Palin fights back

It needs to be understood that when the left decides to hate someone, it doesn't matter what choices they make, they are always wrong. As another example, in the aftermath of the tragedy, Sarah took down the map with the surveyor marks/crosshairs. The left said, "See! She's admitting that it is inappropriate!" But if she had left it up, they would have said, "See! She's so filled with hate that she won't even take down the map in the wake of these shootings!" So she can't win with the left, just like G.W. Bush. In their eyes, everything conservatives do is always wrong. This is why attempting to appease the left in any way is always a losing strategy.

 

You are, or course, correct. However the sad truth is that this goes both ways. i.e.

'It needs to be understood that when the right decides to hate someone, it doesn't matter what choices they make, they are always wrong.'

Or,

'In their eyes, everything liberals do is always wrong. This is why attempting to appease the right in any way is always a losing strategy.'

Politics doesn't change. It is a dirty pragmatic business no matter which supposed side practices it.

 

Not to mention that the election is over and target lists, both Democrat and Republican, are sure to come down now. But when the opportunity to take a whack at the opposition presents itself...

 

Palin's own words contradict her advisors defenses of the cross hairs. After all even her advisers cannot agree. One said they are surveyors scope and another said they are simply marks on a map. Come on folk!

Surveyors do not use the word 'bullseye", hunters and rifle scope users ust that term. It is time for her supports to start being honest.

 

On the other hand, there is no mistaking the BullsEyes on this target map that appeared on the 'Democratic Leadership Counsel' website awhile back. No simple crosshairs for them...

 

Considering what blood libel is, was it a wise term to use?

 

I'm with Mets65 and Ruiz on this one. In addition, Palin was wrong to use the crosshairs (and they were crosshairs as Palin's campaign admitted cheerfully last year) and the gun rhetoric, as were the DLC to use bullseyes and shame on Obama for using gun and knife metaphors; the language of violence has no place in responsible political discourse.

Crabby, the image of 'Sarah Palin' posing in a bikini with a rifle is definitely photo-shopped as are one or two others of her in similar poses. However, I heartily dislike her unpleasant attempts to get a mention of guns and associated words into so many pronouncements she makes. But, then, I am a lily-livered Limey who hates guns and just doesn't 'get' the apparent American obsession with firearms. BTW, I see no-one has commented thus far on her 'blood libel' phrase; clearly she's not going for the Jewish vote next year!

 

Did you see my question above, about 5 minutes before you posted ?

It does not seem like a great move. I wonder if she knew what she was saying?

 

Evidently, we double-posted. I don't think she does know what it means.

 

I wonder if Palin knew the history of the term "blood libel" or if her advisers knew?

You are right, she won no friends among the Jewish population using this term.

My guess is they simply thought it a neat term to use in her defense. It wasn't. One of her favorite defensive tactics is to claim she is a victim who should be above criticism while free to make outlandish statements and use inflammatory words and graphics about others.

 

"Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin defended Palin’s use of the term."

“Sarah Palin got it right,” said the group. “Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/12/dershowitz-others-defend-palins-use-of-blood-libel/

 

How many are in the group supporting her?

Has anyone accused Palin of killing Christian babies? Remember the historical definition of the term "blood libel."

 

Crabby, do the examples of the use of the term "blood libel" bother you too?

Or as much?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think


During the recount in 2000:
Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch last night 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."



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.”


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.”

 

Silly and unanswerable question.

Typical for you though.

 

What do you expect from a group whose website is jewsforsarah.com? They are hardly going to be critical.

I guess I wish that someone, preferably on the right, would rise above the pettiness and childish rhetoric. The attitude seems to be 'it's okay cause they do it too!'

Is that really a good standard?

 

On Monday - January 10 - The Wall Street Journal printed an article with the title "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel".

This was two days before Palin used the word.

Where was the outrage then?

Let's be honest and call it what it really is.

It's about hate.

It's about the left and liberals hating Palin.

 

Do you find the other uses of the words "blood libel" which I have posted to be equally offensive to you?

Why do you suppose that there was no outcry at those times?

 

My point exactly. Why must each politician demean themselves by falling to the lowest common denominator? Why not rise above it?

No one could defend that term. That doesn't mean that both sides need to resort to it. Would love to see the right rise above this because I tend to have a higher regard for their principles.

Is 'they did it first' a legitimate reason?

 

I am not using the "they did it first" line of arguement.

I am asking why there was no protest or outcry against the term in the past.

Why is it now suddenly out of bounds?

What is different this time?