Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is a close friend of Ms. Giffords, issued a statement condemning her use of the phrase “blood libel.”
“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s spokesman. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Giffords’s faith and the events of the past week.”
The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement that, in part, came to Ms. Palin’s defense.
“It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder,” Abraham Foxman, the group’s national director, said in a statement. “Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks.”
But Mr. Foxman added that “we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood-libel.’ ” He called it a phrase “fraught with pain in Jewish history.”
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of a pro-Israel group called J Street, said that “when Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.
The conservative blogger Michelle Malkin defended Ms. Palin, accusing liberals of being “Tucson massacre opportunists” for criticizing her.
“The blamestream media is already up in arms — can we still say that? — over the use of the phrase ‘blood libel,’” Ms. Malkin wrote. “The more moronic of Palin-bashers will simply gnash their teeth because she said ‘blood.’ Idiocracy: The new normal.”
Apparently Michelle Malkin doesn't know the history of the term either. LOL
I feel sorry for Palin, who's been blamed by many for being an accessory to murder with her crosshairs map. I believe the crosshairs map was a bad idea and is symbolic of the Tea Party's obdurate clinging to unreasonable gun laws, but it is her right to free speech and the murderer in Arizona probably had never seen the map. She is tenaciously defending herself and I've read reports that claim the crosshairs map remains on her facebook page, although I don't see it there now. She is speaking to her supporters, who probably agree with her, but I wonder if most Americans do. She certainly does not deserve death threats (thanks CH for posting that link).
42 comments :
The Left's attempt to spin this tragedy into a slander of the Right has already backfired on them.And if they keep attacking Sarah,it just might help her become our next president !
bushtheliberator
She managed to change the subject and get you to feel sorry for her at the same time. Maybe she's a better politician than I thought.
Dear Maury,
My affection for Sarah is driven by the Left's hatefulness toward her,But, I think I feel a common joy,& fear that she has more charisma than the next 10 contenders do,combined.
bushtheliberator
She should also show some leadership and admit that the crosshairs map was a mistake.
Sarah's political situation reminds me of Israel's history:
She drew immediate attacks, and gets bigger, and stronger after every subsequent attack.She's now useing her powers to cause Palin Derangement among the Lefties to keep her show rolling.
bushtheliberator
It's ok to say you were wrong. Even Israelis have admitted that Israel was sometimes wrong.
Mojo,
The term is not uncommonly used synomously with a lynch mob mentality caused by a false accusation. The Wall Street Journal used the term on Monday to label the attacks against Palin-- and, surprise! surprise! no one had a problem with it.
As Jonah Goldberg said yesterday, Palin's detractors have made it quite clear that they are willing to take offence at her use of semi-colons if they have nothing else.
She did nothing wrong. The DCCC had a similar ad two years ago. It is clear that the murderer was not motivated by the "political climate" nor Palin's ad. She owes no apology and should give none. And if she did, you would take it as confirmation that the attacks were appropriate.
As The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg (no relation to Jonah) said, a conversation about the "tone" of political discourse is a good thing to have. So is a discussion about climate change. Neither have anything to do with shootings in Tucson.
Palin is a MILF ← Moron I'd Like to Forget
- Bill Maher
Isn't it astonishing that your next friend here bushtheliberator aka horse's ass is also a supporter of ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government]?
With so many pro-Zog friends, you cannot really be anti-Zog.
I agree with CMAR...Palin owes no apology. The people who owe an apology are the ones who insinuated she had a hand in the attack.
Who insinuated she had a hand in the attack?
The term 'blood libel' has been used by many to describe the persecution of a group of people. I don't know why Palin shouldn't use the term to describe her situation. I would have used the word 'scapegoat' instead. But I do know that if you want to be President of the USA, you gotta have the powerful Jews on your side.
Mojo: But I do know that if you want to be President of the USA, you gotta have the powerful Jews on your side.
----
GW Bush never won a majority of Jews in the US. As an evangelical Christian, Palin is probably more pro-Israel than many Jews in NYC. I'm not sure what she could do to improve her standing with that demographic.
Mojo: I would have used the word 'scapegoat' instead.
-----
I might have used the term "blood shirt" but "blood libel" works the concept of libel in there with the concommitant concepts of deliberately lying about and publickly defaming someone with a false accusation. As a public figure, it would have otherwise been inaccurate for Palin to claim she had been "libeled."
Mojo: Who insinuated she had a hand in the attack?
-----
Daily Kos declared with in minutes that she was culpable. Followed by Paul Krugman NYT with in 2 hours. Jonathan Alter. Andrew Sullivan. The entire meme until today has been the false implication that the 'tone' of political rhetoric had something vaguely to do with the murders in Tucson-- a tone supposedly exemplified by Palin and the Tea Party. If we all agree the murders had nothing to do with the tone why do we continue to discuss the issues together? And if we're going to discuss the tone of political rhetoric, shouldn't we start with the tone and dishonesty of Palin's critics?
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2011/01/12/youtube-asked-to-remove-video-of-lefts-threats-against-palin/
We continue to discuss the crosshairs map because it's just wrong to do that. It's wrong to put gun scope crosshairs on your political opponents.
"To Sarah Palin, the Arizona Shooting Is All About ... Sarah Palin"
Mojo: "We continue to discuss the crosshairs map because it's just wrong to do that. It's wrong to put gun scope crosshairs on your political opponents."
1) The DCCC did the same ad with bulls-eyes in 2007.
2) Militaristic terminology has always been part of political speech and electioneering ("target", "attack", "columns of supporters", etc.)
3) Most importantly, it is self-evident that the ad had NOTHING to do with the shooting and to keep implying that it did is dishonest.
4) Sarah Palin DID NOT make the shootings about herself. The people who hate her did that. If she had said nothing or if she did the video without addressing the lies that were being told about her, people would have accused her of dodging the issue.
OK then. It seems that Sarah Palin and her supporters are determined to keep digging that hole. I'm sure liberals don't mind.
Okay, Mojo, it seems to me that the people determined to hate Palin are immune to reason.
I'm intrigued that you are so distressed by an ad that almost no one saw, one that is not uncommon in every election cycle, but you are not horrified by the mentality of the people who hate Palin.
I have a private theory that the people energized to find something terrible about everything...anything...Palin does are actually quite attracted to her as a woman and a mother, wish that she were their girlfriend and mother, and they hate that about themselves because they disagree with her politically, and so direct that hatred toward her.
You remember Bush Derangement Syndrome?
I find it disturbing that a prominent politician uses crosshairs to aim at her political opponents. I just learned about the crosshairs map over the weekend. It would have been disturbing to see before the shooting. It was especially disturbing to see on Saturday, after the shootings. It's still disturbing to see.
It's disturbing whether a Democrat does it or a Republican does it.
Umm...that juxtaposition is the dishonesty I'm talking about. Those bulls-eye and cross-hair ads have been going on for 30 years. And we KNOW the AZ shooter was not influenced by either of them.
It's irrelevant. Why is Palin culpable, and not the DCCC not culpable? Why does only Palin have to explain herself and not the President saying "If they bring a knife. We'll bring a gun."
How about this ad?
Mojo, don't take this personally, cause I'm 'just saying': This is the sort of selective presentation and emphasis of facts and guilt that Riverbend used to use to IMPLY that things were so much better under Saddam. The entire line of reasoning is bogus.
CMAR might be onto something. Palin might be the dingiest politician ever. The idea she could've been a heartbeat from the Presidency, with an 80-something McCain in the oval office, is scary as hell. But, she's also the sexiest politician I can remember. Maybe that's why my wife hates her so much.
I bet a lot of women would rather someone who looks like they'd rather claw a man's eyes out be the first woman President. That would be Hillary. I'm kind of hoping we eventually get someone with Sarah's looks and Hillary's brain. If she's from a third party we'll hit the trifecta.
Nobody is culpable except the shooter. It is simply wrong, in my view, to put gun scope crosshairs on your political opponent. Gun metaphors should not be used in politics, but that's just my opinion. They are free to continue to use crosshairs and say they should 'reload' - their freedom to do that will not be taken from them.
She is quite pretty. I think that's why so many men like her.
Why would the medi bring up THAT crosshairs ad CMAR? Sure, it was Arizona. But, it wasn't Palin who ran the ad. Heck, it wasn't even a Republican.
Democrats don't contribute to toxic political discourse. Bush got nothing but respect from that side of the aisle. LOL.
We should have cloned Reagan. Or Kennedy. Or both, and let them take turns.
"Democrat Harry Mitchell Places Opponent [JD Hayworth] in Crosshairs"
Who is Harry Mitchell? Is he a leader? And who is JD Hayworth?
I don't think she's going to run for President, and she's not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice for President, but not because I believe she's dumb. Anyone who thinks she's dumb should have to explain how that dummy keeps putting our "genius" president on his heels from her Facebook page. And before McCain picked her, I heard her rattle on at a deep level on Energy policy, land management, and federal subsidies to states.
But do I like her because 1) she comes off as fundamentally nice, decent, and practical. I can practically smell the soap through the TV screen. And 2) I like her because the hatred of those who hate her and condescend toward her has made them so vile.
Mitchell is a Democrat congressman of Phoenix AZ who defeated JD Hayworth in 2006 running that ad with money from the DCCC. He defeated Hayworth and served two terms. Perhaps you've heard of the DCCC?
I might ask you, Mojo, who was Giffords until last Saturday?
CMAR,
I feel the same way. I'm not really a fan of Palin and I don't think I would vote for her for president (unless the only alternative was Ron Paul). However, the more I hear people attack her with vile accusations, the more I want to defend her, as I did on my own blog last night.
If the Republicans had a clue, they would beg her to take Michael Steele's seat as head of the RNC. She would haul in a mountain of cash for them. But, now, she might not take the job. She might have gotten to big for the job.
She's had her 15 minutes of fame. Once she gets a bit of grey, she'll just be another Ann Richards. Having Ann Richards speak at the Democratic Convention pretty much cinched the primary for Bush. Nobody wants to hear a shrill old nag carry on like that.
Guys, let's say Muqtada al Sadr embraces politics, and let's say he sets up a website and on it he displays a map of Iraq with gun scope crosshairs over the districts represented by his political opponents in Parliament, along with the names of those opponents. Would that be appropriate? What if one of his political opponents gets shot? Would you say that's the violent nature of Muqtada al Sadr or would you say that's a result of the violent gun culture of Iraq? Or would you defend him?
"I might ask you, Mojo, who was Giffords until last Saturday?"
Until Saturday I didn't know who Gabrielle Giffords is. But I knew who Sarah Palin is.
What if Vladimir Putin put crosshairs on his political opponents? Would Republicans not condemn it?
Mojo,
First of all, Palin's ad people didn't put cross-hairs on people, and the DCCC didn't put bulls-eyes on people. They put them on states.
Secondly, Sadr and Putin don't NEED to put cross-hairs on their opponents. They just need to denounce them and the cross-hairs are assumed. This is America. We're blessed in that way.
The fact that a Democratic candidate for Congress in Phoenix could put a cross-hairs over a picture of his Republican candidate in 2006 and the Republican candidate didn't hire a team of body guards--and that a Democratic candidate for governor in West Virginia can have an ad where he is shooting a weapon and then denounce his opponent and no one feels threatened-- this is evidence of the civility of the American people. In Iraq, they don't talk about it. They do it.
In America EVERYBODY knows its metaphor. It is not a sign of the degraded tone of political discourse in the US. There's NO evidence that ANYONE has EVER been mistaken about the militaristic language used in campaigns being metaphor. The guy in AZ was NOT influenced by any Democratic or Palin ads or any other heated rhetoric. And no number of times that someone mentions the Palin ad and the AZ shooting in the same paragraph will change that. There is no evidence of a problem here.
On the other hand, when The Daily Kos and Paul Krugman and all the other bloggers SAY or strongly IMPLY that Palin is culpable in the murder of a 9 year old girl, that's not metaphor and it is not unreasonable that it could lead to a violent attack against Palin EVEN THOUGH SHE DID NOTHING WRONG AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE KILLINGS-----NOT EVEN INDIRECTLY.
The persistant irrational drawing of a connection between Palin and the AZ murders is the TRUE lack of civility in politics.
Did the Daily Kos make Sarah Palin feel bad? That's too bad. They shouldn't have accused her of culpability in the Tucson shooting. But the criticism of her use and defense of the crosshairs map is legitimate. It doesn't matter that a Democrat put crosshairs on his opponent - that was stupid too, but we didn't hear about it because JD Hayworth was not shot in the head. Harry Mitchell disappeared from the political scene, thankfully, and Sarah Palin will likely follow in Harry's footsteps if she continues to step in shit.
Let me put it this way: What if everyone knew where to find you and I went all over the Internet and told credulous audiences that you had caused the deaths of Iraqi children. And when you called me on it I said "Aw, did I hurt your feelings? I shouldn't have done that but you need to tone down your feisty rhetoric towards good Muslims. Afterall you posted something and three months later someone blew himself up."
Mojo, you may dislike people like Palin and the Tea Baggers, and you may prefer more moderate Americans like the Obama camp.
However: if you think about it, the Palinites are more supportive of your Iraqi position.
Meaning: people like Harry Reid and Barak Obama are not zealous about "winning" in Iraq.
The people who most support your narrative on Iraq, are exactly Palin and her crew.
That should really tell you something.
The stupidity of the rural American, which even you recognize in your bashing of these Tea Bagger losers, cannot be divorced from your incorrect stance on Iraq.
ÄŒmar said:
☼ In America EVERYBODY knows its metaphor. It is not a sign of the degraded tone of political discourse in the US. There's NO evidence that ANYONE has EVER been mistaken about the militaristic language ☼
Please, man. America was a violent society to begin with, but when you add economic trouble and a perception of humiliation, these primitive people will quickly resort to weapons.
"Meaning: people like Harry Reid and Barak Obama are not zealous about "winning" in Iraq."
The war in Iraq is already won. There's a democracy in Iraq. Fom now on, Iraq will be what the majority of it's people decide it will be. Iraq is not led by your precious fascist regime anymore that is a constant threat to its neighbors. The Iraqi government is not harboring and coordinating fighters going to Afghanistan and other places to fight against agents of Liberty. AQI and the Resistance continue to nihilistically murder people going to mosque, but the violence is no longer strategic with a realizable goal in mind. It's just fools who think it's a free ticket to heaven. That's a problem with Islam in the Middle East but it's not a problem specific to Iraq. It's over.
I agree you about Reid's and Obama's devotion to victory, but fortunately for Iraq, Bush and Maliki set everything on rails before President Obama came to office.
What is Palin's position on Iraq? I don't even know.
In June 2009 I wrote about Obama's speech: 'I liked hearing him say that he believes the Iraqis are ultimately better off without Saddam's tyranny: "unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible." '
George W. Bush finally overthrew the dictator, the mass murderer of Iraqis. Did you expect me to oppose that position?
Post a Comment