Palin fights back

Publicly? A liberal media.
Privately? Because I am a conservative I hold them to a higher standard. I expect the left to act a certain way. It's a matter of 'consider the source.' I want the right to rise above this kind of nonsense and make a real difference.

 

So the higher standard is to not use the term "blood libel"?

Where is this standard published?

How are conservatives or the right to know what particular words are or are not ok to use?

BTW - this whole blood libel business is just another brick in the wall. The left is always looking for something to use against Palin - and if they can't find something they manufacture controversy.

And this blood libel business is manufactured.

That is why I will keep posting examples of the prior use of the term blood libel that were found to be perfectly acceptable - with no outcry against it.

 

Washington Post, 1991: "New York Newsday columnist Jim Dwyer, who published an interview with Accomando Friday, said the notion of so many bystanders watching a child being raped should have been treated more skeptically. 'It's a blood libel against New York,' he said. 'It's the kind of thing that feeds on everyone's wicked view of the city.'"

‎"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."--Rep. Peter Deutsch, Nov. 21, 2000


‎"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."--Andrew Sullivan, Oct. 12, 2010


"Blood Libel Against the United Nations"--headline on a Washington Post letter to the editor in 1996 rebutting the charge that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of sanctions (presumably for reasons unrelated to Passover)

"Racism can explain part, but not all, of why the welfare state's equivalent of the blood libel stuck."--Samuel G. Freedman, reviewing "The Myth of the Welfare Queen" by David Zucchino in the Washington Post, 1997

NYT book review, 1989: "During the yellow fever plague a form of blood libel is imposed on the blacks in Philadelphia; they are said to be both responsible for and immune to sickness because of the color of their skin."

 

And so politics as usual continues. Your comment about the left and Palin is just as applicable to the right and Obama.

This is why we are in the mess we are in - no one is willing to take the high road.

I have never expected the left to do so. Its not going to happen.

As I get older and older it becomes clear that the right is not going to rise above the muck either.

When my children were younger I held them to a higher standard. It too was not 'published' but it was they. I expected more because they were mine.

So it goes with conservatives. I expect more because 'I are one.'

Maybe it is time to give up that pipe dream and realise that the right and the left are really two birds of a feather so they will always flock together.

 

The use of the term "blood libel" is not the low road.

The use of the term "blood libel" is not the muck.

The meaning of the term "blood libel" has evolved - as do the meanings of many words - to include a false accusation that one party caused another party’s death.

The liberal left was blaming Palin for the shooting deaths - so her use of the word was accurate and correct.

 

C4K, to paraphrase your words...

This is extremely 1984esque. We can't hide from the reality of the situation. Neutering Palin's words dilutes the message.

The liberal left's accusations against Palin accusing her - and by extension conservatives - of responsibility for the shooting deaths was a "blood libel".

 

Not all conservatives support Gov Palin. The 'extension' certainly did not apply to me.

Have we sunk to the point where the litmus test for conservatism is support for Mrs Palin?

BTW, a proper paraphrase requires context. No one is suggesting that her words be neutered - she chose them and they should stand unchanged. That was the context of my quote.

Why is it that any harsh rhetoric, not just 'blood libel,' be a part of our practice. If we on the right are indeed 'right,' why do we have to use the same cheap hits as the guys who are wrong?

Anyhow, I guess I had better get to work. Kids Klub is coming up and then the weekend is ahead. Cheers.

 

It matters not whether all conservatives or you support Palin.

The purpose of the manufactured controversy is meant to discredit conservatives.

To the extent that it works effects the issues that supposedly you as a conservative are concerned about.

Nothing that I have said in this discussion - or anywhere else - even hints at such an idea.

It amazes me that you would take that meaning from my words.

"Blood libel" as used by Palin in that instance was neither harsh rhetoric nor a cheap shot.

It was accurate and appropriate.

I notice that you failed to answer my question as to whether you found the numberous other examples of the public use of the phrase "blood libel" to be equally offensive.

My guess is that the answer would be "No".

 

I really must get to work, but I have to apologise. I thought my reply 'no one can defend that term' in a previous post made it clear that I find it offensive no matter who uses it.

Please forgive me for my ambiguity.

 

You at least - and it appears to be you singularly - are offended equally by the use of the term.

The left, the liberals and the media appear not to share your sensibility on the issue.

As I pointed out there was no outcry over the use of the term in the past.

The lack of response by the Jewish community to the previous uses is most conspicuously absent.

That lack of consistency makes me doubtful of the sincerity of the present claim to outrage.

It's nothing more than manufactured claims meant to take the heat off the liberals, the left and the media that were all quick to jump on "conservative rhetoric" as the cause of the shooting.

 

A classic tactic of the left is to pick and choose words to put out of bounds for use by the right.

It doesn't matter what the words are or what they mean - all that is important is to feign offense at them on some racial, class, or special interest level - so that the right can be silenced.

In this case the left found themselves flat footed and unable to defend themselves at the justifiable offense that the majority took to their attempts to place the blame of the shooting on "conservative rhetoric" and talk radio.

In order to change the subject they decided that "blood libel" is now an offensive term and shifted the 24/7 talking head discussion away from themselves.

 

Count me in on that score too. It's offensive no matter which side of the political divide uses it.

 

I agree ... as I have said in other posts both sides need to tone down their language and graphics.

 

Right - that plus your unabashed hate for Palin.

 

The difference in using the term blood libel this time by Palin vs. the other times it was used by the left is because SIX PEOPLE ARE DEAD and fourteen wounded.

Actual blood was shed. That raises the ante on whether or not the term was used figuratively or literally. We understand when the left used it previously it was a figure of speech, just like Palin supporters insist "targeting" and putting gun sights on political ads was a figure of speech.

FWIW, two prominent Jewish conservative radio talk show hosts, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, were both aghast that Palin used the term.

I am a conservative. I vote Republican more than 90% of the time, probably 95% of the time (I will occasionally vote Dem. or Ind. on local candidates). I don't understand this blind devotion to Sarah Palin. She was wrong to use that term. I will say this in her defense, except for the faux pas of using the term 'blood libel' it was a pretty good speech and she looks a lot more comfortable and confident in front of a camera these days compared to 2008.

 

She's learnt to read from an autocue - maybe she is Presidential material after all!

 

Actually that is what makes the use of the term appropriate.