s been building towards something like this) and played the victim card while throwing out the type of phrase (deliberately chosen I’m sure) sure to make even more of the people who dislike her even more irate. It was a calculated act on her part to be sure and it will work with the majority of the Right and the Palin supporters in exactly the manner we’ve seen with Jay.
.
They’re going to rush to her defense and if they actually bother to learn the meaning of that term and its history they will bend over backwards to explain why she’s right and it is basically a “blood libel” placed upon her by the evil, liberal press. This will just anger those who are usually annoyed by Palin’s stupidity which will in turn just make her supporters dig their heels in even deeper.
.
And she and her handlers knew this. Everything from waiting this long to invoking Reagan to her usual game of poor little me to the very specific and likely calculated choice in using the term “blood libel” was a deliberate choice. And by the end of this entire thing we won’t even be back where we started she and many in the conservative punditry will look at the support she was given and see that as a sign to ramp up the rhetoric against the Left just because they think they can.
.
This is just going to get messier I’m afraid and it will continue on that course until someone else gets killed and then even after that.
This is just going to get messier I’m afraid and it will continue on that course until someone else gets killed and then even after that.
.
Well, actually, someone HAS been killed (six of them) and Palin has the gall to pull this.
You’re dead on, Jerry.
.
Palin is someone who definitely subscribes to the adage that there is no such thing as bad press. She thrives on attention, and being controversial is one of the best and easiest ways to remain in the spotlight. That’s why she somehow almost always finds herself in the middle of a controversy.
.
Palin and her group had days to prepare this statement. The use of “blood libel” was deliberate and the outrage generated is very likely what was intended.
And she and her handlers knew this.
.
If your theory is correct, Jerry, then she’s an even greater heartless, calculating bìŧçh than any of us realized.
.
But then, for your theory to be correct, that would mean she’s profiting off a tragedy, the kind of thing Beck warned us that only liberals would do!
.
Oh, who the hëll am I kidding? 🙁
.
I meant someone else, Roger, as in the next shooting down the road.
The key element here, though, is that it was literally founded on a lie. There was not only no evidence showing the shooter admired Palin or the Tea Party, but considerable showing his inclinations leaned the other way — and that didn’t matter. It was factually and provably false, but the lies kept piling on. It had to be “refudiated,” and forcefully, lest it stick — much like the original Blood Libel.
.
No, the key element HERE is that Ms. Palin used an offensive phrase and analogy.
Honestly, all these conservatives and such crying foul over being “blamed” for this mess is really inappropriate. You want to indulge in a week or two, that’s fine, have at it. But O’Reilly going into a tirade about MSNBC and others just two or three days after the shooting? Way to miss the point. It’s like attacking Clinton anti-terrorism policies three days after September 11th; it wasn’t done because that’s grossly inappropriate. Sarah Palin is more worried about covering her own ášš than actually doing something to prevent further gun crimes. Which just prompts the response, “Thou doth protest too much, methinks…”
It’s not like this is the middle of the presidential primaries. Obama had to speak out regarding his connection to Rev. Wright and his statements. There is no real compelling reason for Palin to devote 8 minutes to defending herself. None of this has anything to do with preventing events like this from occurring again. We have apparently given up on solving that problem and instead are focused on blaming others.
It’s just odd: If the shooter had been Muslim or an illegal immigrant, we would be in overdrive on stopping the inevitable assault on freedom and democracy by Muslims and illegal immigrants (even if those actions were committed by random people with no connection to a larger organization).
Instead, it seems we are really prepared to do nothing. What can you do? There will always be crazy white people. Now, let’s go stop that mosque from being built.
I think an important thing to remember is that Sarah Palin is not a victim here. Not compared to the people who, y’know, were shot. Some of whom died.
That’s exactly right. But poor Sarah…always the victim.
.
PAD
Isn’t that the way with all the best attention junkies?
But poor Sarah…always the victim.
.
Perhaps she’s been listening to this:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opXCOUgjOOY
.
Then again, I doubt she and Warren Zevon would along much…
Make that “would GET along much.” Sigh.
I am 100% with you.
And I’ve been saying this ever since I heard what she said. And I’ve been told that I have no idea what I’m talking about. That I’m just a crazy liberal and I’m just mad that she got it right.
*sigh*
What amazed me isn’t that Sarah Palin used such a loaded phrase so thoughtlessly (she’s shown a tremendous inability to think well; Fox News probably lets her write her own questions to answer, for fear she’ll try to think a moment before answering), but that all her handlers left this in. I’m sure that her response was written, rewitten, analyzed, and rewritten over and over to make the perfect response — trying not to capitalize on the tragedy while using it to demonize the left — and with all that, someone thought “blood libel” was just fine.
That tells me she’s not just an insensitive moron, but so are the people she has working for her.
Okay, I’m going to venture out and disagree with an angry PAD, which I know is always risky at best. You’re a better writer than I am, and will probably decimate me for this.
.
As I just pointed out in your other thread, the Loughner’s best friend just just said on Good Morning America that the scumbag didn’t listen to “political radio” or even pay attention to the news. This comes a few days after many singled her out as contributing to the atmosphere that led the shooting.
.
Since she appeared on the political scene 2 /12 years ago, she has been called stupid, semi-retarded, and endured every other insult to her intelligence. She was hung in effigy (something you as a Jew should empathize with). News sites questioned the parentage of her children. Letterman joked about A-Rod knocking up her underage daughter, and then lamely excuse it by saying he meant the of-age daughter. This when the pre-Palin rule used to be that you left the children of candidates alone.
.
Now, a nine year old girl born on 9/11, and 5 others are murdered, and numerous others are wounded by a whack-job who paid no attention to political discourse, and some people say she contributed to the atmosphere that caused it.
.
At least one Democratic operative says Obama needs to pin this event on the Tea Party (source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294_Page2.html), the movement with which Palin closely associated. Sure, they’re not accusing Palin of using the blood of the slain for religious rituals. They’re saying she’s indirectly responsible and thus using the blood of this child and others for political rites.
.
Sure, there are people actually bleeding or dead over this, but she’s being blamed. But because no bullets hit her, she’s to let her character be attacked. She’s supposed to just shut-up and take it? The hëll with that. True, I’d use different terms like “Ghoul” but I’d go on the offense too.
.
I am not, to my knowledge, Jewish, but I do know what blood libel is. Every time I read of an actual case of it, I get as mad as a gentile can be over it. I’ve been to the Holocaust Museum just outside of Jerusalem and wept like a child at what I saw there. Yeah, “Blood Libel” might not have been the best choice of of words, but should I get rip-šhìŧ furious every time someone refers to being “crucified” by work or their ex-wife or whatever annoys them?
Since she appeared on the political scene 2 /12 years ago, she has been called stupid, semi-retarded, and endured every other insult to her intelligence.
.
Are you suggesting she is particularly intelligent? Some attacks may be particularly harshly worded, but they are not without foundation. She has repeatedly demonstrated just how uninformed, oblivious and just flat out ignorant she is.
Letterman joked about A-Rod knocking up her underage daughter, and then lamely excuse it by saying he meant the of-age daughter.
.
Not conceding that Letterman’s explanation of who he was referring to was a post facto excuse. But even if it was, isn’t that exaclty what Palin has done repeatedly? Make a really insulting gaffe and then, when called on it, denied she actually meant what she meant? Yet you defend her adamantly for the same behavior you condemn Letterman for.
.
This when the pre-Palin rule used to be that you left the children of candidates alone.
.
Again with the rush to claim victimhood. “Nobody ever did this to anyone before our poor Sarah came along.” Bûllšhìŧ. The Bush daughters and Chelsea Clinton have all gotten publicly criticized. Should politician’s kids, particularly under-age ones, be off limits? Of course. But they haven’t always been and it didn’t start with the Palins.
Fatso was implying that Chelsea Clinton was (or would be) a lesbian in the early days of the Clinton Administration.
.
But, hey – he was probably high on oxycontin at the time, so cut him some slack.
Yeah, “Blood Libel” might not have been the best choice of of words, but should I get rip-šhìŧ furious every time someone refers to being “crucified” by work or their ex-wife or whatever annoys them?
.
If anyone should, I should, considering that the most known victim of crucifixion was Jewish. Furthermore crucifixion was a standard Roman punishment.
.
So no, it’s not the same.
.
Am I willing to concede that words can shift in meaning and have broader connotations? Sure. For instance, you said I would decimate you. That means reduce by a tenth, so really, what you’re saying doesn’t mean much of anything. But I get what you mean. I’m willing to allow for the poor word choice.
.
“Blood libel” is different. It’s something specific.
.
She could have used the moment to be self-reflective. She could have acknowledge orally what has already been acknowledged tacitly by the removal of the sniper-scope-filled map. She could have said something simple and non-committal. She could have said–wait for it–nothing, particularly considering that surveys are already saying most Americans DON’T think her rhetoric had anything to do with it.
.
Instead she handled it in the absolute worst possible manner. The worst. Rather than making it about lives full of potential cut short, she made it about herself. And she phrased it incredibly insensitively and badly. Not the best choice of words? Short of saying, “The press is trying to lynch me like a black woman,” it would be hard to imagine worse.
.
Palin had a chance to rise to the occasion. Instead she sank to it.
.
PAD
You hit the nail Peter, she should have said nothing. Not only would that have been the right thing to do, but there are plenty of defenders already talking for her.
<>
Part of the problem may be that the phrase has been losing its specific meaning. People who don’t know the history have been using it just because it sounds good. The phrase is being watered down.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said “…the term ‘blood libel’ has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, (but) we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.”
Maybe she was just using the phrase in a generic sense. But since she’s such a big supporter of Israel you’d think she’d understand how offensive it would be.
.
“As I just pointed out in your other thread, the Loughner’s best friend just just said on Good Morning America that the scumbag didn’t listen to “political radio” or even pay attention to the news.”
.
Except that it’s now coming out that he isn’t exactly the guy’s best friend and that they really haven’t been real close for the better part of two years or more.
This when the pre-Palin rule used to be that you left the children of candidates alone.
.
Chelsea Clinton begs to differ. Y’know, being called the “White House dog” and all by the pre-eminent GOP talk-radio pundit.
.
And if you say there’s a difference between a candidate’s kid and a president’s kid, I’m very likely to stick my hand through the monitor and give you a noogie.
So essentially she’s said that nobody can say something that would cause another person to commit murder, and anyone who disagrees is saying things that will cause someone to murder her. Is that about right?
For some reason, i’m thinking of the Keith Laumer story that ends with “I’m the new exterminator.”
Best explanation I’ve seen so far to people wondering why the hëll Palin did what she did:
“What part of ‘Sarah Palin’ do you not understand?”
“Dear” Ms. Palin, PAD?
It seemed better than, “Hey, Ðûmbášš.”
.
PAD
Meh, call a spade a spade.
And if you’d put it that way, there’d still be people asking “which one?”
If given infinite time and resources do you think it would be possible to create someone as simultaneously ridiculous, rage inducing and inexplicably beloved as Sarah Palin?
.
They did that already. His name is Obama.
Ba-dump-da-dump.
Insane Anglo Warlord.
.
Oh – wait a sec – that’s the anagram.
.
Ronald Wilson Reagan
Well, if you’re going to go the anagram route, Mike … I present Huge Berserk Rebel Warthog, also known as George Herbert Walker Bush.
.
(all credit to Dave Barry for that one!)
Sorry, I don’t have time for that. I’m currently dealing with a re-write of Hamlet that an infinite number of monkeys gave me.
‘Dear Ms. Palin:’
Thie entire thread….oh puhleeeeze!
She’s making the tragedy about her? Bulshit. From the moments the shots were fired, the media and the Left have in a grotesque way GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE THIS ABOUT HER.
.
Here’s one Jew who has no problem with it and thinks the analogy is apt:
.
http://www.redstate.com/constitutionalconservative/2011/01/12/a-jewish-perspective-on-sarah-palin-and-blood-libel/
.
And really? It’s been four days of the ‘usual suspects” on the Left basically saying the woman has blood on her hands. Then, of course, because conservatives are supposedly never supposed to respond to a smear they gleefully peddle as fact – you know, how those who use gun terminology ‘don’t get to be” shocked1 Shocked! when it happens.
.
So if there’s any violence in “battleground” states in the future, we should make sure to smear whoever continues to use that term, I guess.
.
She’s making this tragedy about her? Bûllšhìŧ. from the moments the shots were fired, the “usual suspects” on the Left have been TRYING TO MAKE IT ABOUT HER. Despite any lack of connection whatsoever. Six people are dead and a Congresswoman may never be the same and without a shred of evidence whatsoever Palin was tied into it and told she has blood on her hands. For using imagery both the DNC and Daily Kos – as if those entities have no influence – have both used. Despite the fact this guy had a problem with Giffords since 2007, BEFORE Palin burst on the national scene.
.
It’s one thing to rail against not raising the debt ceiling or cap and tax. It’s yet another to hold someone even partially responsible for carnage and murder.
.
She refuses to just sit there and take it – and her response is no more outrageous than those who claimed she had blood on her hands in the first place.
Here’s one Jew who has no problem with it and thinks the analogy is apt:
.
And since we’re going to continue to play this kind of game, here are several Jewish groups who do have a problem:
.
Anti-Defamation League
National Jewish Democratic Council
J Street
Jewish Funds for Justice
.
Since we might as well keep score, that’s 4 to 1 against.
And before I get yelled at again for only responding to one part of somebody’s post…
.
Yes, she is making this about her. It was her decision to join in the right-wing nonsense in going on the attack. It was her decision to not join in the fray. But then, PAD has already addressed all of this in the other thread.
.
Instead, as Jerry Chandler said in the other thread, she’s going to cry and pout about it. And then she’ll go ahead and jump in feet first anyways. She truly has only herself to blame at this point, and she deserves all of it.
And here’s the take from a rabbi who not only thinks the analogy unsuitable, he notes that by making it, she validates the concerns of her critics:
.
.
( Rabbi: By ‘blood libel’ claim Palin admits ‘words can be deadly’)
.
Palin had her chance to offer to the nation her thoughts on the Arizona tragedy. She had days to prepare her speech. And yet, she fûçkëd it up royally by managing to select almost exactly the worst words possible.
.
Will she apologize for her poor choice of metaphor?
.
I’m not holding my breath.
I should also mention that if it was something that Palin had simply said in the course of an interview, or was a tossed off comment in the midst of a press conference, I would have given it no weight at all. At most I would have thought, Oh well, she just said another thing that she’s ignorant about. I would have let it go without comment.
.
But when it’s something that’s very carefully said in a video statement, presumably written by or for her, after several days of reflection…
.
THAT pìššëš me off.
.
PAD
if it was something that Palin had simply said in the course of an interview, … I would have given it no weight at all. ….
.
But when it’s something that’s very carefully said in a video statement, presumably written by or for her, after several days of reflection…
.
Thanks for that. I was completely unaware of the term “blood libel”, let alone it’s significance to Jews, before reading your post that started this thread. And wondered if it was possible that Palin was as well.
.
Or if she was less ignorant than me (pains me to say), perhaps didn’t realize how it would be seen by some. After all, “If you’re not Jewish, you’re not gonna get it.” goes both ways. You can’t understand how much it means to Jews, but you’re expected to understand how much it means so that you don’t use it?
.
Anyway, I’ve been say/ask the above for fear of sounding like yet another apologist who excuses her for everything.
.
But you’re right. Even if she wasn’t familiar with the term or aware of it’s significance, one of the many folks who no doubt was involved in the drafting/reviewing of her statement should have been.
Anyway, I’ve been hesitant to say/ask the above for fear of sounding like yet another apologist who excuses her for everything.
.
Fixed.
Gee, a Jew said he had no problem with it. Other Jews do. My God, Jews are disagreeing about something. Stop the presses. Only someone bending over backwards to be a Palin apologist and drink the right wing talking points Kool-Aid could think that’s remotely relevant.
.
Oh, and hey! The Jew in question isn’t some random guy. He’s an extreme right winger, posting on a site dedicated to red states, and declares that he wants Sarah Palin to be president.
.
But I’m supposed to put stock in his opinions because he’s Jewish. Riiiiiight.
.
She refuses to just sit there and take it – and her response is no more outrageous than those who claimed she had blood on her hands in the first place.
.
So that’s where you draw the line of defense? That because other people said stupid things, she should, too? She shouldn’t try to be better than them. She shouldn’t attempt to be classy where others are coarse. She shouldn’t try to be reflective. She shouldn’t put the attention where it should be: on those who were injured or killed. She shouldn’t try to rise above her critics.
.
Instead her first, best course of action is to say something as stupid as anyone else.
.
Because that’s who you want in the White House: someone who wants to prove they can be not only as big an áššhølë as anyone else, but even bigger.
.
If Palin really, truly believed that it should never have been about her in the first place, then maybe she shouldn’t have made it about her now.
.
PAD
Because that’s who you want in the White House: someone who wants to prove they can be not only as big an áššhølë as anyone else, but even bigger.
.
From the evidence of the past decade, that certainly seems to be the GOP “brand”. Hëll, if it got them the White House for eight years *last* time…
Jerome,
Is there any right-wing politician or statement you ever have a problem with?
There was really no reason for Palin to respond — especially in such a defensive manner. I could *almost* forgive her responding if this were the middle of the GOP primaries. Then you have to get out in front of the story or you’re toast — sort of like Obama and Rev. Wright.
But I would have advised her to leave this alone. The polls demonstrated that the majority of Americans saw no connection, though wouldn’t mind if the rhetoric toned down. So, the only logical reaction is that she made this self-serving video because she *can’t* tone down the rhetoric. It’s all she has.
Jerome, in response to your post, I think what Palin and a lot of her supporters *don’t* get is that it was not an entirely reasonable assumption to believe that the lunatic who shot her might have been motivated by Palin’s gun targets. Something Giffords HERSELF spoke out about when it happened.
To me, the measure of a person would be how they reacted to this sort of thing. She could have taken a step back and said, “Man, this guy wasn’t motivated by anything I did… but he could have been. I need to change my tactics.” Instead, she just plays the victim and claims that the left and the “lamestream” media (e.g. all media that’s not Fox News) is committing “blood libel” and is out to get her, as usual.
Bottom line: Even the most extremist leftist would not have linked Palin to this tragedy if not for unwise decisions she willingly made and the congresswoman attacked called her out on previously. Did people jump to conclusions? Sure. That’s unfortunate. But it wasn’t something pulled out of someone’s ášš. It wasn’t basically, “Someone shot Oprah. It must be someone motivated by the hate speech on FOX.” Huh? That’s out of nowhere.
This is a woman who has learned absolutely nothing. Honestly, I am curious: Has she ever confessed to making a mistake? Or has everything been someone else’s fault?
I think what Palin and a lot of her supporters *don’t* get is that it was not an entirely reasonable assumption to believe that the lunatic who shot her might have been motivated by Palin’s gun targets.
.
The operative work in that sentence is assumption. Reporters shouldn’t be making assumptions. That makes the story about them and their opinions.
The operative work in that sentence is assumption. Reporters shouldn’t be making assumptions.
Why? It’s not an unreasonable first assumption to make for ANYONE, given a) past actions against Giffords, b) past actions by Palin, and c) past action by Giffords’ political opponent?
From an article about dear Sarah’s remarks:
9/11, anyone?
You missed the tiny print, Mike:
.
*Unless said crime was committed by a Muslim or somebody who looks kinda-sorta Arab. Then we’ll blame the entire religion.
Wait … you can’t be suggesting that Palin has been libeling an entire religion and its associated ethnic groups by suggesting that all its members share in a conspiracy that she simply assumes to exist, are you?
I’m glad to hear that Palin now supports the Park51 Muslim Community Center.
Since she appeared on the political scene 2 /12 years ago, she has been called stupid, semi-retarded, and endured every other insult to her intelligence.
***************
SER: Her intelligence has been questioned because she’s done things that are intellectually questionable. Actions and statements have consequences. Instead, she refuses to accept that any criticism is valid. It’s just crap from “haters.”
This is the base instinct to which she appeals. It’s the worst U.S. instinct. Other countries sometimes view the U.S. as arrogant and unreflective. She personifies this.
As I said previously, if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it. Her first public address — at the GOP national convention — set the tone for who she is and what she represents — she insulted and belittled community organizers. Her rhetoric is basically to demean the opposition (“how is that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya?”) and then become offended when legitimate criticism is made of her.
The last blood libel was in 1946, in Kielce, Poland. 40 Jews were killed. This is well within the lifetime of many people today. 40 Jews who survived the Holocaust were massacred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom
Let no one say it’s something that died out years ago.
I would say Palin had no idea what she was saying…but that doesn’t make it any less horrible in the face of a Jewish person’s life hanging on by a thread. Gabrielle Giffords is the victim here, not her.
She wants to know what a blood libel is? My family keeps the door cracked open on Passover, because we want everyone to see we have nothing to hide, a tradition that didn’t get started because we were showing off.
I appreciate that she’s a friend to Israel. Friendship is a wonderful bond between people. It also means not insulting them and when you do hurt them, apologizing in the most sincere tones.
Palin needs to learn to choose her words wisely. They have meaning. And they can hurt people very badly.
Every so often, something shows up in the Arab press, lately from Iran, that regurgitates the blood libel. It hasn’t led to any new murders – I think it’s more part of the endless anti-Israel propaganda in some quarters – but it’s still out there among anti-Semites.
For those not familiar with some of the ramifications of the blood libel – there were at least three “blood libel saints”* – here’s a fairly extensive Wikipedia article on it.
.
.
*William of Norwich (apparently the first such), Little Saint Hugh (oftimes “Little Sir Hugh”) of Lincolnshire (Steeleye Span recorded a version of the ballad “Little Sir Hugh“, changing the line “Out came the Jew’s daughter” to “Out came a lady gay”), and Simon of Trent.
Bill, Malcolm, Jerome:
.
This is obviously something our host feels very passionately and personally about.
.
The only reason we hang out here is because we respect, like, and appreciate our host.
.
Not that obligates us to agree with him, or withhold our disagreements.
.
But this is a debate that is going on in a LOT of places around the internet. If you like, I can point you to a couple.
.
It is in no way necessary to argue it here.
.
It might seem odd for a lifelong bachelor to cite marital advice, but something I read once about how to resolve arguments between spouses: sometimes it’s best to yield the argument to the side that cares more.
.
In this case, PAD seems to care a tremendous amount about what Palin said. I disagree, as do you, but I don’t feel so strongly about it that I feel the need to argue it here.
.
Let this one go. Not because you agree with him, but because you — like me — like, respect, admire, and appreciate him, and his granting this forum where we can interact with him.
.
J.
Very well said Jay
Thank you for saying that.
.
PAD
?????? Why should this be a topic on which others cannot disagree with PAD, as opposed to any other than he feels strongly passionate about? If you felt this way, Peter, why did you enable comments for this blog entry? If it’s not necessary to argue it here, then what are we all doing here? (Or were you talking about something else, Jay? Sorry, I’m coming in a bit late to this thread.)
(Already regretting this… Luigi, are you setting me up or something?)
.
No, Luigi, I was specifically referring to the “blood libel” argument. I believe that one can use “a blood libel” as a description of an act, without cheapening “The Blood Libel” against Jews. But I am choosing to not make that argument here. And I am asking those who agree with me to do the same, out of respect for PAD and his clearly-expressed passionate feelings on the subject.
.
J.
And I think this brings to light what is wrong with this country at it’s core:
Politicians … people we elect to serve not our party but the entire country . . . approach this responsibility the same way they approach being sports fans.
It’s like “I don’t care how much my team sucks. I’m a Redskins fan and I’ll always be a Redskins fan.”
Except when the Redskins have a lousy season, people don’t die.
The right sticks with Palin because they got her in a bad trade and they won’t turn on someone on their “team”.
When the person they should be supporting is all the American People. Not just the top 5%.
AND BOTH SIDES DO IT. No one in Government is looking out for the people. They are looking out for their constituency (read: salaries).
This is a response to Roger Tang. There isn’t a Reply link under his post.
“Reporters shouldn’t be making assumptions.” Why? It’s not an unreasonable first assumption to make for ANYONE, given a) past actions against Giffords, b) past actions by Palin, and c) past action by Giffords’ political opponent?
That makes the story about them and their opinions. That was the third sentence in my original post which seems to answer your question before you asked.
When the Manson Family killed Sharon Tate no one blamed the Beatles even though Manson said he was influenced by Helter Skelter. When John Hinkley shot Reagan no one blamed Jodie Foster even though Hinkley said he wanted to do something to impress her. Loughner hasn’t said anything, much less anything about his motives, yet pundits and reporters are seem to have no problem making assumptions. I’m sure that if Loughner said he was inspired by Bono or Angelina Jolie the press would have no problem blaming his mental state.
PAD’s previous thread discounted Palin’s culpability yet even here that seems to not register.
George: This is a response to Roger Tang. There isn’t a Reply link under his post.
.
Generally we go up to the first comment above the comment we want to respond that does have a reply button. That way your comment slots in underneath the one you’re responding to.
.
“When the Manson Family killed Sharon Tate no one blamed the Beatles even though Manson said he was influenced by Helter Skelter. When John Hinkley shot Reagan no one blamed Jodie Foster even though Hinkley said he wanted to do something to impress her. “
.
Yeah, but the Beatles and Jodie Foster didn’t paint Sharon Tate and Reagan as sub-human monsters who hated their country.
.
The Beatles and Jodie Foster didn’t paint Sharon Tate and Reagan as vile bureaucrats who wanted to happily march the elderly and the handicapped to their death.
.
The Beatles and Jodie Foster didn’t paint Sharon Tate and Reagan as people who wanted to take everything away from you and give it to the undeserving.
.
The Beatles and Jodie Foster didn’t paint Sharon Tate and Reagan as people who hated you and your race because your race was different than theirs.
.
The Beatles and Jodie Foster didn’t actually call for “fans” to consider acts of gun violence against their political enemies if they didn’t get their way come November.
.
Palin, Angle, Broden, West, Kaufman, Grassley, Beck, Limbaugh and others all have done one or more of the above. And there have been times in the last two years especially where Palin was called upon to denounce the statements of violence, fear mongering or racism by her fellows and she came out declaring support for the speaker instead.
.
She could have been, dare I say it, Presidential at any given time with any given opportunity but she would rather score points. She could have been responsible at any given opportunity in the last few years but instead chose to ratchet up the rhetoric or support those who were doing so. She could have addressed the situation in a way that wasn’t designed to cast herself as the victim while the real victims lay in hospitals and morgues and then to further declare herself essentially a martyr in a most insulting fashion… But that would be beyond her nature it seems.
Jerry, MY point is that Gifford’s ACTUAL opponent was wielding a weapon and talked about taking her out. And that this was the THIRD violent incident GIffords faced.
.
It just seems just as biased to go out of your way and pretend Palin had nothing to do with this and not ask questions to see if there was a connection.
.
No, I take that back. It’s not biased. It’d be STUPID not to ask questions.
.
Uhm… Okay, but I was responding to George’s Tate/Reagan comment and not what you were talking about so I’m not sure why you’re clarifying that to me specifically.
That makes the story about them and their opinions. That was the third sentence in my original post which seems to answer your question before you asked.
.
No, it does not answer my question.
.
Once is unique. Twice is a coincidence. Thrice can be a pattern.
.
You’re going out of your way to deny that multiple incidents that occurred in a specific context. Later information established there wasn’t a link, but you’re denying that a reasonable person COULD see a pattern there. That’s just as much an outsider trying to read something into the story as the approach you’re taking.
.
Again, why?
Once is unique. Twice is a coincidence. Thrice can be a pattern.
.
Actually, I think the more appropriate line is the one from “Goldfinger”: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”
.
PAD
The difference is that “Helter Skelter” contained nothing remotely suggesting murder. Jodie Foster never made public statements laced with gun rhetoric or did something that could be seen as targeting Reagan.
.
No rational mind could draw a connection between the Beatles and slaughter, or Jodie Foster and presidential assassination.
.
But rational minds COULD draw a connection between target sights and constant gun rhetoric, and the reason we know this is that months before it happened, rational people were saying, “This is a dangerous direction for political discourse to be taking because some nut could take it to the next level.”
.
So as I said, if people were talking about the dangers it presented BEFORE someone on the target map was shot, it seems unreasonable that people should stop talking about it AFTER someone on the target map was shot.
.
What happened was not Palin’s fault. But she left herself open to being linked to the crime in a way that the Beatles and Jodie Foster did not. The fact that apparently it never occurred to her that such a thing could happen speaks to her inability to anticipate problems. Her subsequent response speaks to her tone-deafness and inability to read the mood of the country.
.
PAD
PAD: Her subsequent response speaks to her tone-deafness and inability to read the mood of the country.
.
It also speaks to her limited range. What has Palin had to offer up to now? Anger and a feeling of being the victim. What was her response to this tragedy? The same thing.
.
It’s all she can do. She used to make me angry, but now I think pity is more appropriate. She doesn’t even deserve anger, she’s just a limited person who doesn’t think she needs to improve.
.
Did you really even expect the chance of anything more, Jason? Hope for it maybe, but expect it? Attack the press and play victim; it’s all the woman can do.
.
Blow a softball VP interview? Attack the press and play victim.
.
Say something utterly clueless and get called on it? Attack the press and play victim.
.
Need to talk about something when you’re quitting your job? Attack the press and play victim.
.
Don’t like that your own words make you look stupid when quoted back at you? Attack the press and play victim.
.
Watching your in party and general approval ratings drop like a rock into the low 20s? Attack the press and play victim.
.
Decide that you really don’t have class enough to not release a video declaring your victimhood on the morning of the memorial service for the real victims of this event? Attack the press and play victim.
.
It’s all she’s got. When she says or does something stupid it’s always (Step 1) the “lamestream” media’s fault somehow and then (Step 2) that she’s being victimized by someone on the Left. It’s part of the reason that I’m far more than just very confident that she will never see the inside of the Oval Office as anything but a visitor. Other than the (relative) handful of diehard supporters that she has there is no one that finds crying, whining and “poor little me” acts Presidential.
OK, this is NOT the argument I agreed to back away from.
.
So, we should self-censor ourselves because some insane person somewhere might do something, without even having heard what we said?
.
There’s not only ZERO evidence that the Tucson shooter was a Palin/Tea Party fan, but considerable evidence that he was apathetic or actually opposed to them. He was fixated on Giffords from 2007, long before either was nationally prominent.
.
But if “inflammatory rhetoric” is the new taboo standard, completely divorced from any causal relationship to anything bad happening, then I got a ton of examples of the left saying far worse than Palin ever did, starting with eight years of Bush hatred and assassination chic. I’m talking about pictures of him with a sniper’s scope superimposed, postage stamps of Bush with a gun to his head, “KILL BUSH” T-shirts, even a whole movie dedicated to his assassination. I’m talking Bush, as well as Sarah Palin hanged in effigy. I’m talking Alec Baldwin on live TV screaming for a member of Congress (Henry Hyde) to be dragged from his home and lynched. And don’t get me started on the death wishes for Ðìçk Cheney whenever he had a heart problem.
.
At the time, I just said “let the crazies be crazy” and shrugged it off. OK, I didn’t exactly shrug it off, but I filed it away for the time it would be worth bringing back up. Such as now.
.
But if what Palin said is now so horrible, I want to bring it back up. I want those people subjected to the same level of criticism as Palin and the Tea Party are being subjected to — over the actions of an Emo proto-anarchist pothead anti-war 9/11 Truther lunatic.
.
And I want the critics to explain why all that was no big deal, but some lousy graphics that tons of political campaigns have used — including the DLCC in the same election cycle — is so horrendous. Why a “crosshairs” (which looked more like missile target designators or printers’ registration marks) on a map of the US was more worthy of condemnation than a freakin’ GUN to Bush’s HEAD was.
.
The answer is: we don’t cater to the lowest common denominator. We don’t censor ourselves because of what might happen if our words or pictures fall into the perceptions of those who lack maturity or reason or sanity. We don’t sanitize everything we say and do because everything must be child-proof and lunatic-proof.
.
I’m an adult, dammit. Don’t treat me like a child. And you’re adults, so I’ll treat you like adults. Mature, reasoning, responsible adults. Who can actually think for yourselves, and take responsibility for yourselves.
.
And sometimes that means looking at “inflammatory” material and not completely losing your šhìŧ.
.
Didn’t I read something recently about how “the censors never win?”
.
J.
Didn’t I read something recently about how “the censors never win?”
.
FFS, Jay, you just do not get it.
.
Your argument boils down to “Well, the other side did it, so it’s ok if we do it, too”. No, it isn’t ok if you do it too.
.
And guess what? 6 people are dead in an assassination attempt, yet the rhetoric is Ã-Ø-Fûçkìņg-K apparently.
.
Nobody has learned a God dámņ thing out of this.
So, we should self-censor ourselves because some insane person somewhere might do something, without even having heard what we said?
.
At no point did I say that anyone should censor themselves.
.
However, when people are in positions of power, as Palin is, their words carry vast weight. And they have to be aware that it’s entirely possible that people can take even the most innocuous sentiments and take them to absurd levels. As was pointed out up thread, for instance, people find inspiration for killing in Beatles songs and “Catcher in the Rye.” So you can never predict what’s going to set people off, or at least what they will claim will set them off.
.
So it’s a matter of degrees. If people can be inspired to violence by the most innocuous of statements, then how much more likely are they to be inspired to violence by statements laced with violence, combined with violence-suggesting visual images and rhetoric that paints fellow Americans as anti-American traitors.
.
Now: should Palin and her ilk be required not to say anything along these lines? Well, no. But when they say stuff like this, they are leaving themselves open to criticism and condemnation if the bullets start flying. And they should factor that into decisions as to how they’re going to conduct themselves and what they say. Because you can’t use say and do the kind of stuff that Palin et al have been doing and then be shocked–shocked!–if violence ensues.
.
People are called leaders for a reason. If you lead your people to violent waters, you don’t get to complain if they drink of those waters.
.
Did the Arizona shooter do what he did because of what Palin said? No. He did it because he’s a sociopath. But you have to be monumentally stupid to be unaware that people are always looking for reasons that things happen, and trying to make sense of the senseless.
.
So if you’re smart, you’re going to figure out that if you are going to demonize your opponents, lace your public statements with gun rhetoric, and put target sights on maps, then if something violent happens–based upon the tendency of Americans to place blame–that you’re going to be (pardon the expression) targeted.
.
Palin wasn’t able to figure that out. She was unprepared for the negative response and the blowback. Therefore, once is forced to the ineluctable conclusion that she is not, in fact, smart. And her subsequent efforts at damage control simply pìššëd øff people, including me.
.
And I was one of the people who was saying she wasn’t responsible and that it was unfair to try and draw a direct causal link between her and the shooter. Now I’m so angry with her that I figure, “Screw it. If people want to blame her, let them.” So, y’know, nice going, Sarah.
.
PAD
No, Craig, YOU just don’t get it.
.
There was NO causal relationship between the Tucson shooting and ANY inflammatory rhetoric. The shooter started his obsession with Giffords in 2007, and gave off “crazy psycho killer” vibes to a LOT of people. He was in NO WAY tied to Palin, the Tea Party, the right, or even the left. He was off in his own little world of crazy.
.
So you want to condemn the “incendiary rhetoric” that had nothing to do with the shooting? Why not blame it on global warming and the Illuminati, while you’re at it?
.
I’d stake money that you were one of those shouting “send the body to Glenn Beck” when that census worker staged his suicide to look like a murder, too. Not much, ‘cuz I’m cheap, but a buck or so.
.
I’m not the least bit interested in using the people killed and wounded by the Tucson lunatic to advance my own political agenda, and try to hang his deeds around my opponents’ necks. Pity you can’t say the same.
.
J.
There was NO causal relationship between the Tucson shooting and ANY inflammatory rhetoric.
.
So just because you say that, then the rhetoric is ok? No, no, and more no. Such rhetoric is not ok, PERIOD. Why the hëll anybody defends it is beyond me.
.
If you can’t grasp that after this incident, then you never will. I probably shouldn’t be surprised by this.
.
But I certainly look forward to your defense of “It’s the liberals fault!” the next time this kind of thing happens, which is inevitable.
.
Not much, ‘cuz I’m cheap, but a buck or so.
.
Yeah, you’re cheap. You’re also easy, as evidenced by your unwavering support for anything stupid and ignorant Palin says.
.
Although, I do wonder how you and the Palins of the world will spin it when somebody does this and does says “Yes, Palin was my inspiration”. I’m sure it’ll be grand.
So, Craig, “such rhetoric” is not OK? Fine.
.
Who you gonna put in charge of deciding what words are OK, and what are not? What will be the penalties for breaking those rules? And what about that pesky 1st Amendment?
.
We don’t accept “I was just following orders” as a valid excuse for crimes. We hold individuals responsible for their deeds. Now you’re saying “I just took a hint” is an excuse.
.
Your argument boils down to “I want the other side to just STFU, especially when I’m calling them names and lying about them!”
.
Dream on. And go revisit the First Amendment. Here’s a video to refresh your recollection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs
.
J.
We hold individuals responsible for their deeds.
.
Unless it’s a Republican spewing violent rhetoric against their fellows, calling for revolutions, ‘remedies’, and insinuating that if they don’t win elections, then political assassinations are the way to go.
.
Then they have no responsibility whatsoever.
.
Yes, you’ve certainly made that *quite* clear.
.
And go revisit the First Amendment.
.
And go revisit a few court cases. The First Amendment – much like the Second that the Right enjoys pointing in the face of their political opponents when they don’t get their way – is not absolute.
Unless it’s a Republican spewing violent rhetoric against their fellows, calling for revolutions, ‘remedies’, and insinuating that if they don’t win elections, then political assassinations are the way to go.
.
To steal a phrase, oh, FFS.
.
Words ain’t deeds.
.
And I don’t get my knickers in a knot about idiots who spout “violent rhetoric” on either side — including the ones on your side that you’re so willing to give a pass to. Where’s your hysteria about the well-documented death threats against Palin that have flooded Twitter since this weekend? Were you outraged at the movie “Death Of A President,” which depicted the assassination of George W. Bush? Did you call for protests against Sandra Bernhard when she wished for Palin to get gang-raped while she was in New York City? Were you furious when Kilborn put “Snipers Wanted” over a picture of Bush?
.
Of course not. That’s no big deal to you. You only get worked up when the right does it.
.
Your position would be marginally defensible if you were not so biased in your outrage. As it stands, though… you’re just a hack who feigns his moral outrage for your partisan gain.
.
And not even very well.
.
J.
There was NO causal relationship between the Tucson shooting and ANY inflammatory rhetoric.
.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Jay, but historically, people don’t require an actual causal relationship to place blame.
.
People blamed Bush for the flooding of New Orleans. People blamed Obama for the BP oil spill. The reasoning was the same in both instances: They should have known this could have happened and prepared for it. Personally, I don’t think that’s a fair attitude to have, but it didn’t stop people from saying it.
.
Now: Considering the number of people who were sounding the alarm about Palin’s gun-obsessed rhetoric BEFORE anything happened, doesn’t it seem reasonable to expect–based on the public’s track record of placing blame–that she might well take a hit if someone DID shoot one of the people she targeted?
.
If your answer to that is “yes,” then congratulations: You’ve just agreed with me, and you’ve also proven that you’re smarter than Sarah Palin. Which leaves us wondering why she didn’t dial down the rhetoric or remove the map from her site BEFORE someone got shot. Actually, no: We don’t wonder. There’s only two answers. Either she didn’t know, or she didn’t care. Ignorance or arrogance; take your pick. Or maybe it was both.
.
If the answer is no, then you’re ignoring history, as did Palin. And that’s just who you want in the Oval Office: someone with no grasp or concept of history.
.
Your call.
.
PAD
You only get worked up when the right does it.
.
Somebody is in desperate need of a mirror.
.
But then, you’re utterly wrong about me (as usual). I have criticized. I said it was wrong for Obama to say “they bring a knife, you bring a gun”. I’ve said it’s pathetic how both sides have jumped at the chance to score political points over this.
.
And I’ll say it again: it’s readily apparent that nothing is going to change because of this incident.
.
Your position would be marginally defensible if you were not so biased in your outrage.
.
Says the person who won’t even admit that they believe Palin – or anybody on the Right, for that matter – can do no wrong. We’ve seen it time after time after time with you on this blog.
.
But yeah, I’m biased. And you know why? SIX PEOPLE ARE DEAD.
.
Again, go find a mirror, and let us know what you see, because it isn’t pretty in the least. But at least the face you see doesn’t have a bullet hole in it, right?
Where’s your hysteria about the well-documented death threats against Palin that have flooded Twitter since this weekend?
.
I know you weren’t talking to me, but I assume it was generalized.
.
I haven’t seen anyone here displaying hysteria about anything, so I’d say the hysteria is probably in the same place. You have, however, put your finger on one of the reasons I don’t bother with Twitter. On the other hand, random people saying stupid things isn’t the same as political leaders in the spotlight saying stupid things. It’s just not. You can’t put random, often anonymous people spouting off on the same level as Palin’s official targeting and gun rhetoric. You just can’t.
.
Were you outraged at the movie “Death Of A President,” which depicted the assassination of George W. Bush?
.
Yes. I thought it was a repulsive concept from start to finish. Never saw it, never will.
.
Did you call for protests against Sandra Bernhard when she wished for Palin to get gang-raped while she was in New York City?
.
No, but then again, I don’t typically call for protests when anyone says anything, even when it’s tasteless. Plus I’ve never been a big fan of hers; I don’t think she’s funny.
.
Were you furious when Kilborn put “Snipers Wanted” over a picture of Bush?
.
Hadn’t heard about it. Depends on the context. If he simply did it because he thought it was funny, then I think that’s horrific. I can’t stand Bush, but he’s still a human being with a wife and children who love him. I’d never “target” him in that way or condone it, even in the name of humor. On the other hand, if Kilborn did it as a response to, say, Palin’s target map in order to say, “See? This is what it’s like,” then he was trying to make a point.
.
I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit in with your short hand, self-supplied response of, “Of course not,” but if you ask a question, you don’t always get the response you’re expecting.
.
PAD
OK, gimme a moment to shift rhetorical gears here. Answering you, PAD, requires a whole ‘nother set of muscles than I’m using with Craig.
.
(Wrench) (Grind) (Gronch) Whoops, kinda missed the clutch there…
.
I’m of two minds on the causality thing. On the one hand, the logical part of my mind gets infuriated at those who don’t use reason. On the other, it’s a truism that in many cases perception is more important than reality, because people react more to what they perceive than to the truth.
.
I can come up with several reasons why Palin didn’t take down the map. For one, it was for an election that was over months ago, so it wasn’t a real priority. For another, it would instantly be seized upon as an admission of guilt. For a third, I have a personal rule that I NEVER delete anything I publish, because I “own” it all and would not even think of doing things that might look like I was trying to hide something.
.
Palin’s rhetoric was, and is, by and large, mild by the standards of others in similar positions of authority. I could (and have) cited examples of her political peers saying far more inflammatory things. I got a whole list of Obama saying things that I don’t think should EVER be uttered by a sitting president.
.
Palin’s speech patterns (which tend to grate on me) tend to be a bit too cornpone, and filled with childish euphemisms for profanity (I cringe at her “gosh-darns”), to really consider her much of a firebrand.
.
What she does have (as others have noted) is a way of “pìššìņg øff the right people.” She is the master of “living, rent-free, in people’s heads” and can rouse amazing passions far out of proportion to her actual words.
.
We haven’t had a public figure of Giffords’ prominence be killed or wounded in decades — I think the Reagan assassination attempt was the last major one. (The assassination attempts against W. and Clinton were unsuccessful, and Saddam’s against Bush I was after he left office.) And in that case, Reagan’s shooting was not directly tied to any of his policies or politics. And so far, the evidence in the Tucson case leans the same way — the shooter was insane, and his motive appears to not be tied to anything outside his own madness.
.
So no, it was NOT predictable that Palin’s rhetoric from several months ago would lead a schizophrenic obsessed with a Blue Dog Democrat for over three years to start shooting. And I don’t think that anyone — from the lowest to the highest — should take into account “some lunatic somewhere might, in no connection to what I’m saying or doing, do something horrific.” It’s like blaming Chris Carter for 9/11 because he had The Lone Gunmen deal with a hijacked plane intending to crash into the World Trade Center.
.
Crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons. To cater to the crazies will not prevent them from doing crazy things, but merely force them to find something else to set them off.
.
J.
So no, it was NOT predictable that Palin’s rhetoric from several months ago would lead a schizophrenic obsessed with a Blue Dog Democrat for over three years to start shooting.
.
Rarely, Jay, have I seen someone go so very, very far to completely miss the point. I’ve said it repeatedly, and I thought I was clear, but obviously I was not.
.
It is not predictable that Palin’s rhetoric could have led to violence.
.
It IS, however, predictable that Palin’s rhetoric would be blamed for it. And the reasons for that blame have nothing to do with the liberal media or liberal leanings, as much as you or others would like to pretend that it does. It has to do with the following:
.
1) People were making noises BEFORE anything happened that violence might result. So if they were already drawing a causal link to potential violence before it happened, how much more likely were they to do so AFTER it happened?
.
2) Palin is far more effective at getting her message of violence out into the public than any of the others who might have used similar rhetoric. You know what? With great power comes great responsibility. If you’re going to enjoy the upside of such success–money, supporters, your own TV show, a gig with Fox News–then you’re going to have to be prepared for the downside. If you’re smart, you should make allowances for that. Palin didn’t make allowances for it. Therefore, she’s not smart. Call me crazy, but I don’t like “not smart” people in the White House. They tend to initiate unnecessary wars based on lies while tanking the economy.
.
3) It is insulting to one’s intelligence to have a woman who paints herself as tough and strong when it suits her and as a poor, put-upon victim when it suits her. And the latter is even more repulsive when there are actual victims involved.
.
I’m aware that none of what I just said relates to your points. But then again, nothing you said, including your conclusions, relates to any of my points, so I suppose there’s balance there.
.
PAD
.
“Who you gonna put in charge of deciding what words are OK, and what are not? What will be the penalties for breaking those rules? And what about that pesky 1st Amendment?”
.
.
.
Stephen Broden, Republican political candidate from the state of Texas in the 30th congressional district –
.
BRODEN: “Our nation was founded on violence.”
WATSON: “In 2010 you would urge that as an option, though?”
BRODEN: “The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as relates to our liberties and our freedoms.””
.
Rep. Allen West, (R-FL) – “Let me tell you what you’ve got to do. You’ve got to make the fellow scared to come out of his house. That’s the only way that you’re going to win. That’s the only way you’re going to get these people’s attention.”
.
Joyce Kaufman, then Chief of Staff for Allen West – (Speaking on the then upcoming 2010 election) “And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
.
Brad Goehring, candidate (R-CA) – “If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to “thin” the herd.”
.
Sharron Angle, Nevada Republican/Tea Party candidate – “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
.
I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
.
Catherine Crabill, failed GOP candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates – “We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that’s the beauty of our Second Amendment right.”
.
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – “Right now I’m a member of Congress. And I believe that my job here is to be a foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines. And people need to understand, this isn’t a game. this isn’t just a political talk show that’s happening right now. This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. This may be the time when that link breaks. And I’m going to do everything I can, I know you are, to make sure that we keep that link secure. We cannot allow that link to break, because as Reagan said, America is the last great hope of mankind. Where do we go…
.
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people– we the people– are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”
.
.
.
I’ll step up right now and tell you that words like that are very much not okay. As a matter of fact, words like some of those, words made in public calling for gun violence as an option to remedy votes cast that we don’t like, used by someone like you and me and directed at some of the people speaking would end up with us at the very least in police custody and under investigation.
.
Hëll, right now the same conservative media that gave remarks like that a pass are now saying threatening remarks like that should be and should have been investigated and acted upon. Oh, they’re not saying that the Republican and Tea Party candidates who said them or the crowds who were there for some of the comments who screamed their approval for the idea of gunning down Democrats if they couldn’t vote them out of office or gunning them down for voting for Tea Party no-no’s like ObamaCare. No, the conservative gasbags are claiming that the Sheriff fell down on the job by not doing something about the shooter in this incident sooner based on his violent rhetoric.
.
It’s sometimes amazing that they can actually fit in the same room with anything the size of their own hypocrisy.
.
Then when you have other politicians Like Palin, Bachmann, Angle, King, Grassley, and others building a climate of fear, paranoia and hate by lying to the stupid and the gullible about how Obama and the Democrats want to pull the plug on grandma, want to march the elderly and the handicapped before “death panels” in order to judge them unworthy of living, want to come into your home and control what you eat, read, do or watch…
.
.
.
Senator Chuck Grassley (Lying to the stupid about what end of life care actually is, does and means – “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
.
.
.
When they have a support system like Fox News that will happily parrot any lie no matter how insane or any talking point no matter how violent, people like Beck who van be counted on to spend hours a day talking to his audience, their voters, about fabricated facts and bogus conspiracies designed to make people afraid and declare the President a racist who has a powerful dislike of white people and talks of his hatred of Christianity and this country and people like Limbaugh who parrot the talking points and the violent rhetoric and then vomit out their own special lies while declaring that the President and the Democrats want to take what’s yours away from you and that all of there policies are actually “reparations” in disguise so that they can finally take away from the deserving white majority and give it all to those undeserving minorities…
.
.
.
“Glenn Beck, speaking on President Obama – “[T]his guy is, I believe, a racist.” And saying that Obama has, “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
.
.
Rush Limbaugh – “The problem is that you’ve got people running the show now, from Obama all the way down through his administration through the House of Representatives, who regardless of their race are racists.”
.
Rush Limbaugh – “Some people are thinking — some people speculating that all of this — the cap-and-trade legislation, health care reform, is nothing more than reparations in disguise, that it is a way of transferring the nation’s wealth to its, quote-unquote, “rightful owners”; that they’re smart enough to know that if they call a piece of legislation “reparations,” it doesn’t have a prayer. But if they couch the legislation in fairness and compassion — the usual liberal terms — that people will go for it, because they think that they have created enough white guilt at all of the unjust immorality of the history of this country that people sit by and let it happen, so that their own personal guilt can be assuaged, regardless of the impact on the country.”
.
.
.
And Palin had been specifically asked by people from the Left all the way over to middle of the ground moderates to say something about it when one of her pet Tea Party candidates made statements that were little more than calls to violence or insane ramblings designed to incite hate and maybe violence. Her response every time was to run to Twitter or call into a talk show or get on Fox News and declare her strongest support for the person saying the garbage. Yup, she went on record giving her strongest support to lies and to people discussing how the bullet box and violence was a viable option along with the ballot box.
.
Yeah, I’ll say garbage like that is wrong. Most of it may be in fact be legal, but it’s wrong no matter who does it and who it is directed at. And when your side is creating an atmosphere filled with violent imagery, filled with violent rhetoric, filled with fear mongering and hate mongering… Expect blowback when someone like Loughner does exactly what your side has been calling for and does so to a person that your side publically targeted with crosshairs. Expect blowback when some people have asked you (hëll, some practically begged) to refute and denounce the violent talk and you declared your support for the speaker and the speaker’s words and then a person that you declared a viable target gets targeted. Expect blowback when previous subjects who have been arrested for acts like this or preparing to perform acts like this cite in their investigation interviews specific conspiracy theories and calls to arms that you have said or supported.
.
Ultimately Loughner and anyone like him is the person who bears final responsibility for their actions. However, as I said in the other thread, I am in a professional position to tell you from experience that someone who is unstable and not too far gone into their own little world can be talked down and away from fighting or acting violent with the right words and the right tone. I can also tell you from experience that someone who is unstable but not acting violent can be talked into violence very, very easily. If someone like that finally snaps and attacks someone that you’ve targeted with the kind of garbage that Palin and crew have been spewing recently… Don’t insult us by pretending to be surprised that something like this might happen or that Palin and crew would catch blowback over creating the toxic, violent rhetoric that has already led to several unstable people to try something like this. You, Palin and all the others by acting surprised and shocked by this really create only two options here; you’re either pretending to be dumb as a brick or you really are.
.
Were you outraged at the movie “Death Of A President,” which depicted the assassination of George W. Bush? Did you call for protests against Sandra Bernhard when she wished for Palin to get gang-raped while she was in New York City? Were you furious when Kilborn put “Snipers Wanted” over a picture of Bush?
.
Of course not. That’s no big deal to you. You only get worked up when the right does it.
.
You know what, Jay? This is why you are the perfect Palin supporter. You’re chronically factually challenged, you report talking points as if they were facts and you make statements that you think are correct and make you look intelligent that do little more than make you look like the truly ignorant ášš and f’n moron that you are.
.
Of course not. That’s no big deal to you. You only get worked up when the right does it.
.
Back when Bush was still I office someone, likely you, brought up “Death Of A President” as if expecting everyone here to cheer and support it. Just about everyone here said it was disgusting and wrong; especially given some of the fringe rhetoric.
.
Palin supporters brought up Bernhard’s vile remarks back when she made them. Everyone here said that they were way in the wrong and just about every here agreed that Bernhard should be ignored (which was easy to do since she was never very famous to begin with and is pretty much washed up now.)
.
I have no idea what you’re talking about with Kilborn, but that, if true, it was mind numbingly stupid and he would have been rightly blasted by everyone had someone took a shot at Bush afterwards whether or not it could be shown that they definitely saw that or not.
.
Of course, the difference between some fringe film that got very little mainstream play or promotion, a washed up “comic” who was only ever really famous for being Madonna’s sidekick and a pretty much failed TV host (if you’re talking about Craig Kilborn) and Palin, Angle, West and others is that they are not current or former elected officials or people campaigning for elected office; they are not people in positions of authority.
.
And not inly did most of the people here when presented with these things say that they were disgusting and deserving of rebuke, but so did a number of “Left Wing” media people like the hosts on MSNBC. I know for a fact that Olbermann denounced the Bernard remarks and has denounced in the past any calls for violent acts against Palin, Bush, Malkin, Coulter and others when they were made. Gee, how many of the Fox News idiots who whined about remarks by the left discussed how Angle, Palin and others making remarks like calling for “2nd amendment remedies” were out of bounds?
.
And maybe you forgot about how most the people on this site took Hillary to task for her “assassination” remarks back during the primary and discussed how talk like that by anyone, but especially elected officials, was beyond the pale.
.
“And I don’t get my knickers in a knot about idiots who spout “violent rhetoric” on either side — including the ones on your side that you’re so willing to give a pass to. Where’s your hysteria about the well-documented death threats against Palin that have flooded Twitter since this weekend?”
.
You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot just for the first half of that statement alone, but you’re an even bigger idiot for the second half. No one here approves of or gives a pas to death threats. But what makes you a truly monumental idiot is that you can’t seem to grasp the concept of there being a difference between anonymous šhìŧ disturbers on the web who almost no one has heard of or knows about and elected official, candidates running for office and other well known figures or authority making comments like that.
.
But then, given that you think that calling a woman you politically disagree with a c*nt is the height of political satirical cleverness (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/10/15/tis-pity-shes-a-whørë.php), I can understand you not being bright enough to get that.
I can come up with several reasons why Palin didn’t take down the map. For one, it was for an election that was over months ago, so it wasn’t a real priority. For another, it would instantly be seized upon as an admission of guilt.
.
Um, Jay, she did take the map off her website immediately after the shooting. That’s why it drew attention – as you point out, it seemed like an admission of guilt. The question being asked is, if Palin is as smart as some accuse her of being, how could she not realize the blowback potential of that map, and take it off her website immediately after the election? Instead, she left it sitting there for two years, until someone finally did shoot one of the people she had placed a targeting reticule on.
.
Either she’s too foolish to realize how that looks, or (for the conspiracy theorists in the audience) she actually wanted someone to do something like this. (And it’s sad that I feel it necessary to point out here that I don’t even begin to believe that for a second – it’s just the best alternative I can think of.) Either way, though, that doesn’t exactly sound like Presidential timber to me. Hëll, I’m not sure that sounds like Dog-catcher timber…
.
“Um, Jay, she did take the map off her website immediately after the shooting. That’s why it drew attention – as you point out, it seemed like an admission of guilt.”
.
Yeah, and then to make matters worse they sent their poeple out to lie about the marks on the map and about why it came down whn it did.
.
Stupid as hëll and funny as hëll all rolled into one.
Jerry Chandler for President!
Jerry, thanks for the link to my “pity she’s a whørë” piece. I’m rather proud of that one, about California NOW giving a pass to the Jerry Brown campaign for calling Meg Whitman a “whørë.” The message there: it’s OK to demeaningly sexualize your opponents if they’re Republicans.
.
And Jerry, nice selective quoting on the Bachmann “armed and dangerous” bit. Here’s the full quote:
.
Armed and dangerous… with information. I see why you’re so disturbed by that — ignorance is your greatest ally. You counted on people not going and getting the full context of the Bachmann quote, and not catching your selective editing (lifted from Paul Krugman, I suspect).
.
But let me give you one quote back:
.
.
That’s Senator John Kerry, one-time Democratic presidential nominee, with Bill Maher.
.
As in, “your guy.” Whom I’d wager you voted for in 2004.
.
J.
Wow. John Kerry, displaying his famous lack of sense of humor, made a passing joke that wasn’t funny. Call me when he makes repeated declarations about stoning opponents that prompts people to show up with signs declaring, “Get your rocks off! Stone a conservative!” and then we’ll discuss the relevancy.
.
Do you get that it’s not about isolated statements? It’s about a pattern of behavior by a single individual that appears to the worst aspects of people, and the behavior of Palin and her ilk meets that criteria in a way that a single comment made by Kerry (or, for that matter, Obama) does not.
.
As for his not quoting the whole of the posting, I honestly can’t blame him. I read it over and, frankly, it’s pretty boring. To me, if anything jumped out, it was this line:
.
And we the people are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.
.
I don’t know what that means, which is odd, because I hear it a lot. People shout, “We’re taking our country back!” and “We don’t want to lose our country!” and this prompts lots of cheering.
.
And no one seems to be able to say where they think the country has gone, or where it’s possibly going to disappear to. It’s like all the people who shriek that man/woman marriage is going to be threatened if gays are allowed to marry. It’s nonsense.
.
Do people seriously think that if someone they don’t like is in the White House, then the Constitution is doing to be dissolved? That a military junta is going to be put into place? Elections done away with? Do they really believe that the President is going to declare himself king for life? Or that a national and official religion is going to be declared? Do they really believe that the Bill of Rights is going to be tossed aside?
.
This is the sort of rhetorical bûllšhìŧ with which I have no patience. Anyone with the slightest grasp of history (which is unfortunately all too few of the opinion makers on TV or in the political arena these days) is aware that there is a constant pendulum shift, swinging from liberal to conservative and back again.
.
The direction of the country shifts periodically, but it’s never out of anyone’s hands. The right to vote remains. The checks and balances of power remain in place.
.
Think about what “take back our country” is really code for. What it means…what it REALLY means…is, “People with whom we disagree aren’t really Americans.” This rhetoric is backed up by the repeated charges of liberals being socialists, communists, and traitors. It’s what fuels the birther movement: An outsider has tricked his way into office. When you identify yourself as “we the people,” what you’re directly implying is that anyone who disagrees with you is not part of “we the people,” i.e., not really Americans.
.
Do you have any idea how offensive that is? Do you see it is that incessant depiction of people who disagree with you as being unpatriotic and unAmerican that is, in fact, antithetical to what America is truly all about?
.
The spirit of this country is founded in free expression and spirited debate. Whenever someone howls, “Take back our country,” what they’re really trying to do is quash all debate by disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.
.
In short, every time someone says, “Take back our country,” it shows that they’re shaky on what this country is in the first place.
.
PAD
it’s OK to demeaningly sexualize your opponents if they’re Republicans.
.
It’s also OK to threaten your opponents with violence if they’re Democrats.
.
But then, as you show time and again Jay, it’s OK for you to do it if the other side does it, too. You have no interest in seeking the moral high ground whatsoever. Nor do the pundits on whose every word you so willingly hang.
.
I see why you’re so disturbed by that — ignorance is your greatest ally.
.
This from the side that equates intelligence with elitism, that truly enjoys an ignorant population. Irony really does know no bounds.
.
By the way, since you’re having a fit about Bachmann’s full quote not being used, I’d really like to see you provide the full Thomas Jefferson quote, so we can make sure that its context is also being used properly.
Peter–I think you should take your original post, expand it with some of the material you used in response, and send it into the NYT. Probably as an op-ed and not just a letter to the editor.
Seriously.
Oh, I’m sure there’s plenty of people with far more impressive credentials than I have who are lobbying for the Op-Ed page of the Times about this particular topic.
.
PAD
“Far more impressive credentials” is certainly debateable–
But unlikely to be as well written and as passionate.
Some of us regard you more highly than you might.
Agreed, Lee. Agreed.
What Lee said. Too, if there were “plenty” of such people out there, the world would be a much better place. I’m thinking there’s definitely room for one more. Go on, send it in.
For my part, I’m enjoying the spectacle of ol’ Sarah and her assorted cronies digging a mass grave with every word spilling from their pie holes.
But hëll….that’s just me.
Every time there’s some new flap with Palin, I get more and more angry with John McCain for being so careless when he chose her for his running mate. Time and again, this woman shows that intellectual and moral mediocrity would be an accomplishment for her. She lacks the wisdom to form any coherent ideas or meaningful insight, the language skills to articulate or express them, and the character to aspire to anything resembling the high ground.
.
I remember her complaining in some anti-Obama documentary on the 08 election that the pre-election interviews in which she did so horribly felt like “exploitation” to her–as if she somehow deserved something different from what every other candidate gets when their life, experience, skills and character are mercilessly dissected by the media. But it’s not enough to do as poorly as she did to clue this former beauty queen and sportscaster that maybe, she wasn’t qualified for the job. This woman just doesn’t get it. She actually thinks that someone of average or below-average knowledge, intellect or speaking skills like her has the place to criticize a president who has authored two books for using teleprompters (something every president does), while she herself is so vacuous, that she not only scribbles things like “energy” in her palm, but does so for a televised interview where this will be seen. Anyone else would be embarrassed enough to slink away back to whatever rock she crawled under, but Palin is just too shameless an opportunist to give up the golden ticket McCain handed her, and just has to keep pretending that she has any business in public life.
.
This incident is the just the latest, and we can count on plenty more, at least until the 2012 election is over, when maybe, just maybe, she’ll get the hint and figure out that she’s not going to be president. I used to fear the possibility of her one day getting elected, simply because of the cynical belief that anything can happen, but I now think we’re safe, because the more she puts herself out there, the more she’s going to say remarkably stupid things that make it clearer and clearer, even to the right, that she’s too incompetent to even be pretend to be presidential. In order to pull off a good pretense, you have to know what your role is, and to do that, you have to be able to distinguish it from the reality. Sarah can’t do this, because she has no concept of how ridiculous she really is, and therefore, no concept of how a genuinely intelligent class act should behave.
.
I personally find the accusations that she’s to blame for the shooting reprehensible, and I don’t buy the notion that she’s responsible for doing something for which she could be “linked” to that crime, since it sounds like a circular argument, one that ignores that people are always going to falsely “link” two things that bear no relationship. But she only makes it worse for herself with statements like this. She coulda kept the high ground, and let her accusers hand themselves with their own rope. But no.
.
If she’s so dumb that even when playing the victim, she not only can’t help but choose an incendiary metaphor that evokes historical anti-Semitism, but can’t even grasp the how self-contradictory she’s being use it in a speech in which she’s trying to ask people to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, then I’m hopeful that she’ll eventually fade away.
I can’t get worked out about this.
A politician/pundit using poor taste and possibly ignorant hyperbole to make a stupid point. What else is new?
I don’t hate/like Palin enough to care specifically about this instant.
I just wish it wasn’t about Jews again.
I call bulshit, Luigi. The term “blood libel” is yet another thing – like “targeting districts” – that is fairly common in politics. here’s a baker’s dozen of instances most throughout the past decade:
.
The use of the term “blood libel” in non-Jewish contexts is out of bounds, eh?
.
Andrew Sullivan, October 10, 2008:
.
A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.
.
Ann Coulter’s column, October 30, 2008:
.
His expert pontificator on race was The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, who said the Pittsburgh hoax was “the blood libel against black men concerning the defilement of the flower of Caucasian womanhood. It’s been with us for hundreds of years and, apparently, is still with us.”
.
From a the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, September 30, 2009:
.
Almost immediately following the aftermath of the shooting, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation was the unlikely voice that called for the safeguard of Muslims in the armed forces.
.
Within hours of the news breaking, MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein called upon President Barack Obama to “immediately issue a statement as Commander-in-Chief making it clear that there would be a zero-tolerance policy against any member of the U.S. military inflicting harassments, retribution or reprisal against an Islamic member of the U.S. military.” …
.
He criticized former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for saying that she was “all for” profiling against Muslims.
.
“We’re not painting all Jews as thieves for Madoff’s economic crimes,” said Weinstein, comparing Palin’s comments to a “blood libel.”
.
During the recount in 2000: Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch on Crossfire:
.
Let me just talk a little bit about the whole, I guess, spin from the Republicans about — which has been to me the absolute most — the worst statements I have ever heard probably in my life about anything. I mean, almost a blood libel by the Republicans towards Al Gore, saying that he was trying to stop men and women in uniform that are serving this country from voting. That is the most absurd thing and absolutely has no basis in fact at all.
.
In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow.
.
Jed Babbin, September 8, 2004: “When, in April 1971, John Kerry testified to a Senate committee that “…war crimes committed in Southeast Asia [were] not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” he said that the average American soldier who fought in Vietnam was a war criminal. Kerry’s statement was false, a blood libel that hangs in the air to this day.”
.
Michael Barone, November 15, 2004: “And the argument against Michael Dukakis, which he never effectively countered because there is no effective counter, is that giving furlough to people who have life without parole is a position that Dukakis defended over 11 years as governor of Massachusetts or governor candidate, is a crazy law, and he supported it over 11 years. You don’t have to be a racist to want a murderer, whatever his race, to stay in jail and not be allowed outside on the weekend. To say that the American people were racist and they just want black people in, is blood libel on the American people.”
.
John Hood, September 23, 2003: “A ‘Blood Libel’ Against the News & Observer.
.
Either Joel Roberts or Andrew Cohen of CBS News (both names are listed), February 9, 2005: “Ward Churchill still doesn’t get it. Even though he has tried to clarify and backtrack upon the worst of his intemperate remarks about the victims of the terror attacks on America, he persists in hanging a blood libel on thousands of victims and, by clear implication, you and me.”
.
Andrew Cohen of CBS News, May 7, 2008: “So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.”
.
Alex Beam in the Boston Globe, January 14, 2005, discussing the accusation that an official had used the “n-word” in meetings overseas: “My two anonymous sources were making charges that amounted to ‘blood libel’ against former colleagues; that raised the bar for ethical publication.”
.
John Derbyshire, April 28, 2008: “A Blood Libel on Our Civilization.”
.
AP, July 28, 2008: “Just before Obama spoke, Newsday editor Les Payne had called “blood libel” the argument that African-American journalists could not objectively cover Obama’s candidacy.”
.
Frank Rich, New York Times columnist, October 15, 2006: “The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.”
More instapundit talking points.
.
Think for yourself.
.
PAD
In some of the examples you cited, Jerome, the matter specifically related to the Jews, including the first example, and later, the one by Weinstein.
.
And Ann Coulter? Really? That’s who you want to go with? It’s par for the course to use that metaphor because Ann Coulter uses it? You sure you wanna use her as the standard bearer for decency?
.
For that matter, Weinstein is kind of a jerk himself too, so pointing to him and Coulter using it only serves to illustrate that they’re as stupid as Palin.
.
I also notice that in another example, Paladino’s, it’s being used in reference to an entire group of people (in this instance, homosexuals) who were indeed being libeled as child molesters, so the analogy is rather accurate.
“Jerome,
Is there any right-wing politician or statement you ever have a problem with?”
.
Um, yeah, Neil C. I don’t believe those who advocate for term limits – including Glenn Beck – are correct. I feel it should be up to the people whether they decide two terms for their local Congressman – as happened in my district – or 30 years and no more for Arlen Specter are correct.
.
I feel Alan Keyes blew what little credibility he had when he challenged Obama in Illinois with Keyes as basically a carpetbagger after criticizing Hillary Clinton for doing the same.
.
I think whatever legitimate oints pat Buchanan still has to make have been overshadowed by a seeming obsession with race/foreigners.
.
Unlike say in 1994 when I supported candidates like Pataki, I can no longer support the death penalty with gusto. The possibility – even if it’s microscopic – that we would put an innocent person to death is horrifying to me. For me it would have to be a special, special case with a ton of evidence to even think about using it – and the law doesn’t realy work that way now.
.
Still doesn’t change the fact that I find it quite entertaining that Sarah Palin was singled out for using a metaphor that has been around as long as politics has been around – and that Gffords also had crosshairs put on her by the influential Daily Kos – yet she is the one that gets smeared by the media. Immediately. Without even knowing his motivation or of he’d even heard of sarah Palin. For all we know, he could have shot her because she’s attractive and he had a crush on her or because she’s a Jew.
.
But was the Daily Kos smeared? Of course not. Palin was. A media that detests both her and the tea party put those political considerations above the facts. hëll, many didn’t even bother looking for facts. Much more fun to dump on Palin.
.
And now that she’s used another commonly used political phrase she is vilified by the same people – including Keith freaking Olbermann – for not responding in a graceful manner.
.
What really drives those who hate her crazy is she is far smarter than they will ever give her credit forand even worse- the one thing they absolutely cannot stand – is that she doesn’t take it like a good little girl or play their game. She is strong and she is still here and she hits back and she is not going away.
.
I missed this before.
.
“Still doesn’t change the fact that I find it quite entertaining that Sarah Palin was singled out for using a metaphor that has been around as long as politics has been around – and that Gffords also had crosshairs put on her by the influential Daily Kos – yet she is the one that gets smeared by the media. Immediately. Without even knowing his motivation or of he’d even heard of sarah Palin. For all we know, he could have shot her because she’s attractive and he had a crush on her or because she’s a Jew.
.
But was the Daily Kos smeared? Of course not.”
.
Actually, in a way Kos was smeared. The Daily Kos list of “moderate” Democrats that might be ripe for primary challengers didn’t have a cross hair or a bulls-eye on it. The version that was posted up on conservative blogs all across the internet and emailed around conservative circles that had her picture and a bulls-eye on it was a photoshop job. The original had no pictures and no markings on it.
She is strong and she is still here and she hits back and she is not going away.
.
Neither does multiple sclerosis.
.
PAD
“More instapundit talking points.
.
Think for yourself.”
.
I do, but thanks anyway. The topic of the conversation seemed to be – unless I’m mistaken – that Sarah Palin used a term that is extremely offensive and taboo and rarely used. the evidence I provided clearly shows otherwose. That’s all.
Okay, I was mistaken: Don’t think for yourself, Jerome. Because apparently when you do, you get it wrong.
.
PAD
Luigi Novi,
.
“She actually thinks that someone of average or below-average knowledge, intellect or speaking skills like her has the place to criticize a president”
.
Uh, we all have the “the place’ to criticize a president Luigi. The place is called America. And palin has written two books as well. And no one has used a teleprompter more than Obama. Have a nice day.
The place is called America.
.
Unless the president is a Republican, then to criticize him is unpatriotic and flat out un-American. The Bush years weren’t all that long ago.
.
And no one has used a teleprompter more than Obama.
.
And after Bush’s many, many flubs, a teleprompter should be welcomed. At least we likely won’t get a remark from Obama as absurd as this:
“Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their — their love with women all across this country.” – Bush, Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Sep. 6, 2004
.
Most certainly better than being called a racist for criticizing the current president.
Most certainly better than being called a racist for criticizing the current president.
.
And who, among the pundits and politicians of the Left, has done this repeatedly over the last 2 years?
.
Because I don’t see this kind of constant outcry, and I tend to read more ‘liberal’ media news sources, which is where it’s going to show up, compared to ‘conservative’ sources.
.
But then, the Left didn’t claim McCain to to be a non-citizen (lived in SE Asia for a time as a child) Muslim (black Kenyan Muslim father) terrorist (Muslim = terrorist; Ayers) during the election.
.
Meanwhile, all those things are still ascribed to Obama 2 years on. But race has nothing to do with it, I’m sure.
.
Speaking of, why haven’t you guys addressed the fact that Palin says that people are responsible for their own actions, a sentiment I assume you agree with (Jay and Jerome have said as much iirc), yet Muslims as a whole get blamed for their extremists?
.
Why is personal responsibility OK for those who use violent rhetoric in politics but not when somebody commits an act of terrorism?
Lets see….Jimmy Carter, Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, pretty much the usual useful idiots.
.
Well you got me on that one, I dont get the birthers either. I put them in the same class as the truthers.
However…..The Bill Ayers issue I feel still needs some explaining. I really dont believe the President was being honest when he claimed to not really know Billy boy but did anybody push it? No
.
Now its my turn to ask you who are the folks spouting this drivel?
.
Yes, I also believe you are responsible for your own actions. I dont know of any of us guys who have ever claimed all Muslims are to blame. I do think its strange how some will go way out of their way not to use the word Muslim when talking about terrorism in the Middle East. It was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11.
.
Can you explain this question a bit more. I’m not trying to be facetious, I’m just not understanding what you mean
pretty much the usual useful idiots.
.
Fair enough. But in the end, I think it’s safe to say that the Right’s idiots tend to be louder than the Left’s. Or perhaps more accurately, they’re more easily heard.
.
but did anybody push it? No
.
Well, it was pushed quite a bit, as Palin wouldn’t let it go (“pallin’ around with terrorists”). It appears you didn’t get the answer you wanted.
.
But then, I’m not sure what the right answer is. I’ve never been fond of how close the Bush’s are to the Saudi royal family, etc. In the end, everybody has skeletons.
.
Now its my turn to ask you who are the folks spouting this drivel?
.
Mostly? I see it in the likes of message board comments and posts. I see it usernames and right-wing conspiracy theories. And you can say “no, those aren’t the pundits”, but it’s the pundits who pushed those views during the election, that to be Muslim is to be a terrorist and so forth. Those that hate Obama just aren’t the ‘birthers’; it’s a much wider group of people for a much wider number of reasons.
.
And yes, I find equating Muslims to be terrorists to be rather racist. Maybe the better word is bigoted? Too many in this country have spent much of the last 10 years demonizing Islam and, of those groups that are more often Muslim, Middle Easterners.
.
Look back at the “9/11 mosque” stuff. You telling me there’s nothing racist or bigoted about that? That’s flat out telling Islam: we don’t want you in America because you remind us of 9/11, which you as a whole were responsible for.
.
And since the Right has spent so much time trying to paint Obama as some Communist Muslim non-American dozen other buzzwords, since it’s apparently ok to treat Muslims like complete šhìŧ (they’re the new Jew, it seems), yes, I think race is a big part of this.
.
It was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11.
.
Funny, I thought it was terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?
.
After all, nobody ever says “Christians used a lot of violent rhetoric despite the teachings of Christ saying that they really shouldn’t do that”. Christianity is *never* responsible when one of those followers does something. It’s always “That person isn’t a real Christian”; there’s always a way for people to wipe their hands clean of it.
.
But when a Muslim does something? They’re all responsible, just like you said they were on 9/11.
Additional thought since last night:
.
Of the ‘usual idiots’ on the left, at least one, Olbermann, has already stated something along the lines of “You know, we’re not helping any”, and talked about changing things about his show as a result of the shooting.
.
Has ANYBODY on the Right even said anything close to this?
.
Because all I’ve seen is that the Right are victims (Palin), that the ‘strong language’ is ok (Gingrich), and that liberals are obviously to blame (all of ’em).
I dont have a problem with the Mosque being built but I can understand why some would not want it built. Are some of those people racist, absolutly but I dont think it represents the movement as a whole and the fact that the United States has almost 2000 Mosques spread across its land should show Islam that they are welcomed.
Craig who attacked us on 9/11? I said Muslims attacked us, I didnt say all Muslims or more direct, I didnt say Islam Not all terrorist are Muslim. I dont know of anybody that is making that claim, I certainly havent read it here. so again not all Muslims are terrorists but, All of the terrorists during 9/11 were Muslim.
but I dont think it represents the movement as a whole
.
Except, it wasn’t just that one incident. There was at least one other, in Tennessee iirc, that people were also opposed to. There is growing opposition to all things Islam in this country.
.
but, All of the terrorists during 9/11 were Muslim.
.
And that fact does not matter in the least… unless one wishes to paint Islam with the broad brush, that all of Islam is responsible for the terrorists.
I certainly havent read it here. so again not all Muslims are terrorists but, All of the terrorists during 9/11 were Muslim.
.
And men.
.
PAD
Sorry didn’t see this until now.
Thats nice to hear Olbermann has found religion but to be honest I’ll have to take your word as too how long it lasts. I would no sooner watch anything with Keith Olbermanns’ name attached to it any sooner than I presume you would watch Glenn Beck do anything short of jumping off a tall building, I’m sorry i just can’t do it.
.
To answer your question…No I have not heard anyone on the right state the same.
Okay, Jerome. In place of “the place” in Luigi’s statement, make that “the competence” or “the awareness” or perhaps “the moral high ground.”
.
I doubt Luigi was saying she had no right to criticize. We all do.
.
However, as the saying goes — the right to criticize does not include the right to be taken seriously, or the right to be immune from responses.
.
Apparently, unless, you’re a hard-right Republican, in which case you have the right to do everything and the responsibility for nothing.
Jerome Maida: What really drives those who hate her crazy is she is far smarter than they will ever give her credit for
Luigi Novi: If you think she’s really that smart, then you’re obviously tilting at windmills. She’s no more smart than a naked guy walking down the street is wearing brand new Emperor’s clothes. But feel free to see what you want to see.
.
Jerome Maida: She is not going away.
Luigi Novi: Check back after November 2012.
.
Jerome Maida: The topic of the conversation seemed to be – unless I’m mistaken – that Sarah Palin used a term that is extremely offensive and taboo and rarely used.
Luigi Novi: Where was it opined that it’s rarely used, or that this is a point of criticism?
.
Luigi Novi: She actually thinks that someone of average or below-average knowledge, intellect or speaking skills like her has the place to criticize a president who has authored two books for using teleprompters (something every president does), while she herself is so vacuous, that she not only scribbles things like “energy” in her palm, but does so for a televised interview where this will be seen.
.
Jerome Maida: Uh, we all have the “the place’ to criticize a president Luigi. The place is called America.
Luigi Novi: Nice little bit of quote mining. Thank you for letting us known how openly dishonest you are, given the way you chopped off everything after “president”, in order to pretend that my point was about the legal right to criticize a president, rather than the intellectual credibility to criticize a particular president’s intellect.
.
Jerome Maida: And palin has written two books as well.
Luigi Novi: So has Pam Anderson.
.
In a publishing world where everyone from Paris Hilton to Snooki can cobble together enough material for publishers to stick between two covers, I hope you’ll understand that this doesn’t impress me, especially when you compare the ratings of her two books to Obama’s. What’s in her books? Moose recipes? The bottom line remains that she has given us enough information on her intellect for us to form the conclusion that she is not very bright or articulate. Sticking her face on two books (which could’ve been ghost written) isn’t going to change the fact that for her to criticize Obama’s intellect is like crap telling vomit that it smells bad.
.
Jerome Maida: And no one has used a teleprompter more than Obama.
Luigi Novi: Document that.
.
And then explain how this makes a person anything other than severely self-delusional when they have to reference things like “Energy”, “Tax”, and “Lift American Spirits” by scribbling notes into their palm, not in a classroom, but during a public Q&A that was being taped, and then have the gall to impugn someone else’s mental faculties.
.
55% of people regard her unfavorably, and 71% of people don’t think she’s qualified to hold high office. You and she need to get a clue. (http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/01/12/dear-ms-palin/comment-page-1/#comment-272396)
.
“And no one has used a teleprompter more than Obama. Have a nice day.”
.
Really? W. Bush used one for just about every single speech he made. Clinton and Bush Sr. used them heavily as well. Reagan was a teleprompter addict.
.
You have actually data to back the statement that “no one has used a teleprompter more than Obama” or is it simply a talking point?
I’m not sure what this obsession about Obama and teleprompters is. It’s a non-issue, transformed by the right wing talking heads into an issue through sheer repetition and credulity on the part of their listeners. Does anyone think FDR did his Fireside chats on the fly?
.
Teleprompters are just tools enabling a speaker to maintain eye contact with both the audience and the camera. When Jon Stewart was delivering a speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity, there was a teleprompter mounted across the field that was about a hundred feet high.
.
All the teleprompters in the world aren’t going to make a president a good orator, or give the words more weight if they’re stupid. It’s what comes out of the speaker’s mouth that matters, not the means by which he chooses to read it.
.
Besides, reading your speech off the back of an envelope is just SO nineteenth century.
.
PAD
The silly thing about the teleprompter slur is that they’re trying to imply that other politicians make up their speeches off the tops of their heads. The reality is that the alternative to using a teleprompter is reading the speech off a piece of paper on the podium in front of him. Either way, the speaker is still reading prepared remarks.
.
“I’m not sure what this obsession about Obama and teleprompters is.”
.
Honestly? Most of the time it basically looks like nothing more than someone saying, “I’ve got nothing, but I can at least fling my poo.”
.
It’s just that the idea that “no one has used a teleprompter more than Obama” has been thrown out here so many times that I’m asking for documentation on it. It must be a fact with heavy documentation after all since it’s repeated as gospel so often. Pony up the studies that show that Obama has used a teleprompter more times in the last two years than anyone else ever. Link to the charts showing how Obama has percentage-wise outstripped every other President who has used the things.
.
And then try to explain how that means anything more than jack and $&!^. Explain how it’s supposed to be the great insult that so many think it is since the same people saying this will praise to the point of worship Presidents like “The Great Communicator” Reagan who used the teleprompter for every official speech he gave to read speeches that he didn’t even write.
.
Seriously, pony up the links to prove this claim that keeps getting made and presented as a fact and then try desperately to explain how it matters anyhow.
It must be a fact with heavy documentation after all since it’s repeated as gospel so often.
.
It was probably said repeatedly on Fox News. Hëll, there’s probably a Daily Show clip about it.
.
Wait, that’s not real documentation!?
I’ve never understood the teleprompter thing. Some of my former colleagues used to spout off about the teleprompter and we work in television. One would think that if anyone would be sympathetic, it’d be people who could run a teleprompter. Now, if Obama had used the teleprompter to say, order a pizza and an fries, then I’d think there might be some merit to the statement, but during a speech? I don’t get it.
.
Sean, the simple truth about the teleprompter that you know quite well and that even Obama’s critics know quite well (no matter how hard they try to conveniently forget facts in order to pretend that this is such a towering and incredible put down of the President) is that the teleprompter is a tool used for more than simply reading off of. It’s also a time management tool.
.
Politicians, even the President, get told that they only have “X” amount of time to speak for some events. If you have a set amount pf people speaking in a set amount of time then you give each person a limited time period on the schedule. As a result the speeches are written, run through, edited and run through again until the speech hits all the right points needed and runs/reads at just about “X” minutes. Anyone that’s ever given a speech in front of a crowd can tell you point blank that the clock moves a lot faster than you think it does and you can’t just ad lib it when you get up there.
.
You get the speech written, you run through it and then you use the teleprompter to keep to the speech that was written with the time constraints given. It’s no different than typing it up and printing it out and then reading off of the pages; something most of the teleprompter critics have likely done more than a few times.
.
And, yeah, it’s a memory tool. If you have a particularly long speech or one with a lot of facts and figures in it (or even worse, a long one with lots of facts and figures) then the teleprompter is a great tool to keep the facts and figures accurate when you get to them and to properly hit all of the points that you wanted to hit.
.
It’s also, as has already been pointed out, not new in the least. Bush used them, Palin used them, Reagan used them. But somehow it’s only when Obama uses them that it’s somehow a bad thing or a sign of intellectual inferiority and something that means that Obama isn’t a gifted speaker somehow.
.
Whatever.
Btw, that url I provided in my last post should’ve been this one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/11/2010-02-11_poll_reads_palins_palm_no_chance_in_2012_71_of_americans_dont_think_shes_qualifi.html
.
Don’t know how it ended up being a link back to this site.
Am I the only one who thinks that Palin not only did not write her own speech, but had never heard of or used the term “blood libel” before in her life? I’m not Jewish, and have only a cursory knowledge of Jewish history, and I had never heard the term prior to this instant in any context at all. I can’t imagine that a pageant queen from nowhere Alaska has that much more experience being Jewish.
Am I the only one who thinks that Palin not only did not write her own speech, but had never heard of or used the term “blood libel” before in her life?
.
I don’t think so, either. Of course, if she didn’t know what a blood libel was, she might have thought to say, “Hey, what’s this blood libel thingy?”
.
At which point they could have taken pains to find out.
.
But she didn’t. And they didn’t.
.
PAD
To back up PAD, if you don’t know a word, google it. Seriously, ignorance is not a good excuse when you’re speaking to the nation. At best, it’s sheer stupidity not to.
William, I had the exact same thought for the exact same reason. I’d bet her speech writers might know, but dollars to doughnuts, she had no clue…as per usual.
I don’t know all that much Jewish history, and am not Jewish (but have been mistaken for an non-observant Jew by more than one observant Jew – including one that i had played shabbos goy for for a year or two before i discovered she thought i was…).
However, i had encountered references to the belief that Jews used the blood of (preferably un-baptised) non-Jewish children for Satanic rites for some time (of course, i was roaming the adult section of the library from when i was ten or so), and when i encountered the Steeleye Span version of “Little Sir Hugh” (in which the line that i’m pretty sure said “the Jew’s Daughter” becomes “a lady gay”), i looked up Little Saint Hugh of Lincolnshire, and that eventually led me to the term “blood libel” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel), as Hugh was one of the “blood libel saints”
This is becoming predictable. Every time Mr. David puts anything like this up 2/3 of the people support what he says right down the line and 1/3 don’t. And then page after page are filled with snide comments and insults and neither side changes the other’s mind. Why do any of you even bother commenting? IF I chose to read Mr. David’s postings in the future and decide to comment it won’t be on anything political. I have better things to do with my time that would be more productive like slamming my head repeatedly into a brick wall.
Well, in this case, first of all it’s served to educate some people as to what a blood libel is.
.
Second, perhaps the history of the Jewish people might make people realize that there are echoes of it today in terms of the protests people put up regarding Muslims.
.
Third, it’s generally my experience that you rarely wind up persuading the people to whom you are speaking directly. But there are tons of people who read this website who never comment; they just read and think and process the information. And sometimes they write to me off board and tell me how things that have been said here have prompted them to reassess their opinions.
.
The arguments here rarely convince the people who are carrying on the arguments. But they can, and do, influence the bystanders.
.
That’s why it’s more productive than the brick wall hitting.
.
PAD
It’s a bit more than 2/3 of posters here eagerly wanting to be cheerleaders for Peter, and the rest striving to prove him an idiot when it comes to these political postings. I think most of the visitors here want to try to put forth responses that are meant to enlighten the others based on their own knowledge and experiences (oh, that we could all be Luigi Novi); of course, passions being what they are depending on the subject, its understandable things will get heated and unfortunately ugly at times, but believe me, I prefer that passion over dull, staid comments that bring nothing forceful either in support or refute of the arguments.
It’s a bit more than 2/3 of posters here eagerly wanting to be cheerleaders for Peter, and the rest striving to prove him an idiot when it comes to these political postings.
.
I don’t see it as people being cheerleaders so much as that they like the way I express certain sentiments that are in agreement with their own. That, and they appreciate that I provide the space for them to express their own feelings as well.
.
PAD
It’s also important to note that it’s not always the same people agreeing and disagreeing. Except for the trolls, even the most obstinate detractors I can think of will at least agree with him enough that they don’t reply at all, and sometimes will even agree with him. Those of us who usually agree with him will occasionally strongly disagree. I kicked PAD’s butt on a subject just the other day, though I’m sure he would disagree. 🙂
.
Point being, we’re not all in lock step around here. Not the ones who usually agree with PAD and not even the ones who usually disagree with PAD. If Joel finds himself being on one of those sides 100% of the time, that’s Joel’s issue.
bingo.
Wow that guy who writes Star Trek books I like said Sarah Palin is dum,b so I have to agree? It isn’t cheerleading it is agreeing with something I thought and felt BEFORE he posted. I mean seriously? Are they cheerleaders for Palin or Fox? They just agree mindlessly no matter what they say because the talking head said so? People beleive and listen to Fox because they already thought that way and want to hear someone else saying it. And if someone listened to O’Riely and had their mind changed in 44 minutes they weren’t interested in actual information in the first place.
So Peter David said something I agree with, and then I said so. Cheerleader? Tigger please.
PAD gained a good deal of respect by calling out hypocrisy on his own side when he sees it, so it’s only normal that he also has a decent following on the right. It’s also natural those same people will express their disagreements when the you have them. Also, in expressing our disagreements with a writer of Peter’s caliber, we whittle away at the chaff that impedes our own views.
PAD gained a good deal of respect by calling out hypocrisy on his own side when he sees it, so it’s only normal that he also has a decent following on the right.
.
I have a decent following from those members of the right who have the memory retention, or the awareness, to know that I do call out hypocrisy on my own side. What becomes irritating are those people who either have convenient amnesia and attempt to portray me as slavishly devoted to left wing dogma, or else show up here out of nowhere and start hurling around accusations of blind bias. That gets a little wearisome.
.
PAD
There is also a grand tradition with this blog of PAD stating his opinion on something, and then somebody coming out of nowhere to scream bloody murder in disagreement saying they’ll never read PAD again, are boycotting him, etc. In the end, many of those “1/3” were never interested in having an actual discussion in the first place.
Huh. Let’s try that one again (and if the link in this one works, might as well delete the previous one): (PAD SPEAKING: Deleted as per request.)
I like the following comment at a Daily Beast column on the subject (’Jews for Sarah’ Rally Around):
I also like this one (same comment section):
What’s odd is how completely off point much of the reaction in that article is. I, who had about as angry a reaction to her comments as could possibly be imagined, never gave it a moment’s thought as to whether she was a friend of Jews, a supporter of Israel, or anything like that.
.
What infuriated me was that she was invoking something that genuinely victimized helpless Jews and applied it to her own situation when there were in fact actual victims (not to mention actual Jews) involved. Oh, look at me, poor Sarah Palin, the true victim here.
.
And my reaction was, Screw you, lady. No one spilled your blood. No one shot at you. The only thing shot off in your vicinity was your own mouth. And it’s not a “blood libel” to say, “Hey, Palin, you know how people kept saying that pasting targets on opponents while backing it up with gun rhetoric was a bad idea? Well, guess what: Your opponent got shot. How about that.” I don’t think that saying there’s cause and effect is a reasonable charge, but saying, “Does she feel any sense of responsibility?” is a reasonable question. Especially considering, lo and behold, the map vanished within hours.
.
And her response was how SHE’S been abused?
.
She had a chance. She blew it. And not all the rationalization or double-dutching from her supporters is going to change that.
.
PAD
Any day now it will be revealed that “Sarah Palin” isn’t a real person. “Palin” and family are a bunch of actors like the movie THE JONESES, with a backstory and dialogue scripted by a bunch of liberal writers intent on satirizing and ridiculing Conservatives.
.
I mean, kids named Trig and Track? Married to a separatist Eskimo? Writing stuff on her own palm to read on a national debate? Does that sort of stuff sounds real to anyone? It must be some elaborate joke. And both liberals and conservatives are falling for it.
A most apt description of her I’ve seen is that she’s a troll and America is her comments section.
.
Perhaps Palin is b-chan’s most elaborate prank ever.
I’m afraid that this falls into the category of “the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make more sense.” The world if full of weird people/circumstances that would be pilloried as ridiculous if they were presented as fiction.
.
Katherine Peterson, the author of Bridge to Terabithia made this point in an interview I listened to some years ago. She mentioned that one of the inspirations for the story was, IIRC, a childhood friend of hers who was killed by being struck by lightning. A friend of the main character of Bridge also dies, but they died due to the collapse of the eponymous bridge in a rainstorm. She mentioned that character being simply struck by lightning would never have been accepted as believable.
.
Long story short: I’m afraid that the Palins really are (at least) as freakish as the seem.
I dunno: I could do a whole story about a childhood friend who gets struck and killed by lightning. Two kids in a storm, and one is killed by lightning and the other is unharmed. And the survivor wants answers from God as to why they lived and the friend died.
.
PAD
Looking forward to reading it, PAD!
.
🙂
Mr. David,
I’m replying to my own comment as the “Reply” function does not appear in your reply to my comment above. Confusing enough?
.
I don’t doubt that you could do something with that. I was quoting, imperfectly I expect, another author. The lightning strike was an example that she used to put forth her argument that fiction had to make more sense than real life. I expect she was trying to say something about real life not having a narative structure often not getting resolved in a meaningful way. However, I’m a lay person. I’m lucky if I can get what I write to make sense and be free of obvious typos.
The difference being is that in your hypothetical story, Peter, you’d provide some resolution to that question. Not necessarily an answer, but a resolution. In real life, we don’t necessarily get a nice, neat answer that satisfies us. And that underscores David (and Peterson’s) point.
.
David,
.
Quote him next time. That way he can’t spin it on you.
.
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/01/10/stranger-than-fiction-2/
.
🙂
The lightning strike was an example that she used to put forth her argument that fiction had to make more sense than real life. I expect she was trying to say something about real life not having a narative structure often not getting resolved in a meaningful way.
.
Oh, I don’t dispute any of that. In fact, I’ve said it myself in the past. I was just thinking aloud, kind of…”Hmmm. What would it be like to be standing right there and see the next child over get annihilated by God. What would that do to you?”
.
I should really try to make it clear when I’m disagreeing with someone as opposed to going off on a creative tangent.
.
PAD
L.H. Hicks: oh, that we could all be Luigi Novi…
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!!
.
Wow, I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Wish I could hear that more often. It’s ironic, given the way I not only mangled up that url in my last post, and some sentences in one before that.
.
But thanks for the compliment.
Yeah, I’m so smart that I accidentally emboldened my entire post above. Duh.
Some of her best friends would be Jews.
If she knew any Jews,
and if she had any friends.
I assume you were being sardonic, but let’s not overstate it. Plenty of Jews adore her.
.
Right after we get done with the term “blood libel,” we can start learning another new term: “Shiksa goddess.” Or, as George Costanza put it, “Shiksappeal.”
.
PAD
Yes, small attempt at humor.
I find her statement as reprehensible as you do and her defenders shameless.
Jew or gentile.
What’s really funny is the notion that the fact that some Jews excusing or supporting her use of the term “blood libel” should matter one whit to those who object.
.
There’s an old joke about a Jew who’s passing through a town as Shabbas is approaching, and he asks around if there’s a synagogue. And he’s told that actually there’s only one Jew in the area, and he lives about half a mile outside of town.
.
So the traveler goes to the man’s house, and the man welcomes him to share the sabbath with him. And the traveler says, “It’s a shame there’s no synagogue.”
.
The man says, “Of course there is! Come out back!” The traveler follows him and there he finds not one, but two small synagogues.
.
The traveler says, “Who built them?” The man says proudly, “I did.” He points proudly to the one on the left and says, “That is where I go every day to worship.”
.
The traveler says in confusion, “But what about the other one?”
.
And the man’s face twists in contempt and says, “I built that one so I could have a synagogue that I wouldn’t set foot in if you paid me!”
.
Jews tend to disagree a lot, is the point.
.
PAD
Concerning Sarah Palin:
.
Don’t you think she looks tired?
Doctor Who reference!
Brilliant!
My God, that’s brilliant. Somebody should find a picture of her where she looks a little haggard and caption it. I’d have my wife put it up on Facebook. I bet it would go viral to the Who fans.
.
PAD
Better yet, have her put it on a t-shirt and wear it to cons.
I hate to say it, but I saw a Whovian friend use this on Twitter last night. I don’t know if she was the first to do so, but it’s apparently going around. 😉
No reason not to help add a few more viral vectors …
I know it’s a DW reference, but how does its origin relate to Palin? (I’ve never seen DW.)
I hate Palin and everything she stands for, but I do find it regrettable that the Left underestimates her, like they underestimated Bush. The woman is not dumb. She may be book-dumb and lacking in intellectual weight, but she is frightfully SMART, she knows how to self-promote like crazy, how to appeal to her public, how to take opportunities, how to attack her opponents.
.
And guess what? In today’s world, this kind of smarts is what really counts to get oneself noticed and elected. Emphasizing book smarts may even be a drawback. In their naivete and their belief that the world should be “fair” and make sense, Liberals really don’t get it. Obama got elected because he also had a powerful appeal to emotion (CHANGE! HOPE! A black guy finally at the White House!), not because he was a very intelligent man.
I’m sorry, but I don’t find any of those ‘attributes’ to be indicative of her being smart.
.
She has some charisma. She can play the victim; nothing smart about that. She has opportunity with a base that’s frothing at the mouth, and you don’t have to be particularly smart with them, either.
.
But most importantly, John McCain showed what a complete idiot he was in his failure to vet her properly. Without McCain, she would still be a nobody in Alaska. She would not have gotten to this level of prominence and attention on her own.
.
A smart person knows that, if you really want to be president, you can’t just rely on a minority segment of the population to get to the White House. You have to appeal at some level to those beyond your base. Instead, Palin continues to give the finger to anybody outside the far right. A smart person doesn’t say, “I not only don’t need Democrats and independents, I don’t want them. Hëll, I don’t want moderate Republicans, either!”
George W. Bush and Karl Rove proved that you can be a president by appealing more and more to the hardcore members of your base. Many moderates will also vote for those kind of politicians, even if they disagree with some of their radicalism, they’ll still respect a STRONG person (strong enough to give the finger to their opponents) in the hard times we’ve been living through.
I hate Palin and everything she stands for, but I do find it regrettable that the Left underestimates her, like they underestimated Bush.
.
Speaking for myself, I never underestimated him. For instance, I knew that in the debates, expectations had been so lowered for him that all he had to do was not drool and people would be impressed by him.
.
The woman is not dumb. She may be book-dumb and lacking in intellectual weight, but she is frightfully SMART, she knows how to self-promote like crazy, how to appeal to her public, how to take opportunities, how to attack her opponents.
.
I think there’s a difference between smart and clever. She’s quite clever, even insidiously slow. Most trolls are. But to me, smart requires intellectual curiosity, and that she does not have. I mean, this was a woman who got the crap kicked out of her by Joe Biden in a debate, for God’s sake. And if polls are any guide, her lack of intelligence is costing her badly, because a majority of people don’t want to see her in the Oval Office.
.
Obama got elected because he also had a powerful appeal to emotion (CHANGE! HOPE! A black guy finally at the White House!), not because he was a very intelligent man.
.
I disagree with that. I think Obama is quite intelligent; he has other character flaws that have impeded his use of it from time to time.
.
PAD
Actually, Peter, to be fair to Rene, I don’t think he was denying Obama’s intelligence, just its importance in his getting elected.
I think if Obama had been as intellectually incurious as Bush, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee.
.
PAD
Yes. I do think Obama is very intelligent, perhaps one of the most intelligent of the last crop of American presidents. Like people said, what I meant was that his intelligence wasn’t a big factor in his election.
.
Call me cynical, but more and more I think American politics is like dating. Being intellectual will not help you get women, and may even hurt your chances, because intelligent people may appear distant or hesitant or weird.
.
Charisma, cleverness, opportunism, good looks, ruthlessness, sense of humour, emotional intelligence, all of them I’d rank above conventional intelligence for the purposes of being seen as an effective leader nowadays (and for getting laid too).
.
Obama is slightly different in that, being a black man, being seen as an intellectual wussy may help him to a point, because at least he isn’t seen as an aggressive scary black that would (to be brutally honest) scare many white voters.
.
Like animals, most people vote with their guts, most people get fired up about their candidates with their guts. Conservatives understand this far better than Liberals. Sarah Palin understands this. And I do think she is more than merely clever. Or at least she has good handlers.
.
She is a genius (or her people are) at tailoring narratives that don’t make any sense logically, but are calculated to be appealing to Middle America. Like the idea that the Founding Fathers and Fundamentalist Christianity belong in the same sentence. She can get a teist and his feminist wife (John Adams and wife) and pick and choose precise incidents to make them look like today’s Christian Right couples.
.
But hey, I do hope that I’m wrong and you guys are right, and we’ll never see the disaster of a Palin administration.
Being intellectual will not help you get women, and may even hurt your chances, because intelligent people may appear distant or hesitant or weird.
.
Speak for yourself, my good man. 🙂 Intelligence helped me land a heck of a woman. ‘Course, it helps that she’s likely smarter than I am…
Maybe I’ve been looking for love in all the wrong places.
I think most people overestimate the impact of intelligence in the making of a good president. Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer, was arguably the most intelligent president we’ve ever had, but he was arguably the most ineffectual president of the 20th century.
Agree. Great intelligence alone don’t make great presidents. OTOH, poor intelligence often make for bad ones.
PAD Sez: I think Obama is quite intelligent; he has other character flaws that have impeded his use of it from time to time.
Such as listening to people other than himself? (At least that’s my perception, I’m probably wrong. It’s been known to happen)
Such as allowing people to forget why they liked him in the first place. His performance at the memorial went a ways toward reminding them. Now we’ll see if he can keep that going.
.
PAD
While I’m using in favor of action over talk (and there’s been a lot of action from the Obama administration in the last two years), the country is in desperate need of inspiration right now. So I agree, a little less time on wonkish policy work and a little more effort on inspiring leadership would be nice.
“Obama got elected because he also had a powerful appeal to emotion (CHANGE! HOPE! A black guy finally at the White House!), not because he was a very intelligent man.”
.
I disagree with that. I think Obama is quite intelligent; he has other character flaws that have impeded his use of it from time to time.
.
I don’t think Rene was saying Obama is not intelligent. Just that people didn’t vote for him because of his intelligence.
.
I know quite a few people who voted for him simply because he was black and NOT Jesse Jackson. A lot of people voted for him to prove they are not racist. I already know I am not racist so I didn’t need that motivation. I could have voted for him if he wasn’t so ardently Pro-Choice. And considering that many more black babies are aborted per capita, being Pro-Choice could be considered bad for the black population.
.
I would qualify that by saying instead “Just that people didn’t vote for him ONLY because of his intelligence.” Like PAD said upthread, if he wasn’t up to intellectual snuff, Hilary would have been the nominee.
.
.
That’s the first time I’ve heard that reason — kinda the reverse-Bradley Effect.
.
That said, I doubt that’s the primary reason he’s won his elections.
.
.
“Ardently pro-choice”? What exactly does that mean? From what I’ve seen and read, Obama’s position reflects the average American consensus on the issue (doesn’t personally like it but thinks is should be legal).
“Ardently pro-choice”? What exactly does that mean?
Candidate Obama in July 2008 said:”The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
.
Yeah I know he hasn’t, but that’s what he said when campaigning.
Also he voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban.
Those two things lost him my vote.
I still wouldn’t describe Obama as “ardently” pro-choice — that suggests that his stance on abortion was his most self-defining feature.
.
Although I disagree that those two positions alone should have disqualified him for you, and I suspect we would also disagree on what the import of those pieces of legislation actually are, I understand where you’re coming from.
Oh, I know I’m running a risk of opening up a new tangent on this thread, but I feel the need to respond. I’m a black person, who’s pro-choice, and while I greatly respect the feelings of those who are pro-life, among them many friends and family members, I always take issue with those who automatically equate abortion with black genocide.
.
Although I’ve been extremely fortunate to live a life free of extreme want, throughout the span of that life I’ve been, and still am, close to situations that have shown me the still-prevalent problems in the African-American community that are more severe than what may be experienced by Caucasians in general. Trust me, in this day and age there is no shortage of black babies being born in this country into situations of extreme neglect, hunger, abuse, and infirm. I was once in a hospital program that solicited people to come in and help nurture crack babies, and I’ve held some in my arms that I knew later would not survive.
.
I know the birth of a child is a beautiful, precious thing, but I honestly believe that for one to be truly pro-life, the focus should not be on the that life while it’s in the womb, but on it once it’s here and actually breathing, actually feeling, actually living and given every opportunity to be a healthy and happy part of society. We’re not losing Black people to abortion, but there are still more real and heartfelt situations of pain and need that threaten us much more severely.
I know the birth of a child is a beautiful, precious thing, but I honestly believe that for one to be truly pro-life, the focus should not be on the that life while it’s in the womb, but on it once it’s here and actually breathing, actually feeling, actually living and given every opportunity to be a healthy and happy part of society.
.
L Hicks, I agree with this completely.
[ thumbs up ]
It gets better: A Washington Times (the Moonie paper, not the one Woodward and Bernstein worked for) editorial defending Palin calls the criticism “the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/wash_times_criticism_of_palins_blood_libel_part_of.php?ref=fpblg
.
Because when you’ve got nothing else you can at least still double down on the stupidity.
[ sigh ]
And today’s Oxymoron Award of the Day goes to… “conservative thinkers”!
.
But it’s nice of the Washington Times to defend one semi-obscure and inappropriately used term with another that’s even more obscure and inappropriately used.
.
One of the commenters in that link is probably right though: it won’t be long before conservatives call this a holocaust.
Just to beat a dead horse here…
.
Something occurred to me now that a few days have gone by since Palin’s video letter pity party that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere. Basically, Palin’s response to this, from going into hiding to the asinine “poor-little-me” video, shows just how mentally and emotionally weak she actually is and, further, shows how weak she appears compared to Obama.
.
It also shows that Palin is cut from the cloth of the whiny child who can dish it out in spades but cannot take it. Let’s start with Palin’s words; specifically Palin’s words to/about Obama.
.
Palin started her national political career by discussing how Obama, in her world, was a man who hated this country enough to “pal around with terrorists.” Fairly mild and arguing the lie of this statement depends on how far back you want to include a meeting to call it “palling around” with someone. Plus you can make the excuse for Palin here that she was just parroting the campaign talking points rather than thinking for herself.
.
But then later on, after Palin bailed out on the people of Alaska and quit her job to try and cash in on the notoriety and fame that the campaign gave her, any words that came out of her mouth could only be called her own. And what fun words they were.
.
Healthcare debates flared and Palin threw herself into the debate with a wonderful series of defamatory and insulting remarks. Obama wanted to create “Death Panels” for Americans. In Obama’s world and under Obama’s plans, we would have the elderly and any newly born child with a handicap or birth defect marched before Obama’s death panels and deemed unworthy of continued existence.
.
Obama was basically, by the description of him given by Palin, a murderous ghoul who wanted to kill babies and the elderly. Obama’s dream was to create policy designed to murder countless millions of Americans. Obama essentially dreamed, by her using the example of her own special needs child, almost of a form of eugenics.
.
Obama was, in Palin’s words, an inhuman monster. And the statements made by others that Palin supported were even worse. And let’s not beat around the bush here; the charge she and other she supported leveled against Obama was that he was a monster who wanted to create a system designed to murder the elderly and the young and to bring about the deaths of millions of Americans. There is no other interpretation of what they said.
.
Obama didn’t run away. Obama didn’t hide. Obama didn’t cut himself of from the world other than sending overwrought emails to a friend with a talk show to read on the air. Obama didn’t send out a canned video speech declaring himself the victim and playing poor little me.
.
He kept doing his job.
.
But then we had the shooting and people dared to suggest that Palin and her map and rhetoric added to the insanity and climate that inspired the shooter or could inspire acts of violence by the mentally unstable. People dared to suggest that just maybe the violent rhetoric and violent images being used by Palin, Palin’s pet Tea Party candidates and others in the Republican Party and Conservative press might not be all that responsible for them to be throwing around; especially given that one of their listed “targets” was gunned down.
.
So Palin went into hiding. She couldn’t handle it. She hid from the world and sent Glenn Beck overwrought emails to read on air that detailed her troubled time. She sent out a video that was little more than a “poor little me” showcase before going back into hiding. She set herself up for a interview with Hannity for a guaranteed softball helper and pity party.
.
Basically, the woman who can dish out calling Obama a man who wants to murder millions of Americans, when told that her rhetoric was irresponsible and could have been something that helped push a mentally unstable man over the edge, fell apart. And this is the woman some of you are talking about as a strong leader and as someone who would make a great Republican President? This is the person who some of you want to bank your party’s hopes on in 2012? This “politician” who can dish it out all day long but ducks, runs, quits and hides whenever things get even a little bit tough, who just collapsed faster than a house of cards in a stiff wind because people said her rhetoric may have contributed to the environment that lead to this, is who you want leading the free world?
.
Seriously, what the hëll do you think she’s going to do the first time something serious happens? Whatever you think of what has been said in the last week, it’s nothing compared to what might happen if she’s in office. If she can’t handle something like this without acting like a fragile school girl how in the hëll is she going to handle an adversarial world leader? How in the hëll is she going to be able to function the first time she orders military action that goes horribly wrong? For that matter, how in the hëll is she going to be able to handle the pressure of being a candidate in a Presidential election in the first place?
.
From day one of her time on the national stage she has shown that she can talk about other people in the lowest possible terms but the second she catches flack she falls apart. From the day she stepped out on stage with McCain she showed that she can’t handle any criticism and that she can’t handle anyone making her look bad (even when it’s her fault she looked bad.) Hëll, she’s still nursing her grudge with Katie Couric because Couric dared to ask her questions that Palin was too stupid to be able to answer sensibly.
.
That’s your idea of a powerful conservative voice? That’s your idea of a powerful leader? That’s your idea of an ideal candidate for 2012?
.
Wow.
.
God help us all if you lot get your wish and she gets anywhere near the Oval Office as anything but a tourist.
First, let me say again: I hate Sarah Palin’s guts. I may not have been clear when saying Palin is a strong person. What I meant was that Palin was good at being SEEN as a strong person, a completely different thing than actual strength.
.
The example you gave to indicate that Obama is a strong leader is exactly what makes me worried. He just kept working when his political opponents said he was a genocidal monster. That may well translate as weakness to many people, like the kid who is bullied at school and never even raises his voice to strike back. If not weak and cowardly, Obama may at least appear as disconnected, a distant, elitist dude out of touch with reality.
.
I think the best strategy for Obama would be to wade a little more into the fray, engage the Tea Partiers more directly. Or at least have some of his people do that.
.
At this point I don’t think that Obama is a particularly strong leader either, but he’s certainly stronger than Palin. While I agree with you (and quite a few others) that Obama created a perception problem by seeming coldly unphased and detached at times when people expected and wanted a powerful response from him; that’s worlds better than falling apart so fast that people around him get hit by the shrapnel.
.
Palin does that. She can’t handle pressure or criticism. She collapses, she quits, she runs away and she hides. That’s her M.O. on the national stage. When she’s not doing that she’s sticking her head up just long enough to blame her failings on the press and play poor little me. That’s all she’s brought to the table beyond winking.
.
If she can’t handle the relatively minor pressure of being a public figure with no real responsibilities and no real ramifications placed on her shoulders from her actions… What the hëll do her supporters really think she’s going to do as POTUS the first time there’s a crisis? I’ve got news for them; blaming her failings on the “lamestream media,” running to Hannity and Fox News for a safe shoulder to cry on and playing “poor little me the victim” for her supporters the first time she has to deal with a major international incident that involves adversarial and/or disrespectful world leaders and criticism from pundits at home just ain’t gonna cut it.
That tendency to come apart under stress was why i was so glad that Gary Hart self-destructed because of it before he got anywhere near being nominated.
.
Twice.
.
He panicked and made snap decisions that pretty much wrecked two campaigns – as a campaign manager when negative facts about the VP candidate came up, and in his own campaign.
Beautifully put, Jerry; well done.
I concur.
.
PAD
Jerry, I do hope you’re right, and that this will cost Palin. I agree with you that modern Conservatives don’t deal with criticism in what I’d consider a mature fashion.
.
It’s just that I’m afraid that her antics will not really be seen as “running away” by John Q. Public. I’m reminded of GOP tactics like free speech zones, embedded reporters, looking down at the “reality-based community”…
.
Something much more insidious and smart (in an evil way) than just running away, they seek to re-frame reality to appear like everyone who really matters, who is a real American, is on their side, and whoever disagrees with them is made irrelevant by a combination of ignoring, demonizing, and ridiculing.
.
Sarah Palin is a “divider”, even more than Bush was. Running to Hannity and Fox News… is it cowardice and lack of preparation, or a calculated snubbing of any non-friendly press? Like I said above, I’m afraid, because Bush got re-elected with this kind of stuff.
What got Bush reelected was his manipulation of public paranoia and terror over continued attacks, not to mention the public’s historic reluctance to change presidents when we’re in the middle of a war. Palin, on the other hand, has merely mastered the ability to display contempt for others. Bush was the politics of fear. Palin is the politics of sneer and smear.
.
PAD
I hope you are right.
.
Wow… They really can’t help but make themselves look clueless, repulsive and desperate to see something bad actually happen to someone they don’t like.
.
Nigel Coleman is the Virginia Tea Party leader who published for his supporters the home address Tom Perriello’s brother by mistake when trying to publish Perriello’s. The results were threats to Perriello sent to his brother’s home and ultimately someone cutting the gas lines at “his” house. Earlier in the week this glorious example of the need for mental health care commented on the shooting in Tucson.
.
“Cutting that Gas line doesn’t seem so bad now does it?…What?….. Too Soon?”
.
http://twitter.com/nachocoalmine/status/24581014353354752
.
So, for the Virginia Tea Party leader, the shooting in Tucson is just one big joke begging for him to add a punchline to. And given what I’ve seen of the Tea Party here in Virginia whenever I’ve had to deal with them; he’ll still be happily embraced as a leader of the local Tea Party by a majority of their members.
Personally, I think a lot of the Tea Party leadership has shown a distinct lack of class after this incident. That’s a failure in responsibility and leadership.
What an áššhølë.
.
Then again, Liberals can’t be Real Americans, then it’s okay to crack jokes when they’ve just been shot.
…and claim that they’re victims, too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/11/arizona-shootings-tea-party
Again, very classy….
.
Yeah, I saw that the other day. It was actually this line that got me though.
.
“It’s political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?”
.
If this clown had the brains that God gave a house fly he <i.might actually realize that framing an argument in a way that looks like he’s playing at blaming the victin isn’t going to win him any PR points with anyone other than the rabid base.
.
Of course, @$$holes like this don’t do the other side any favors either.
.
Shooting rampage victim arrested at ABC-TV town hall meeting
http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13849741
Roger, thanks for posting that. Yes, the real victims of the shooting: The Tea Party.
.
Although notice that one of their critics–presumably liberal–likewise invoked the “We want our country back” rhetoric. Just more proof of what a meaningless phrase it is. The left wants to take the country back, but…wait! The right says THEY want to take the country back! How can this be? If the right doesn’t have it and the left doesn’t have it, where the hëll did it go?
.
It’s like the country’s been kidnapped by the Green Hornet, leaving both sides to think that the other side has it and engage in a massive gang war that will take out both sides.
.
PAD
Of course, @$$holes like this don’t do the other side any favors either.
.
The fact that he threatened a Tea Party leader I’m sure will go over well in some quarters. Remember what I said about validation of the rhetoric? Sigh.
Yeah, Fuller should have been arrested…but he really shouldn’t have been invited to the same program as Humphreys, the AZ Tea Party leader.
.
On the other hand, Fuller got shot twice. I think he’s probably a victim.