Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:30 PM ET, 01/12/2011

Palin's use of 'blood libel' and Reagan comment in statement on Tucson shooting

By Glenn Kessler


Sarah Palin's video statement on the Tucson shootings is an interesting example of how meanings can change over time and can be ripped from their original context. This was obviously a well-crafted statement, not something said off the cuff, so Palin and her advisors certainly thought carefully about whether to include these elements. In the new Fact Checker, from time to time we will provide context for the terms that politicians use without awarding any Pinocchios.


Blood Libel

"If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
--
Sarah Palin

The term "blood libel" has a very distinct history. It refers to the false accusation, dating back centuries, that Jews would sacrifice Christian children for various nefarious or even religious purposes -- such as using their blood as an ingredient in the unleavened bread in Passover ceremonies. It was a core tenet of anti-Semitism, widely believed in medieval times and beyond, and often resulted in persecution, murders and other actions against Jews. A pro-Israel website lists more than two dozen examples of blood libel against Jews over the centuries, including as recently as 2005 in Russia.

Palin's use of the term has sparked controversy, in part because she is not Jewish and has often spoken of the United States as a Christian nation -- and because the target of the alleged shooter, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street tweeted, "We hope @SarahPalinUSA will recog that Jews are pained by, take offense at use of 'blood libel'"

But the "blood libel" phrase had already been used in the context of the Tucson tragedy. The conservative commentator Glenn Reynolds first raised it in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, asking, "Where is the decency in blood libel?" Others on the right picked up the phrase as well, leading conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg to wonder if this was appropriate.

"Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he wrote.

But Jim Geraghty, another commentator on National Review, has quickly collected many other examples of commentators and politicians using the phrase "blood libel" out of context. His examples include references to Sen. John Kerry's testimony to the Senate as Vietnam War veteran and the recount battle in Florida after the 2000 election.

None of those examples, of course, involved such a high-profile individual as Palin. Now that she has used it, the attention surrounding the phrase might yank it back to its origins -- or turn it into a new political talking point increasingly divorced from its original meaning.

Quoting Reagan

"President Reagan said, 'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.'"--Sarah Palin

This is a favorite quote of conservatives, as it speaks to individual responsibility. But few people remember when Reagan said it--or why.

The answer is July 31, 1968, at the platform hearings of the Republican convention in Miami that nominated Richard M. Nixon as the GOP candidate against then Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Reagan would not get elected until 12 years later, but his appearance before the platform hearings was a sensation and helped launch the fervor on the right that ultimately took him to the presidency.

But he made his remarks in the middle of a debate over the urban riots that had swept the nation in the aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Some in the party, such as New York Mayor John Lindsay, argued to the platform committee that policies that would help end poverty and racism were needed to stem urban violence. Reagan disagreed, saying society was not the root of crime and suggesting that Democrats had coddled criminals, ignoring the victims.

Reagan, to cheers, argued that "it is too simple to trace all crime to poverty or color. There is a crime problem in the suburbs as well as in the slums and the minority communities are victims of crime out of all proportion to their numbers. Criminals are not bigoted and they are not color blind; they...rob and maim and murder without reference to race, religion or neighborhood boundaries."

Then he made the statement that Palin cited approvingly. But Reagan was not talking about mass murderers or "acts of monstrous criminality," as Palin put it. He was arguing against more social-welfare programs.

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter @GlennKesslerWP

By Glenn Kessler  | January 12, 2011; 12:30 PM ET
Categories:  Sarah Palin, issue context  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Julian Assange's Fears of Guantanamo
Next: The battle over the health care bill

Comments

Gee I never knew Sarah Palin was Jewish.

Posted by: cllr | January 12, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Blood libel is a PERFECT metaphor for Palin's insane "death panels" accusation against the health care law.

Posted by: Dadrick | January 12, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Whatever anyone else has done does not make it okay for Sarah Palin to use the word blood libel in this context when a Jewish congressional staff member Gabe Zimmerman was buried by his parents and Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fights for her life.

This is blood libel http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib2.htm

Posted by: planetspinz | January 12, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I'd be interested in knowing exactly who at the RNC really came up with that loaded phrase for Palin, because it's obviously far beyond the limited scope of knowledge she might actually possess in some dark, unused portion of her pea-like brain.

Posted by: Byrd3 | January 12, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse


Since the term Blood Libel has become, in modern times used in a different context, I think Palin's use of it was correct.

The Liberal MSM and the Left have stooped to new lows.

But keep trying.

Posted by: janet8 | January 12, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Palin and her followers probably didn't know what 'blood libel' meant - it just sounded like a good phrase to use - and they probably don't care (they are after all, the latest incarnation of the "know-nothings")

Posted by: NM1964 | January 12, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Criminals are not bigoted and they are not color blind; they...rob and maim and murder without reference to race, religion or neighborhood boundaries.""

...the problem is that this is just nonsense, and Palin is spewing nonsense on top of nonsense. Criminals are most certainly aware of the race, religion and neighborhood boundaries of their victims. They are no more color or class blind than Sara Palin is or Ronald Reagan was. Racism and classism are inherent in their comments.

They are simply throwing slings and arrows following the principle that a good offense is a great defense. Sara Palin has opened her big freaking yap wide and inserted a size 6 moccasin into it without detaching her favorite snowshoes first. She may be preaching to her choir, but her choir is singing a nightmarish hymn. And she's left to say that not only do they have a right to do that but that it isn't actually nightmarish at all.

Let her keep talking and demonstrate just how good a candidate she is for the lunatic right and how bad of a president she would be for the entire nation. Good job, girl.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 12, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I find it even worse that Palin would pick this up from other conservative pundits, particularly as she decries journalists and the punditry right now. Which is it? She hangs on their every word, as long as it's her so-called "side"? Or punditry and analysis is wrong now across the board in her eyes?

At any rate to pick "blood libel" up with fact checking it herself only underscores how ill-thought out it was, even if there are some rare instances of its use going back a few years. And with Giffords being Jewish? Please!

At best it shows her basic intellectual shallowness.

At worst it shows a cruel streak and ruthless ambition at whatever cost.

And if a bunch of conservatives are saying it, it just looks like there was an emergency session of the Grover Norquist weekly meeting with marching orders to cry "libel" "blood libel" whatever it takes to cement their victimhood.

Posted by: lindsaycurren | January 12, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Hubert Humphrey was Vice President, not Herbert Humphrey.

Posted by: lkhult1 | January 12, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Palin picked the target.
She left it to someone else to pull the trigger.

Posted by: myoung22 | January 12, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the WAPO and the media are still in love with the intellectually challenged Palin. The WAPO's headline is, "Palin accuses critics of 'blood libel'". Did someone shoot her? The WAPO's ALLEDGED journalists are scummbags. The is no journalism being practiced by the WAPO. What a sad and pathetic bunch.

Posted by: edanddot | January 12, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I find it even worse that Palin would pick this up from other conservative pundits, particularly as she decries journalists and the punditry right now. Which is it? She hangs on their every word, as long as it's her so-called "side"? Or punditry and analysis is wrong now across the board in her eyes?

At any rate to pick "blood libel" up with fact checking it herself only underscores how ill-thought out it was, even if there are some rare instances of its use going back a few years. And with Giffords being Jewish? Please!

At best it shows her basic intellectual shallowness.

At worst it shows a cruel streak and ruthless ambition at whatever cost.

And if a bunch of conservatives are saying it, it just looks like there was an emergency session of the Grover Norquist weekly meeting with marching orders to cry "libel" "blood libel" whatever it takes to cement their victimhood.

Posted by: lindsaycurren | January 12, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the WAPO and the media are still in love with the intellectually challenged Palin. The WAPO's headline is, "Palin accuses critics of 'blood libel'". Did someone shoot her? The WAPO's ALLEDGED journalists are scummbags. The is no journalism being practiced by the WAPO. What a sad and pathetic bunch.

Posted by: edanddot | January 12, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Why should she know what a "blood libel" is? She (and Beck and Limbaugh and the other trogs) don't know the difference between a Nazi, Socialist, Communist or Marxist, but love to throw these words around. She is not just an airhead; she is a very dangerous airhead.

Posted by: roscym1 | January 12, 2011 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Palin again demonstrates why she is unfit for office in America.

Posted by: conchfc | January 12, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

If it fits, it fits. A people shouldn't have exclusive use over a word. And I'm sure any offended person, if they looked objectively, they would see a coordinated, vicious attack against Palin over the past 2 -1/2 years.

Posted by: cprferry | January 12, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I mean it's just insane to say that blacks and other minorities commit crimes in disproportionate numbers and then claim that you speak without regard to race or social-status. These comments come straight out of fear of minorities. If you aren't willing to accept any responsibility for the actions of criminals, and you think that minorities are disproportionately-criminal than how can you claim to be blind to race? It's inherent in your comment! You're a walking talking racist who then wants to deny any responsibility for minority crime.

That is the very problem with crime, it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Sure some criminals don't choose their victims based on their race and social status but surely some do if not most. And it is their very socioeconomic status combined with the prejudice of other ethnic groups towards that socioeconomic status that *keeps* them in that socioeconomic status and that makes them such a risk to those groups.

This is utter nonsense...and she's saying it like it makes perfect sense. What does she want us to believe, that whites are afraid of minorities, are prejudiced towards minorities, shun minorities, simply because they are **Minorities**, and not because to whites minorities represent a high risk of criminal activity? LOL!

I don't see how she can talk her way out of this. Prejudice exists in this country, there's no doubt about it. It is either an irrational fear of minorities simply because they are different or a rational fear simply because of the risk they represent. But the end result is the same: minorities do not get the same chance to succeed in this country that whites get, therefore they are under more economic pressure, and therefore more of them turn to crime, more often. It's a self-perpetuating cycle...were this not the case, whites would not have a rational leg to stand on for being prejudiced at all.

It's not going to be hard for the average white person to take a hard look at what she is saying and see the inherent contradiction. Now it is right there on the table for all to see. If you want to blame the individual and not society then you have to admit that the individuals are characterized by race and socioeconomic status. If you feel prejudiced at all towards them as a result then what more is there to say? There is absolutely no defense here.

Honestly she should have shut up while she was only so far behind. Now she's clearly a blatant racist as well as delusional.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 12, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the WAPO and the media are still in love with the intellectually challenged Palin. The WAPO's headline is, "Palin accuses critics of 'blood libel'". Did someone shoot her? The WAPO's ALLEDGED journalists are worthless. The is no journalism being practiced by the WAPO. What a sad and pathetic bunch.

Posted by: edanddot | January 12, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

We've had to listen to her SATANIC hate mongering rhetoric for too long. It's time for America to change the channel, and send her into obscurity.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | January 12, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm so sad that Palin had to come back. I was really beginning to enjoy talking to people on the opposite side of me politically without them calling me crazy.

Posted by: tropunlim | January 12, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Palin talks in ever diminishing circles until her head is stuck up her ass.

Posted by: njms | January 12, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Palin is incapable of putting two coherent sentences together. Who wrote this for her??She is a major league moron indeed.

Posted by: jamesacknh | January 12, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh loaded the bullets. Glen Beck held the gun. And Sarah Palin pulled the trigger.

Posted by: cybervigilante | January 12, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh, you'd have to be a real dufus to not figure out what she meant by "blood libel" - Look at the context and figure it out.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what that woman says, liberals will warp it out of context and use it against her.

Posted by: iluv9mm | January 12, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin's use of the terminology shows her ignorance. She is also incredibly lacking in empathy despite her expression of sympathy. She is back on the attack after this horrific incident in which six people (including a 9-year-old child) were killed. Palin put cross-hairs on a web-site to "target Gifford" among others. Palin refuses to accept responsibility for her words and actions. It is always the fault of another. She reminds of me a spoiled 2-year-old. Except her words and actions have much more serious ramifications.

She along with Limbaugh, Beck and the rest have used vitriol, distortions, lies to spread hate and mistrust. However, they are not being held accountable. In fact, they defend their right to do so under "free speech."

In the words of someone who was much wiser than I will ever be:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" (Edward R. Murrow)

Posted by: abbydelabbey | January 12, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Honestly she should have shut up while she was only so far behind. Now she's clearly a blatant racist as well as delusional."

And yes she's been under near-constant attack ever since she was put forward as a candidate for the 2nd highest office in the country. And deservedly so. Because she's an imbecile. And McCain was an imbecile for choosing her. And clearly those who think that she is in any way qualified for public office are also imbeciles.

She is like Harriet Miers to the Nth power. You cannot claim to be race-neutral and then talk about minorities as a whole, babble about "individual responsibility" and then talk in general terms about race and crime, and then claim that you are neither a racist nor an irresponsible imbecile with a big mouth nor responsible for race-hatred. Just as she is responsible for hatred against Democratic politicians. You want to go around putting crosshairs on their districts? At least have the cojones to accept responsibility for the results. There may not be a direct link betwen that act and this shooting, but on the other hand I'm sure that her rhetoric, as well as the rhetoric of many other conservatives, played a significant part in his decision to shoot this woman and then light up a crowd of her supporters.

You can't credibly deny this. Yet here they are arrogantly, stupidly trying to do just that.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 12, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else enjoy picturing a bullseye right smack dab in the middle of Palin's face? I find great joy in it myself, especially since she herself states there is nothing wrong with that image.

Posted by: mab94550 | January 12, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Congresswoman Gifford still has more of a brain than governor-Quitter palin ever will.

Posted by: sal4 | January 12, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

So liberal bigots in the news media are now trying to decode words and phrases to find hidden meanings with nefarious intent. I wonder if Glen Kessler spends his spare time playing music backwards listening for hidden messages? Liberals like Kessler are nuttier than Loughner ... and that's scary.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | January 12, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really think she actually chose to use the term "blood libel". She must have speech writers who know more than she does. She needs to do some research into what they are giving her to say.

Posted by: WindyCity | January 12, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio."

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040

This last week has been another series of lies and inuendos from the Democrats. They are truly disgusting. Good people of the Tea Party - remember in 2012, and throw every lying leftist out of office.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | January 12, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

We all know that Sarah doesn't use the blood of Christian children to make her bread. (She uses Muslim children.)

Posted by: thrh | January 12, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I find it rather amusing that Ms.Palin, who has repeatedly criticized the "Lame stream media," is now using it to distort the facts and deflect the criticism away from her. She said in her statement that the pundits and commentators were somehow to blame for the American people rushing to judgment and blaming her and the Tea Party for the massacre in Arizona. I beg to differ, I formed my on conclusion, as I am sure millions of other Americans did also. I don't need talking heads to tell me how to think; I can think on my own, thank you. Sadly. Ms. Palin begs to differ.

Posted by: atinaebud | January 12, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

She should've said something like "I've been getting more attention than an alter boy at a Catholic church"

Posted by: sponedal | January 12, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It really doesn't matter what Palin says. She's creepy and it amazes me that she's important to anyone.

Posted by: gackles | January 12, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

What this dim witted woman has done with her speeches and rallies are no different than what radical imams do in mosques in other countries. The imams didn't fly the planes. They didn't hold any guns. They didn't make any bombs. They just preached hate and fear into their followers. So I guess we can't blame the imams for suicide bombers and terrorists either then.

Posted by: sal4 | January 12, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I wish they would do these fact check articles about every democrat that is for.... the people... How about fact check Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, shall I go on. This paper is a joke and is typical of the finger pointing on the left.

Posted by: wwfitzpatrick | January 12, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I had a bowl of chili for lunch a bit ago, and the waitress asked me if I wanted a cracker.

I then gave her a 5 minute dressing-down about how divisive and hurtful her use of the term 'cracker' was and that she should be ashamed of using a term that causes such pain in white people.

++

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 12, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Apart from the Anti-Semetic overtones to the term "Blood Libel" what I find disturbing is that she decided to use it the context of a response to criticism that she employs violent imagery and language. Clearly violence is so ingrained in Palin's way of speaking that she has to conjure up images of blood and child sacrifice in conjunction with talking about this horrible tragedy where 6 innocent people, including a child, lost their lives. We might never know what set Loughner off but doesn't decency require that some regrets be expressed. Palin could have used this moment to elevate herself and take on the role of the leader instead she has shown her clear preference that she would rather get down in the mud for some old fashion Palin Fuedin'! Is there not a fight that this woman won't dive into head first? Would it have cost her overweening ego so much to make the mildest sort of appology saying that in hindsight she regrets her violent laced language and imagery?

Posted by: dre7861 | January 12, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The Far Right wants to steal everything not nailed down--while the Far Left wants to give away what they don't have--mostly to try to create dependency--both lie through their hats.

Posted by: Skerns0301 | January 12, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Blood libel is a PERFECT metaphor for Palin's insane "death panels" accusation against the health care law.

Posted by: Dadrick | January 12, 2011 12:59 PM

=======

So insane that even Paul Krugman of the New York Times called them that.

Posted by: hofbrauhausde | January 12, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The liberal progressives are so stupid that they don't realize they got there butts kicked in November.

Posted by: farmsnorton | January 12, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

So liberal bigots in the news media are now trying to decode words and phrases to find hidden meanings with nefarious intent. I wonder if Glen Kessler spends his spare time playing music backwards listening for hidden messages? Liberals like Kessler are nuttier than Loughner ... and that's scary.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer
===========================================
I have to admit Palin is one bad*ss chick. The liberal media has been embarrassing itself grasping at nothing for days trying to bury her and she comes out and hits them so hard they are literally punch drunk. Every liberal blog is babbling on incoherently about what she means by blood libel. I can totally picture the effeminate gasp they all let out when they first saw her comments. Hilarious. On top of that, Obama who? She has totally monopolized the news media.

Posted by: peterg73 | January 12, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad S.P is doing exactly as I predicted. If she admitted to sharing any responsibility she would be sued and ruined. It would also burst the bubble in which her followers dwell and her ratings would crash. No way did she knew the context of the mentioned phrase.

At least we now have solid proof that Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and the entire cast of extreme right, have no souls.

Posted by: echoparkla | January 12, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The actual story here is how the media shifted the focus from the shooting to the issue of "political speech". There was, and is, no evidence that the shooter was influenced in any way by talk radio or political speech. Liberals (and the left) are terrified of open debate and free speech, and this tragedy has been exploited by the regime and its Media Sepoys as an excuse to attack the political opposition . Some in the Democrat Party are already demanding limitations on First Amendment Speech. Obama intends to use Rep Giffords in the same way Castro used the death of Che Guevara, the Communists used Trostsky, or Hitler used Horst Wessel. The left picks a martyr and, inthe martyr's name, expands its power. This entire debate is outrageous because it is a media-Democrat party manufactured issue designed to silence criticism of Obama at the expense of the dead.

Posted by: MARKM2 | January 12, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"The Gospel says the crowd shouted back: "His blood be on us and on our children," a phrase taken for centuries to indicate that the Jewish people as a whole and for perpetuity bore direct responsibility for the crucifixion and were therefore fair game for persecution and extermination."
///////////

This narrative spins the verse into a completely opposite metaphysical meaning. For his own distorted purposes, the author embraces the same misrepresentation that Jew haters use to justify their malice. But taken in context, the meaning is completely different. This verse merely demonstrates that Christ's own people (all mankind) were determined to crucify those who challenge the powers that be - just like today.

Christ was a Jew himself and He forgave this and all transgressions: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The entire message of the Gospel and the crucifixion of the Christ embodies forgiveness and praying for one's enemies; it is the opposite of the rationale of the author and the reverse of those who misinterpret this verse for the purposes of hatred.

Posted by: corneliusvansant | January 12, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

OMG- i bet she used a teleprompter! have the rightists forgotten how evil that is? palin is 100% honest at all times- like her aid pointing out the surveyors symbols, and her complaining about the typo refudiate that she actually said- so everything she says is worth listening to.

Posted by: marcawodey | January 12, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, you are such a phoney.

Posted by: baskervillehill | January 12, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

At least Palin was smart enough in this instance to leave the verbal exercise to an accomplished word-smith. I'd hate to see what she would have written in her hand using her thought processes - miniscule though they are.

It is far better she stay in Alaska communing with the Russians, shooting bar and saving us from the imminent North Korean invasion than get involved in an intellectual disagreement.

Posted by: chamateddy | January 12, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Thi should keep the fact checker busy! Trying to hold Sarah Palin ccountable to the facts is worse than trying to herd cats. There has never been a fact she couldn't ignore, or one that she couldn't make up, to serve her purposes. When you call her to account, you are the one at fault - not her. And all of her followers will agree.

Posted by: garoth | January 12, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

So has anyone actually looked at the real issues as to why the attack occured? Nope, instead I see 100 different posts on how Sarah Palin is dumb. Like it or not folks, she is IN politics, we are not. We just comment and watch things happen. Try readin up on the Dream Act or the volitile immigration war being waged in Arizona. Has a little more to do with the event then what Sarah Palin said. Like her or not, she is protected by the Constitution and Freedom of Speech either way. She did not pull the trigger, that is all that legally matters.

Posted by: duckie86 | January 12, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Jews neither own the terms "blood" and "libel" nor their juxtaposition. Get over it. And if Palin et al. weren't accused of causing blood to be spilled, what were they accused of? Seems perfectly reasonable for her to use the term.

Now if only we can come up with a term for the media malfeasance and liberal cravenness that's been on display in recent days. How about, "typical"? Works for me.

Posted by: TheEmpiricist | January 12, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the original meaning of 'blood libel' the context in which it was used was clear.

Palin hater's choose to focus on these things. Grow up a little, folks. Have you considered debating the ACTUAL issue?

I didn't think so.

Posted by: primegrop | January 12, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Sarah would quote Regan wanting individuals to be responsible for their own actions, but Sarah contniues to take none for her own. She wants others held to a higher standard when they speak of her, but never for her to when she speaks of others. As to the 'blood libel' reference, regardless of whether or not a bloggers used the term first, Sarah chose to use the reference and the violent imagery it evokes. Her obsession with using violent rhetoric is unhealthy and unprofessional and only she is responsible for the consequences her choices bring upon her.

Posted by: pgs70 | January 12, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Some words Sarah Palin might want to look up: "rhe-tor-ic," "blood libel," "reload."

Posted by: efaden1 | January 12, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

See what happens when you are an inarticulate moron who speaks in Twitter-ease? You get things written for you that you don't even understand the context of. Keep defending her, apologists...

Posted by: LABC | January 12, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

You know?
If Sarah Palin were to say "Gee it's a wonderful day here" the "So Intelligent Left would find a way to criticize the statement and vilify.
I guess there are many who are educated beyond their abilities and probably are supported by the taxpayers.

Posted by: jbenn35 | January 12, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

So it's okay to use the term because it has been used by other "conservative" pundits? Glad those same "conservatives" have dropped the companion "compassionate" label, as they continue to prove they are anything but.

Posted by: temptxan | January 12, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I am very much looking forward to the fact check on the Paul Krugman articles.

While we have untold hours (and inexplicable interest)to parse the phrasing of Sarah Palin, it is interesting to see that for which we have no time at all.

Does anyone remember the Bush years? I seem to recall they were punctuated with a civility which included burning effigies of the President, movies about his hopeful and justified assignation, the ascension of the well heeled and civil Michael Moore as a spokesman for the left. I guess I missed the fact checks and righteous indignation during that era.

While I am not a fan of Mrs. Palin, it is intellectually dishonest to consider her in any way responsible for the actions of a deranged individual. No more so than I hold the likes of Messers Krugman and Moore responsible.

Doug M.

Posted by: DWMacKay | January 12, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone honestly believe that Sarah Palin ever heard of "blood libel" or the quote from Ronald Reagan before her handlers put it in front of her?????

Posted by: da_fisherman | January 12, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

How sad - to see a nationally-recognized newspaper wasting its time over the precise words used 5 days after the fact by a public figure they have made no secret of hating, rather than having, or leading a rational discussion over the sorry state of mental health services (or lack thereof) across every state in the nation.

Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glen Beck, The Tea Party, the Republican Party and Glock Corp did NOT shoot all of those people. A severely mentally disturbed young man took matters into his own hands, driven by whatever internal demons had taken over his life, alone, was responsible for what happened. Period.

For you to focus so heavily on EVERYTHING BUT the actual cause of this tragedy reveals the nefarious undercurrent of what drives your news organization. You are CLEARLY more concerned about installing your own liberal brand of big government in this country than you are about getting to the real heart of what happens every time one of these mentally deranged individuals has a bad day. The blameless society that you liberals always espouse does not exist in the real world, only in your wrong-headed liberal minds.

One person, and one person alone was responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon, and that is the young man in custody, who planned the attack and pulled the trigger. The lack of mental health services clearly failed society as this young man wandered the pathways of his upbringing through the education system the health care system, the law enforcement community, and everyone else who chose to look the other way rather than getting him help when it might have mattered.

Sarah Palin lives in Alaska thousands of miles away. Despite your clear and obvious hatred of her conservative philosophy, she had absolutely nothing - zero - nadda, to do with this tragedy. Shame on you and your paper for not doing your job!

Posted by: pmnop3 | January 12, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Fox News, Palin, Limbaugh & other far right wing Republicans have all become rich by preaching "HATE" They all hate something or someone, this is what attracts the loonies to them. They all share in the Arizona killings. This should be a wake up call for Fox News, that is if they have any moral values or sense of decency ?

Posted by: wasaUFO | January 12, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't know that there's anything wrong with using the term "blood libel" in and of itself; historical analogy is perfectly acceptable in rhetoric and there are those who hold other accountable for the historic crimes of people who look similar.

In this context, however, use of the phrase is not only offensive to many, doing so runs counter to Palin's own interests. It gives credence to those who assert that Palin engages in irresponsible and divisive rhetoric.

She really needs to learn to keep her mouth shut or at least think about what she says and how she says it before she does.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | January 12, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Fox News, Palin, Limbaugh & other far right wing Republicans have all become rich by preaching "HATE" They all hate something or someone, this is what attracts the loonies to them. They all share in the Arizona killings. This should be a wake up call for Fox News, that is if they have any moral values or sense of decency ?

Posted by: wasaUFO | January 12, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin knows virtually nothing about life beyond her own mind. Never expect intelligent words from her.

Having said that, I have seen no facts connecting the killer with big mouth media and politician rants. My hunch is the killer was motivated by his own nuttiness in the context of hatred he hears expressed in the media, his own deranged mental processes, and people with whom he associates (face-to-face, on the internet, and otherwise). Only when the courts hear the prosecution case against him might we hear a lot of facts relating to this issue.

Young Sarah deserves everything she gets. She needs to be able to take what she dishes. If she can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: papio | January 12, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

... Oh, and let's also drag in the Jews!

Why can't we get a statement like "The attacks against me are unfounded and if I have in any way added to the environment of hate, I apologize." Instead, we get something to the effect that she is's OK to continue and to "Up" the verbal attacks, and to flaunt the First Amendment and the right to bear arms.

... Oh, and let's also drag in the Jews!


Posted by: bmovie | January 12, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

J Street is NOT pro-Israel.

Posted by: Lumiere1 | January 12, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

If the phrase "blood libel" now has a new meaning, what is that meaning? Does blood libel now mean a libel against someone's blood? [Your blood sucks.] Does it mean that one person's blood has libeled someone else? [You're just a lousy type A.] Does it simply mean serious libel, as opposed to trivial libel? [You blood libel me when you criticize my taste.]

It's easy to assert that blood libel has a new meaning. It's more important, and more difficult, to identify that new meaning.

Posted by: marik7 | January 12, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Good2 | January 12, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

She probably heard her witch doctor reverend use the term so thought it was ok to mix in with her word salad.
Also Ronald Reagan was a prick.

Posted by: Canonera | January 12, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, how can you claim that JOHN KERRY is not a high-profile person?

Despite Jews attempting to take ownership of "blood libel," it really is an apt use by Sarah Palin: she was unfairly accused of having the blood of the Tucson victims on her hands, metaphorically. Literally, six persons were killed and 13 injured. The use of the terms "blood" and "libel" relate to the seriousness of the event and the accusations. Had Paul Krugman said it, I doubt, 100%, that liberal Jewish groups would be objecting.

Posted by: ryoung122 | January 12, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

And the purpose of this story was to "incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn". Success! and almost nobody noticed.

Posted by: toocold6 | January 12, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Come on my Jewish brothers and sisters! Do not be wimpy little sheep any longer. We are God's chosen people. Do not sit and cry over a few misplaced words. Do not let the media humble you in any way. Stand tall as God's children are expected to.

Posted by: RegularGuyInTexas | January 12, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I’d already dismissed allegations that Sarah Palin was responsible in any way for this tragedy, despite the fact that Rep. Giffords previously criticized Palin's use of crosshairs and stated that Palin had to realize that there are consequences for such actions. That is an unfortunate coincidence that just might have generated a hostile reaction by a crazy person. So both crosshairs and alleged consequences are haunting in their implications.
Meanwhile, if Palin had simply taken the high road and not mentioned blood libel, it would have been a very good speech. Sorry she had to go and stir up more controversy by further politicizing this tragedy. Her advisors have done her a disservice that certainly will not improve her image among the general population. She’d have been better off to say nothing, but it is very difficult for politicians to keep their mouths shut.

Posted by: dennis98 | January 12, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

oh and all you viciously attacking her now are full of the same hate and vitriol you falesly accuse her of. what hypocrites.

Posted by: Good2 | January 12, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

What a pity that Andy Warhol is not still alive to paint one of his ingenious portraits of Sarah Palin. Wonder where he would have positioned her head? The press needs its "darlings," and so plants her at the center of our news. What an embarrassment. To the poster who suggests that Palin is dangerous: wouldn't she need a few more brain cells to be truly dangerous? God was wise when he created her...a diversion from sanity.

Posted by: pk161976 | January 12, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Some thoughts on a snowy day in CT:
1. Sara Palin thinks people care what she "thinks" and we don't because we know that she doesn't but is a parrot for whatever she hears...
2. Take her text and play with Microsoft word...check it for readability, grammar and use of language...I would give her a "D" . WP has done a great job of fact checking her (thanks)
It is a joke, right!
Last point is that our use of language in politics has degraded to the point that we must use "violent words to communicate and debate our differences. We must demonize those with who we disagree. Words have meanings and nuances. Even Jared Laugtner knew that in his sick mind. That this most violent kind of rhetoric has been used, that those using it do not understand is the larger part of the problem. Words do have consequences and those who use. We should give them no bully pulpit and relegate them to the back pages of our newpapers and less mention as noteworthy in the media.

Posted by: nutmegger1 | January 12, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I then gave her a 5 minute dressing-down about how divisive and hurtful her use of the term 'cracker' was and that she should be ashamed of using a term that causes such pain in white people.

++

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko
******************************

and then you laughed, shorted her on the bill, didn't leave a tip, went home, told your parents what a wit you are, went downstairs to your basement bedroom, downloaded asian porn and ate cheetos. Anything else you wanted to tell us about your day?

Posted by: LABC | January 12, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

tokenwhitemale said it best, let her keep talking..she represents the republican party, she was their best candidate, how scary is that...

Posted by: cmonsense2 | January 12, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Bin Palin is a dangerous toxic whacko and Americans would do well to get rid of her and toss her off her delusional narcissistic perch. That Palin would use ANTI-SEMETIC terms does not surprise me. The woman is the embodiment of hate and intolerance. Palin's Christianity is also a delusion and has absolutely no historical basis whatsoever. If you don't clearly see and understand that Sarah Palin drawing cross hairs on Rep Giffords and her constant spewing of hate, racism, and bigotry is no immoral; then you are just as depraved, degenerate, and immoral as Sarah Palin.

Posted by: vintel7 | January 12, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Kessler,
As the self styled "fact checker"..who singles out error and often rewards "pinocchios" (your word)....the following quote is indeed a whopper:
....."The liberal pro-Israel group J Street tweeted, "We hope @SarahPalinUSA"........

J-Street is neither liberal nor pro-Israel, in fact it is somewhere to the left of Leon Trotsky (sponsored and financed by George Soros among others of his ilk)and rabidly ANTI ISREAL !

Obviously you groped to reach for an anti Palin message, but Google is NOT the five books of Moses, you were, in your role, obliiged to research this group rather that exult over it and include it with such an abhorently incorrect description of thiis band of swine.
Keep on Checkin',
Mike Bee, New Jersey

Posted by: mikebee1 | January 12, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Sarah has no issue in quoting Reagan's 1968 chestnut: 'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions,' so why can she not be accountable for her own actions? Her guns a-blazin', rifle scope rhetoric (along with others of her ilk, even on the left)is most certainly capable of tipping a mentally unstable mind over the edge. The woman's a walking hypocrisy, whether in size 6 moccasins, stilettos or snowshoes.

Her statement should've ended in its fourth paragraph, with condolences for the lives lost and shattered in Tucson. That would've been a class act. But she just doesn't know when to quit.

Incorrect usage of the 'blood libel' term is just icing on this monstrous baked Alaska(n).

Posted by: culchiewoman | January 12, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, it is NOT about you! Note to the media: stop paying attention to this former newsmaker!

Posted by: mnhockeymom | January 12, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

One of the big stories of the past couple days has been the atrocious performance of the media in the coverage of the Tucson shootings. And what does the Post do -- parse the meaning of a phrase that Palin uses. Helps prove the point she was making.

Posted by: dakotadoug83 | January 12, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

One of the big stories of the past couple days has been the atrocious performance of the media in the coverage of the Tucson shootings. And what does the Post do: Parse the meaning of a phrase that Palin uses. Helps prove the point that she was making.

Posted by: dakotadoug83 | January 12, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

@janet 8.

Will you keep trying to learn how to punctuate sentences?

Posted by: Theodor2 | January 12, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

tokenwhitemale,

You are ascribing what Reagan said to Sarah Palin. This is typical of persons who are so quick to attempt to find fault with Sarah Palin that they fail to vet their own language. Did you even read the material?

Try again.

Posted by: ryoung122 | January 12, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I believe Ms. Palin's use of blood libel is not inappropriate in context. I do not believe the term is inherently anti-Semitic and she probably meant the association with Ms. Gifford's faith. To blame rightwing words for the current atmosphere denies the extremism of the leftwing now largely out of favor politically--but quite apparent during the Bush years. The use of war-based rhetoric is nothing new (targets, loaded, attack, etc.), is probably and usually metaphorical, and should be avoided right now for sympathy with the tragedy's victims.

Too many speak too extremely, especially in our media.

It sure would be nice if people would talk as if they could get along. It sure would be nice if people would talk as if disagreement was not a lack of character or morals or reason. I wish they would talk to persuade and not alienate.

Posted by: jleslie1 | January 12, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The point isn't that using the phrase "blood libel" incorrectly insults Jews. It doesn't. (I'm one example of a non-insulted Jew, and Ezra Klein is another: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/sarah_palins_missed_opportunit.html?hpid=topnews). The point is that Sarah Palin and Glenn Reynolds are ignoramuses for using a term when they have no idea what it means.

Posted by: Dan4 | January 12, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Quoting your self-righteous, indignant material...if what you said actually happened, I would agree. But read the story again: the author is quoting Ronald Reagan, NOT Sarah Palin. The author is pointing out that Reagan was talking about social contexts, and Palin was talking about individual acts of violence. I can't find your straw-man accusations in the actual article. Wow, it's so easy to make the opponent look bad, when you don't bother to quote what they said.

I mean it's just insane to say that blacks and other minorities commit crimes in disproportionate numbers and then claim that you speak without regard to race or social-status. These comments come straight out of fear of minorities. If you aren't willing to accept any responsibility for the actions of criminals, and you think that minorities are disproportionately-criminal than how can you claim to be blind to race? It's inherent in your comment! You're a walking talking racist who then wants to deny any responsibility for minority crime.

That is the very problem with crime, it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Sure some criminals don't choose their victims based on their race and social status but surely some do if not most. And it is their very socioeconomic status combined with the prejudice of other ethnic groups towards that socioeconomic status that *keeps* them in that socioeconomic status and that makes them such a risk to those groups.

This is utter nonsense...and she's saying it like it makes perfect sense. What does she want us to believe, that whites are afraid of minorities, are prejudiced towards minorities, shun minorities, simply because they are **Minorities**, and not because to whites minorities represent a high risk of criminal activity? LOL!

I don't see how she can talk her way out of this. Prejudice exists in this country, there's no doubt about it. It is either an irrational fear of minorities simply because they are different or a rational fear simply because of the risk they represent. But the end result is the same: minorities do not get the same chance to succeed in this country that whites get, therefore they are under more economic pressure, and therefore more of them turn to crime, more often. It's a self-perpetuating cycle...were this not the case, whites would not have a rational leg to stand on for being prejudiced at all.

It's not going to be hard for the average white person to take a hard look at what she is saying and see the inherent contradiction. Now it is right there on the table for all to see. If you want to blame the individual and not society then you have to admit that the individuals are characterized by race and socioeconomic status. If you feel prejudiced at all towards them as a result then what more is there to say? There is absolutely no defense here.

Honestly she should have shut up while she was only so far behind. Now she's clearly a blatant racist as well as delusional.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 12, 2011 1:30 PM

Posted by: ryoung122 | January 12, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats will be no more successful in destroying Sarah Palin than they were the Tea Party. At the end of the day, an insignificant percentage label themselves liberal, while some 40% label themselves conservative. It's only the liberal media that makes the left sound important - without the media carrying their water, the left would (will) be exiled to the fringe, where they belong. The vast majority of Americans subscribe to Tea Party values, whether the left acknowledges it or not. Please read up on Cloward-Piven and Alinski; the Democrat playbook is available for all to see. Isolate and ridicule is one of their tenets.

Remember in 2012. Join a Tea Party in your area and defeat every leftist you can.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | January 12, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't you quote John Kerry?

Posted by: RepealObamacareNow | January 12, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

All political speech is overblown, but I don't think that her analogy is more overblown than average. There are some (a handful) who have decided to claim that the tea party and by extension the republican party are to blame for the actions of a single individual.

Whether it was politically correct or politically advisable for her to make this particular analogy is certainly another question. No group which has been unjustly treated likes their suffering to be compared to anything, especially not when the comparison is being made to something less horrible.

At the end of the day, though, political speech always has costs and there's really no way to avoid that. The only real question is whether her use of the phrase will have more positive effect for her than negative effect.

Posted by: quicky | January 12, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Sara Palin in this video: insincere, phony and self serving, did I say insincere.

Posted by: cmonsense2 | January 12, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is 100% correct....

actually "blood libel" doesn't go far enough
in describing the hate-filled intolerance
coming from the liberal media (and many Dems)
these days...


Posted by: badman53 | January 12, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

you are all a lost generation.....gertrude stein

Posted by: RegularGuyInTexas | January 12, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I appreciate this explanation, wondered where she got that. What IS insidious about it is that she is suggesting that the journalists/pundits/media are Jewish and sacrificing her . . .

She has this pattern of defensive aggression that depicts herself as the victim of many forces 'out there' so that she, herself, rarely, if ever, takes her share of responsibility for any of her conflicts.

A dreadful personal trait, no matter who's doing it, but in public life, it is arrested development and produces only conflict.

Posted by: GaiasChild | January 12, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Why are we even listening to this ignorant, stupid person who has quit every job she ever had while leaving only chaos behind? She is a spokeperson for the know nothings in our country- meanwhile making millions by pandering to fear, xenophobia and hate. She is like watching a train wreck 24/7.

Posted by: Luke2 | January 12, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I've read every comment and it's clear that the invective and hate mongering is coming from those with a liberal (leftist) mindset. Leftist rantings don't contribute anything to healthy debates about problems in our society. When far left ideologues have no cogent arguments, they resort to personal attacks. Notice how many of the left-leaning commenters call Sarah stupid. Liberals have done that to Reagan, Bush and other conservatives too. I'll keep listening in hopes of finding a liberal gem of wisdom . . . there are too few.

Posted by: SFauthor | January 12, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I applaud Palin's use of the loaded term, because it will generate interest in the term's true history and in the characteristic efforts by many Jews to lay exclusive claim to it as a part of their endless special pleading and victimology.[• the possession of an outlook, arising from real or imagined victimization, that seems to glorify and indulge the state of being a victim. Oxford American Dictionary] Holocaust and no end.

Here is a part of an historical account of the blood libel: "Propaganda arguing that the Christians literally drank blood based on their belief in transubstantiation was written and used to persecute Christians. Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies and this was suggested as a possible source of the blood." http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Blood_libel

This is not a history that many Jews want to share with other people who have been the victims of vicious knowing lies. It's time they were called to account for it, in my opinion, and I applaud Palin for her courage in the face of the certain baseless charges of "anti semitism" that are already being called down upon her head. But at long last "anti semitism" is a charge that is rapidly losing the special anathema so carefully constructed for it by professional Jewish apologists since the end of World War II. For not much longer will it provide skirts to hide behind.

Posted by: miglefitz | January 12, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Could it be that this is a 'wink' to her anti-Semitic followers? She's made no secret of her view that this is a Christian nation, one in which Jews (and other nonbelievers) presumably have no place. The 'blood libel' was a lie used by Christians for centuries as an excuse to persecute Jews and steal from them. If it lives on anywhere, it would be among her ignorant and hyperreligious followers. A wink, a nudge, a 'Know what I mean? . . .'

Posted by: DaveHarris | January 12, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

SFauthor-I'm not a "liberal" but thought you might enjoy this "gem" of wisdom- an example of Palin's stupidity. By the way Ronald Reagan, who I voted for, and George Bush were geniuses in comparison to the doltish Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZY188bNw4Y

Posted by: Luke2 | January 12, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Luke2

Look at what you've become. A little man (number 2 as you put it) insulting a hottie like Sarah Palin from the comfort of your keyboard. Get out and get some sunshine, dude.

Posted by: RegularGuyInTexas | January 12, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin did as well as any person that is incapable of a ignoble thought of their own.

Posted by: ohwell1 | January 12, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

More word salads and games from liberals. It is sad that the use of a phrase can spark these many words.

But her speech was beautiful. Through tragedy, she focused on what made our country great. She didn't blame the left. She was gentle in her condemnation of the media and the left who did it to her.

She acted as a leader and was more presidential than what we will get tonight from our phony Commander-in-Grief.

Posted by: sflesher2002 | January 12, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

All religions have their silly beliefs and their silly detractors. Using a jewish term to plead innocence about targetting a jew is nearly as stupid as the jewish kaporos ceremony where a chicken is killed and swung around in the air to take up the sins of the past year. I somehow feel the jewish folk will look on her using a jewish insult as a slight; it's nice to see Palin is maintaining her dimwit persona and continuing to embarrass anyone who's seen in her company.

Posted by: icurhuman2 | January 12, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Which part of the english language is reserved for jews and which part for gentiles?

Posted by: bearkick | January 12, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Any normal person who had specifically focused on the 2 races she was targeting where Democrats won and said "Dont retreat, RELOAD" would be HORRIFIED that one of those Democrats was shot in the head.

Posted by: postreader118 | January 12, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Palin . . reminds me of an old, old song about a person in the gutter with a pig..."And the Pig got up and Slowly Walked Away".
Sad - - Sad that we have such people, Palin, Beck, O'Reilly (remember Dr. Tillman's murder?- called for by O'Reilly) & Limbaugh.
FOX News? Where does such trash come from?

Posted by: lufrank1 | January 12, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Luke2...you actually identified yourself as
a Dem/liberal by referring to your opponent's "stupidity".

It is very similar to a 4-year old referring to a playmate as "stupid" when they are confused or have their feelings hurt.

We have witnessed successive generations of Dems constantly refer to their political adversaries (Reagan, Bush, Palin)as "stupid" - why? because they have the nerve to disagree with the libs.

Once again, we see the liberal side as adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Posted by: badman53 | January 12, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to this journalist pointing out out of context use of the term "Blood Libel". I think it is just another example of how pretentious and idiotic Palin is. Just like when she decides to make up words.

For all fan boys and girls defending Palin, saying that no one owns the term or words, you need to grow up. A term that is used for centuries has a definition. If we just start using words free from definition, guess what, they lose their meaning. That term should not just be changed up and used for the benefits of political spotlight and rhetorics.

Posted by: Mike12341 | January 12, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I just love how if the left has an opinion that a right winger disagrees with... Its sub-human, low, etc... Just listen to Beck or Limbaugh are you kidding me? You can't see that they are extreme just to reel in viewers? Same with Palin; another chum said why couldn't Palin take the high road and not blame someone else. Isn't that what Jesus would do? Oh I forgot he died 2000 years ago and the people only use his name to further their agenda.

Posted by: AndyGDTRFB | January 12, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
(Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch)

Not quoting Edward R. Murrow as one comment said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQD4dzVkwk

Posted by: lesfab29 | January 12, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I think what we all can learn from this horrible tragedy is that Sarah Palin is the true victim in all of this.

Posted by: emcglaughlin | January 12, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is being subjected to perfectly valid criticism for her cross-hairs on candidates coupled with "lock and load" exhortations to her followers. The gun references were perfectly clear - you don't lock and load surveyer tools. And to equate legitimate criticism or her to blood libel exceeds even her ususal insensitity. Disgusting.

Posted by: withersb | January 12, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

badman53... you are wrong. Believe or not, there are more option than just left or right in this world.

Posted by: Mike12341 | January 12, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

WOW, i couldn't watch the video at, now I did... Can you say Elitist!

Posted by: AndyGDTRFB | January 12, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I doubt Ms. Palin picked up the phrase "blood libel" at the Wasilla City Hall or on the snowmobile racing trail. Is this a sign that she has taken up reading? That's progress. Maybe comprehension will follow.

Posted by: jparks99 | January 12, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm thinking that we made a mistake when we separated from Britain.

Posted by: djmolter | January 12, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The big tug toward religious fundamentalism is not a fantasy. Also, the veiled references to anti-semitism and anti antything else that one disagrees with is all too apparent when the dots are connected. Put Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Colter, and others in a room together and then play back their expressed views regarding politics and so forth, one quickly comes to the understanding that hypersensationalism with an undercurrent of white supremacy is the name of the game. It may be too much to suggest that they are un-American, but their hate speech certainly does not put America in a good light. To be perfectly candid, their speech is anything but Christian.

When people use fearmongering and hateful speech which is specifically directed at others by name or association, they should understand that when events, regardless of how later proved to be unrelated, happen that could have been predicted from such, then fingers will be pointed in their direction as accessories. One thing is for sure, if such incendiary language were not present, then the individual committing the crime would stand alone. Folks, words do matter. We have become a nation that has become very lazy in our choice of words. We call everyone any kind of name without any sense of retribution. We libel and slander at the drop of a pin. Politicians have become the ringleaders in this parade. While our religious leaders are busy ranting about abortion, homosexuals, and the like, they have abdicated their role as moral leaders of a faithful that consider bearing false witness against others as an optional commandment.

Posted by: EarlC | January 12, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

OK! It seems like we, the socialist liberals, are always picking on our Real American Friends (Three negatives !!???). So what if we do what they say is Our God-Give-Right to do? I say that we should do everything in our power to remove Palin from our lives, we should exercise our second amendment right against Engle and her supporters, and finally since R. Paul doesn't get it we should apply a Steel-Toed Boot to his head in the hopes of waking him up. OK How was that you Real Americans???

Posted by: bwalling | January 12, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

As I was listening to the speech someone else wrote for Palin I was reminded of what Congressperson Gifford said a few days before she was shot down. She specifically referred to Palin and her "targeted map" and her concerns about how this fueled violence. Palin's speech, though well thought out has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand. Injecting terms like "blood libel" which most of her followers probably have not idea of its real meaning, will not get off the hook for her actions and how they fuel violence. That's the issue she needs to focus on.

Posted by: inewsmaster | January 12, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

True words were never spoken that it is to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. Every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth she seems to put a foot in it. No accountability for using a famed slogan that sounds more like a covert threat "Don't Retreat, Reload." That is a negative connotation no matter how you spin it. We all watched those foaming at the mouth with anger Town Hall meetings.
Did she and Limbo, Beck and others applaud that---you might say from having listened to them, you betcha!

Posted by: Plzhandlethetruth | January 12, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"...if they looked objectively, they would see a coordinated, vicious attack against Palin over the past 2 -1/2 years." wrote someone, above.

Objectively, Sarah Palin richly deserves the ire she inspires.She did not know the existence of the term blood libel until the day before yesterday. Her Mamma Grizzly approach to politics is offensive to many. She summarily quit an elected official position to promote her book tour, using basketball lingo to justify her action. She gloated when her targeted opponents lost elections, and pretended to mourn when her targets were utilized, even as an aide lied about the very existence of the targets. She hunts helpless wolves from aircraft and calls it sport. She pretended to have her daughter's child, and continues to lie about it. She makes a lot of money, but deep down she is a smooth talking, power mad con artist without an education and without morals.

Posted by: photomota1 | January 12, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm pleased to see the "vitriol" of those who "hate" Sarah Palin. Unwittingly, their response exposes them. They actually are "doing" that which they accuse her of. Their hypocrisy is laughable.

Posted by: Jabathehut1 | January 12, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

WHY I'M FOR THE BRADY BILL
By Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association.

Published: March 29, 1991 in The New York Times

LOS ANGELES — "Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.

It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.

I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.

Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.

Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.

Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.

STILL, FOUR LIVES WERE CHANGED FOREVER, AND ALL BY A SATURDAY-NIGHT SPECIAL -- A CHEAPLY MADE .22 CALIBER PISTOL -- PURCHASED IN A DALLAS PAWNSHOP BY A YOUNG MAN WITH A HISTORY OF MENTAL DISTURBANCE.

THIS NIGHTMARE MIGHT NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IF LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE CONGRESS NOW -- THE BRADY BILL -- HAD BEEN LAW BACK IN 1981.

NAMED FOR JIM BRADY, THIS LEGISLATION WOULD ESTABLISH A NATIONAL SEVEN-DAY WAITING PERIOD BEFORE A HANDGUN PURCHASER COULD TAKE DELIVERY. IT WOULD ALLOW LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO DO BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CRIMINAL RECORDS OR KNOWN HISTORIES OF MENTAL DISTURBANCES. THOSE WITH SUCH RECORDS WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM BUYING THE HANDGUNS.

Posted by: joy2 | January 12, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Palin's self-righteous attitude, her inability to EVER admit she has done or said anything wrong and her attempt to paint herself as the "victim" makes her ever-more despicable.

To those who claim she's being attacked: let's look back at just who began attacking whom. Palin emerged from the depths of obscurity at the Republican National Convention with a snark-filled speech making fun of Barack Obama for being a (gasp) community organizer! who was trying to help poor people, while she tried to paint her lusterless background as vastly superior to his, then flubbed every question related to policy, history, geography - you name it. She then went on to rouse the mobs at campaign stops with her "pal-in around with terrorists" crap and kept up the nastiness until McCain himself had to calm the angry mobs and correct one riled-up old lady who grabbed a microphone to express her fear that "Obama is a Muslim." Next up was "death panels" and gunsights over "targeted members of Congress" and all the endless blather about who the "real" Americans are (FYI, Sarah, many "real Americans" find you repugnant.) I have been around for a number of Presidential elections and I have never seen someone with such low credentials as hers not only considered for a high level position but also allowed to go on acting as if she had won the right to set policy when, in fact, she helped McCain stumble to a solid loss. There is no doubt in my mind that her words have stirred people toward bad behavior and at times encouraged them to act extremely disrespectful of elected officials and people they disagree with. Now, she not only refuses once again to acknowledge that her words and images may need to be toned down but instead resurrects a term that has a tainted history for Jewish people, even as a Jewish member of Congress, who was placed in her gunsight, lies in a hospital trying to recover from a bullet to her head. Shame, shame SHAME ON Sarah Palin!

Posted by: mbstrong | January 12, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Palin's self-righteous attitude, her inability to EVER admit she has done or said anything wrong and her attempt to paint herself as the "victim" makes her ever-more despicable.

To those who claim she's being attacked: let's look back at just who began attacking whom. Palin emerged from the depths of obscurity at the Republican National Convention with a snark-filled speech making fun of Barack Obama for being a (gasp) community organizer! who was trying to help poor people, while she tried to paint her lusterless background as vastly superior to his, then flubbed every question related to policy, history, geography - you name it. She then went on to rouse the mobs at campaign stops with her "pal-in around with terrorists" crap and kept up the nastiness until McCain himself had to calm the angry mobs and correct one riled-up old lady who grabbed a microphone to express her fear that "Obama is a Muslim." Next up was "death panels" and gunsights over "targeted members of Congress" and all the endless blather about who the "real" Americans are (FYI, Sarah, many "real Americans" find you repugnant.) I have been around for a number of Presidential elections and I have never seen someone with such low credentials as hers not only considered for a high level position but also allowed to go on acting as if she had won the right to set policy when, in fact, she helped McCain stumble to a solid loss. There is no doubt in my mind that her words have stirred people toward bad behavior and at times encouraged them to act extremely disrespectful of elected officials and people they disagree with. Now, she not only refuses once again to acknowledge that her words and images may need to be toned down but instead resurrects a term that has a tainted history for Jewish people, even as a Jewish member of Congress, who was placed in her gunsight, lies in a hospital trying to recover from a bullet to her head. Shame, shame SHAME ON Sarah Palin!

Posted by: mbstrong | January 12, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth an remove all doubts!

Posted by: Plzhandlethetruth | January 12, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

While Palin did not invent political hate mongering, she sure has perfected it. The sad reality is that many people left and right see the wake of damage her careless antics has created.

While she did not pull the trigger, she was reminded by Giffords that her gun sight website had resulted in attacks against her office. That was not enough! Palin left the sight up. Now people are dead. The web site goes away and the spin job/damage control starts.

Whats the matter Sarah, can't sleep now? Finally developing a conscious?

Invoking your "I'm a gun totting, christian, so I can say whatever I want" BS does not fool everyone. It is however your right, just own it!

Quoting Regan might make hard core right-wingers happy, but has no bearing on what is going on. The "hey, look over there" stunt is pretty obvious.

Posted by: BobBainbridge | January 12, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Sarah Palin is being subjected to perfectly valid criticism for her cross-hairs on candidates coupled with "lock and load" exhortations to her followers. The gun references were perfectly clear - you don't lock and load surveyer tools. And to equate legitimate criticism or her to blood libel exceeds even her ususal insensitity. Disgusting."

----------------------------------------

Not that Palin needs defending, the Democrats have been doing the same thing, targets and all. A DailyKOS blogger said this Congresswoman was "dead to me" after voting against Pelosi. I find your false outrage disgusting.

The Democrats, based on their Alinski and Cloward-Piven tactics, are the absolute worst abusers of political rhetoric. Evil Wall Street, Greedy and unpatriotic rich, greedy insurance companies...it's ironic the Democrats must Divide the United States, and pit American against American, just to survive politically.

Take a few minutes and Google Cloward-Piven, and Rules for Radicals. You will find feigned outrage is a political tool, along with "isolate your opponent(s) and ridicule". Alinski also said the economy must be destroyed to make the people dependent on government. Sounds right out of the Democrat playbook.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | January 12, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

As a Jew, I am not in the least offended by Governor Palin's comment. The context that the phrase is offered in has nothing to do with Judaism, nor the horrible events that led to pogroms, once in history.

I have no doubt that the self-proclaimed Jewish leaders will opine on this ad nauseum. Most of them don't like Sarah Palin, so their comments will be predicatable. Having had experience with a rabbi who turned out to be a criminal (to our shame, he still occupies his pulpit), I have some experience in this area.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | January 12, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

This is proof that she's a puppet of the ultra right.

Posted by: blarsen1 | January 12, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

We used to call kids that always stirred up trouble "sh*t-disturbers". I gather this twit of a woman has not gotten past that stage as she is the worst example of this childish and extremely harmful ploy that I have ever heard of. Shame on her and her mouthy ilk.

Posted by: 10emlet | January 12, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Half-governor Palin learned a couple of new words this week and threw them in together. She has no more idea what they imply together then she does about world geography. I'm more surprised she wasn't stumbling over some of those multi-syllable words.

Posted by: 21stCenturyCaveman | January 12, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

First why would Palin have the lack of heartfelt compassion and wait until the nation has greived? She is so very ignorant to believe that being vicious is somehow endearing.

Palin has children and family too sometimes we need to remember to be human and not callous. Let Americans bury and grieve then start the Palin I wanna be something train to nowhere again!

Posted by: totyou | January 12, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Sort of stumbled into this discussion.

Wow, what a bunch of Palin-phobes here. Why does she scare y'all so much? AND what causes y'all to get all worked up about not much? Relax y'all. Breath in - breath out. It'll be OK. I promise.

Posted by: vvmeier | January 12, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that every time there is a tragedy, that the Left dances with glee, falling all over themselves, so they can be the first make the latest political attack on someone that they disagree with? The right wing media has produced volumes of proof that the left's rhetoric has been far worse than anything coming out of mainstream conservatism for quite some time. There are exceptions from the fringe, but both sides have them. The left's attacks are hypocritical and downright disgusting, it is as if they dance on the graves of the victims of these senseless atrocities, just so they can make political gain. Fortunately, more and more of the American people are starting to wake up to their game.

Posted by: DL13 | January 12, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are so ignorant they don't even realize they're giving Palin "Free"
Press, free publicity! Hahaha!
She's laughing all the way to the bank,too.

Posted by: ohioan | January 12, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

In all honestly this woman is getting far more time in the spotlight than she deserves. The long, dark days of winter must have got to her mind,like the movie "The Shining". She is doing the best she can with only part of a full deck. I feel sorry for her.

Posted by: catclaw | January 12, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Jonah Goldberg advises anyone concerned with the antiquity of "The Blood Libel" to use Google.com to look up
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS375&q=+Mandaean+scripture%2C+the+Ginza+Rba&btnG=Google+Search&aq=&oq=#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS375&q=Mandaean+scripture%2C+the+Ginza+Rba+9.1&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=a20cfd04ba3c5cf9

Among other things the lie is older than the Middle Ages. In Gnostic literature it's referred to in several different ways, occasionally as Christians killing Jewish children for communion wafers, or sometimes as Jews killing Christian children for Passover bread.

There is no Middle Ages Jewish Monopoly on the expression. Or, maybe the Ghostics lied to us ~ which, of course, they've been known to do ~ but they're all dead now.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 12, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Quoting Regan is somewhat blasphemous. He is hailed for dismantling key social services, which now keeps people like Loughner on the streets.

I do appreciate that he supported the Brady bill. Too bad it has become so watered down.

Let people keep their guns, just get rid of all the bullets!

Posted by: BobBainbridge | January 12, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin claims to be a Christian. But is she? Let's ask Jesus:

"By the fruit shall you know the tree."

"Blessed are the peacemakers."

Hmmm... Maybe not.

Posted by: mwfree | January 12, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio."

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | January 12, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

You can always find something to criticize about anything anyone does, doesn't do, says, or doesn't say.

Writing a piece about Palin using the term "blood libel" would not happen if Obama said it.

Why?

Because the Wash Post is looking to criticize Palin.

Palin and Obama are the only figures in the 2008 election that could draw huge crowds. Obama can no longer draw crowds, but Palin can.

Those who would want to increase collectivism find it in their self interest to criticize Palin.

Just like those who want to increase individualism never miss a chance to criticize Obama.

The post is in the former camp.

So if you are in the majority of Americans, you want FOXNEWS, not the Post.

Posted by: cmagnuson | January 12, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey, guess what lefties. Most common sense americans understand that this guy was a nut. You Washington Post readers can blog all you want about how this was a political act, but it wasn't and most Americas agree. So rage on. You come off as angry and vicious.

Posted by: piezopaul | January 12, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin. Pretty on the outside, ugly on the inside.

Posted by: Lefty_ | January 12, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The half-term governor continues to achieve new highs in dumbing down and new lows in tact and accuracy. Will Senator Monahan ever achieve any peace? She reminds me of News, the character in Butch Cassidy, who loves to see his name in print for the sake of seeing it there. That's Sarah - she's on the record no matter who it hurts or offends. The true tragedy is the large percentage of voting Americans who think she speaks for them.

Posted by: anzatowndog | January 12, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

BobBainbridge ~ Ronaldus Magnus DID NOT tear down the social welfare structures that kept the paranoid schizophrenics off the street. That's why he's not praised for that ~ besides, it was a bunch of Leftwingtards who demanded the crazoids be turned loose ~ to so-called outpatient treatment and the use of pills that may or may not work.

You'll have to thank the Federal Judiciary for that one.

No doubt they will rethink what they have wrought.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 12, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

mwfree ~ do you imagine you are competent to read Scripture?

Do you imagine you have a right to instruct us in what it means?

Do you think you have the privilege of making final judgments?

I suggest you run for Pope or something next time you get a chance. We don't need Holy Joes on this thread Fur Shur (now dowe)?

Posted by: muawiyah | January 12, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

really people!! sarah palin is as much responsible for this as you or i. no one else purchased the weapon, ammo, but the man that pulled the trigger. he planned it and executed it on his own. lets put blame where it belongs. guns and bullets don't kill without a person behind them..

Posted by: maknwaves | January 12, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I love Reagan quotes. The God of the right who doubled the national debt, oversaw the SNL scandal, Wall Street greed, believed in trickledown which doesn't work & the right still repeats as it's mantra, and generally was saved by collapse of Russia (good timing) or he'd be one of the worst Presidents ever! Sarah added to Wasilla debt, wants to deregulate Wall Strret, & believes that taxbreaks for millionaires & billionaires creates jobs, it doesn't as 8 years of Bush prover. My God, she IS Reagan!

Posted by: crossroadsnow | January 12, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

SILLY Sarah strikes again.

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | January 12, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Palin knew the liberal press would be all over whatever statement she made.

I guess she forgot to check to see if Jews from the middle ages had a copyright on the expression "blood libel".

Those with a brain, however, can probably figure out that she was talking about the liberal media who has been attacking her as somehow responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon.

Maybe the haters should give it a rest for a few days.

Posted by: postfan1 | January 12, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's comments should receive no more attention than Kate Gosselin's. They are both reality television personalities and nothing more. How outrageous that the media keeps giving her a forum.

Posted by: Lilly1 | January 12, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

LOOK AT THIS WEB PAGE CLOWNS AND TELL ME THE REPUBLICANS DID IT!!

Do the left and Democrats do silly stuff???????

Look at this page!!

http://www.google.com/images?q=kill+bush&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=i70tTdjcKoKBlAfbkvH8Cw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQsAQwAA&biw=1280&bih=670

IT IS TIME FOR YOU LEFT WING WAGS TO SHUT UP!!!

Posted by: jjcrocket13 | January 12, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin always has to play the victim, even now. It's beyond tasteless. You know she only does this to draw the wrath of liberals, it props her up for her fans to be poor little Sarah that everyone is picking on. I mean you see it over and over and come to expect it. But now, when there is a 9 year old girl and 5 others dead, and a Congresswoman in the ICU? Can't she restrain herself from crying now? It's about like the BP CEO who "wanted his life back" when his oil rig blew up and killed 11 people and was polluting the gulf at a mad clip. We're supposed to feel sorry for HER?

Posted by: catherine3 | January 12, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Palin should brace for a large few civil suits. The maps with the crosshairs will be pretty hard to defend in court.
Stupid politician with few morals.

Posted by: hhkeller | January 12, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

muawiyah RE Regan First I am embarrassed to say I voted for Regan (not as left as you may think). Second, You know not what you write! Regan's cuts to social programs including massive cuts to mental health care are well known corner stones Reaganomics.

Posted by: BobBainbridge | January 12, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I think the most obvious problem with her speech is being overlooked.

She states that her Constitutional Liberties were being infringed upon when people criticized and marginalized her prior political speech & tactics as despicable.

After nearly 225 years it is appalling that a fmr. Governor and VP nominee, along with a fmr. Senate Nominee (Angle) (per separate comments), don't know what the First Amendment means!

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law..." it does not say that you have a right to say stupid things and not be criticized for it. In fact, thats what it is there for... its just that the Government isn't allowed to pass judgment one way or the other.

With respect to the Blood Libel comments, they are part of the same inflammatory and over the top rhetoric that was being criticized by the comments after this incident and in the election before this incident. E.g. a sign at the Rally to Restore Sanity read: "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you are not Hitler." Comparing criticism of your point of view to Blood Libel, or people who want their tax money to pay for education and health care to Nazis or Communists (a la the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Palin & others) diminishes the horrors suffered by millions in Nazi concentration camps and at the hands of Stalin's Soviet. It shows a lack of understanding with respect to history, a lack of respect for the victims of those crimes and a complete lack of perspective and/or good judgment.

Can we now end their 15 minutes of fame, let the wounded heal, the mourners go back to mourning, and the country go back to working out reasonable solutions to our very real and urgent problems.

... and sadly, I voted for her by virtue of the fact that I voted for McCain because I was a big fan of the 2000 McCain I thought I knew. Which I now regret. Glad that worked out...

Posted by: Johanncrow | January 12, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

She is careless as the Tucson shooter is.
Look in her eyes and the way she reads the prompter. Fake, no feelings, idiotic.

Posted by: georgeanton | January 12, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Re: "
LOOK AT THIS WEB PAGE CLOWNS AND TELL ME THE REPUBLICANS DID IT!!

Do the left and Democrats do silly stuff???????

Look at this page!!

http://www.google.com/images?q=kill+bush&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=i70tTdjcKoKBlAfbkvH8Cw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQsAQwAA&biw=1280&bih=670

IT IS TIME FOR YOU LEFT WING WAGS TO SHUT UP!!!"

----------------------------------------

Typical left hypocrisy. More feigned outrage. Nevermind they invented vile political rhetoric.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | January 12, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

There's no victim, without a Persecutor!

Posted by: ohioan | January 12, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

There's no victim, without a Persecutor!

Posted by: ohioan | January 12, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"While I am not a fan of Mrs. Palin, it is intellectually dishonest to consider her in any way responsible for the actions of a deranged individual."

What's actually under discussion is whether the woman is responsible for what flies out of her mouth.

Posted by: fzdybel | January 12, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm thinking that we made a mistake when we separated from Britain.

Posted by: djmolter | January 12, 2011 2:50 PM

So right. At least we'd have universal health care.

Posted by: angelas1 | January 12, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Sara is much more powerful, than Chuck Norris! Chuck doing everything by own strength, while Sara just Target on others, and it may be always someone else mad one who goes on the targets, that he saw on the Media...

Posted by: awardchess | January 12, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I read all of the posted comments and not one of you really gets what Sarah Palin's speechwriters at the RNC did. We must assume they wrote it for her as she is incapable of coherent speech patterns much less possess two brain cells to rub together. The thing all of you posters missed is that the use of the expression "blood libel" refers to a very specific and longstanding practice in the enduring and ugly history of worldwide anti-Semitism. Palin's/RNC's effort to negate several thousand years of Jewish history is nothing different from Arabs building mosques over the tombs of holy Jewish prophets and thereby attempt to negate our religion and our presence on earth. By absconding with our history, Palin and her ilk are, in so many words, committing another modern-day anti-Semitic act. It did cause offense to most of us and nothing she can ever utter in the way of an apology will remedy this situation. Insofar as making someone speechless is not one of the original plagues visited upon Pharoan Egypt, sadly I can only wish future speechlessness on Sarah Palin.

Posted by: rlgrennie | January 12, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Sara may always find a way to dig even more to hide herself in the mud...

Posted by: awardchess | January 12, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Sara is a Queen of the mud!

Posted by: awardchess | January 12, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Sarah's in trouble. Her new career as a reality TV star collapsed within hours of the murders in Arizona. Now, she's coming back into the Republican fold. Peddle fear and hatred. Distort, distract and divide. Incite political violence and then accuse anyone who objects using the incident to take away 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

She has been brought to heel and will serve her corporate masters well. The New American Fascist Party has its Queen back.

Posted by: thebobbob | January 12, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh,Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Fox and the Tea Party are directly responsible for the massacre in Arizona. They should be ashamed of themselves. Mark Montgomery NYC, NY boboberg@nyc.rr.com

Posted by: boboberg | January 12, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Perfect speech by Palin.

And a little sound bite to get all the whining computer geeks busy and focused. I almost want to cry over the tragedy felt by many that Sarah Palin used again the WORDs. Soon no one will be allowed to say anything that might displease some special interest groups who use every possibility to get into spotlight with Sarah's name as a ladder. But then, how would they support their cause. That would be nice, right? Be glad ( as You really are) that Sarah said what she said. Vanity Fair.

Knowing the reaction will be predictable, better ask why Palin used ,as it appears, politincorrect word. I am absolutely sure she knew the reaction and all this whining vanity (like of those who eat chicken but can not kill a moose) will again increase the numbers of her supporters.

She threw the bite, so many got caught.Wise move, Sarah. Very refreshing to hear voice of normalcy in the society corrupted by people earning money on pretending to be victimized by virtually everything.

Posted by: Ivfab | January 12, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The anti Palin posters comments remind me of Charles Manson's explanation of the Beatles White Album.

Posted by: bereal2011 | January 12, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

She's one of the leader's of the emerging American Taliban

Posted by: pax_vobiscum2002 | January 12, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse


Wow, thanks Sarah Palin for a stunning and hard hitting speech. Quick, tell us who wrote it so we can nominate that person for president in 2012. We might have another Ronald Reagan in our midst. And don't you worry Sister Sarah; you can be the new White House press secretary. Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

Posted by: OIFVet06 | January 12, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Well, Sarah Palin still upsets the lefties. As long as that is all she does ...

Posted by: OIFVet06 | January 12, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ironic an anti-semitic slur was adopted to describe the surge of critism against former Gov Palin and others. Another Jew taught us 3,000 years ago "Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked,nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful." Note that David did not instruct us to rid ourselves of the "scornful", sometimes translated as "scoffers", they are always going to be around. He told us to not listen their bombastic teaching. The Right and Left wing "scoffers" only have a voice because hundreds of thousands of people listen to them. The logical extension of giving them voice is that their message will eventually reach the criminally insane - who is responsible then? We would be well served to return to this teaching for some soul searching.

Posted by: Shalom2 | January 12, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

The statement below is so true, minority perpetrated crime is obviously racist class warfare.

"...the problem is that this is just nonsense, and Palin is spewing nonsense on top of nonsense. Criminals are most certainly aware of the race, religion and neighborhood boundaries of their victims. They are no more color or class blind than Sara Palin is or Ronald Reagan was. Racism and classism are inherent in their comments.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | January 12, 2011 1:16 PM"

Posted by: SomeFatGuy | January 12, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Does it pain and outrage all you liberals to see one of your own, Alan Dershowitz, support Palin's use of the term blood libel?

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/

Posted by: redh1947 | January 12, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Left, Right, most of the posters on here discuss things like they are cheering for a High School football team. The dumbed down American conversation is the problem. Palin's prior statements are part of that dumbing down. There are equal examples on both sides. Let's just agree that this nonsense isn't getting anyone anywhere, isn't creating economic growth for our country, isn't making us safer or happier and tell the idiots on both sides to put their tinfoil hats back on and go back to the shelter of their basements.

Posted by: Johanncrow | January 12, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

And tomorrow liberals will go back to bashing jews and israelis like normal. I left the democratic party because of all the antisemitism from the left..

Posted by: scoran | January 12, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

It seems like the term is appropriate. False accusations used to foster the persecution of a political figure through a made up narrative used to help keep the anger focused on conservatives. You guys are doing the literal thing, but the concept fits perfectly, which is why the left is getting so riled up.

Posted by: thelaw1 | January 12, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey libs, has Jim Moran made any more antisemitic comments recently that you'd like to ignore?

Posted by: scoran | January 12, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I doubt if Nemo is a true Jew. Many Jews find Palin's use of "Blood Libel" to be offensive. Remember when Israel's PM Rabin's face was on a poster with a bull's eye on it? He was assasinated. Palin wants to make this a Christian nation to the exclusion of all others. This is contrary to U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: omen3 | January 12, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Gee, these liberal know it all, right!
Words do arouse tensions and anger and ect.
Every time I read a liberal comment; My blood pressure would go a little higher. They talk about all the comments made by different conseratives but do not dare mention comments and actions by some the democratic left. The democratic left has written a totally new meaning to "Hypocrisy". After reading all the comments concerning "blood libel", I'm still not sure of the meaning as everyone had a different interpretation. Each comment I read, I thought of the President's many inflamatory remarks, Durbin's ranting and raving, winney Weiner's jaw clinchings and smirky grins. Also, the congressman from Vermont who stated that someone whom he disagreed with down in Florida should be ______. Let's see how many lefties can fill in the blank

Posted by: tmay33 | January 12, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

And tomorrow liberals will go back to bashing jews and israelis like normal. I left the democratic party because of all the antisemitism from the left..

Posted by: scoran | January 12, 2011 4:32 PM
===========================================
I see, false accusations of racist when Obama spends too much critique are true, but your an antisemite taking Israel to task for violating sovereignty of the sea and starving Gaza children. For the reasonable missile attacks on civilians are terrorism and are met with retaliation against all in their climate of discord. The left and right using violent metaphors create our own climate of discord.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 12, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Jews neither own the terms "blood" and "libel" nor their juxtaposition. Get over it. And if Palin et al. weren't accused of causing blood to be spilled, what were they accused of? Seems perfectly reasonable for her to use the term.

Now if only we can come up with a term for the media malfeasance and liberal cravenness that's been on display in recent days. How about, "typical"? Works for me.

Posted by: TheEmpiricist
==========================================
Know how to use a thesaurus? Sarah borrowed the term.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 12, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The Reagan quote is not always true. People literally got away with murder in the south which caused civil rights to be passed. Reagan like Palin played on people's fear and prejudice to great effect with the Willie Horton ad's. Same will cost Huckabee a shot at the presidency.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 12, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It depends upon who says something--if the left says it is is okay, if the right says it is is wrong.

What we have here is two sides of political debate blaming each other for something that neither had anything to do with or at least nothing reported anywhere has connected anyone to the murder.

Both ought to be ashamed of themselves...we have great things to debate in this country, jobs and the economy to start with.

Posted by: tonyjm | January 12, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is great. She sure can get the ignorant liberal's panties all tied up in a knot. I love it. Keep up the good work Sarah.

Posted by: COOLCHILLY | January 12, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is great. She sure can get the ignorant liberal's panties all tied up in a knot. I love it. Keep up the good work Sarah.

Posted by: COOLCHILLY | January 12, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Gee, when I looked it up in several sources, it said it was not only used against Jews, but also Christians, Cathars, Knights Templar, Pagans, Witches and basically anyone that someone thought was evil. In other words it is an irrational and false accusation which leads to complete villainization of the person on the receiving end of the "blood libel". Using that analogy, these statements against the "right wing" are similar to the "blood libels" of olden days. They are false and stir up the masses against those with whom one disagrees. In that context, it is a perfectly acceptable usage. So, if you're going to "check facts" at least completely "check facts" or go work for MSNBC.

Posted by: genericrepub | January 12, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

She is for freedom of speech which is why she will ask librarians what books would you ban. She is against blood libel unless it's her supporters yelling kill him after Obama critique. She is for religious freedom unless you want to open a mosque. She is against redistribution of federal dollars and then says kill grandma. She believes creationism should be taught in science not history classrooms. She is fiscally responsible building the white elephant sports complex in Wasilla and the road to the unbuilt bridge to nowhere. She's a religious person that asks you to pray for a pipeline and no gun control. She's a feminist that laughs at Lydia Green fat jokes. Katie Couric was evil for asking her what books/periodicals she read. Any supporters feel free to counter what I have posted as incorrect.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 12, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Why are you liberals so afraid of Sarah? If she is such a klutz
you should forget all about her. She is not smart enough to do the left any harm. She would have no power if the left would leave her out of the press. But, she is a lot smarter than you would like to believe,and she will do you harm again in Nov. Right on Sarah

Posted by: onceadem | January 12, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, Sarah is known to associate with self-declared witches, so making matzoh out of Christian blood doesn't seem like too much of a stretch.

Posted by: bobchillingworth | January 12, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Not surprisingly, the Washington Post audience is rushing to commit more blood libel against Palin and Reagan.

In the process, they're probably making many of Palin's supporters and independents feel more anti-Semitic than they have in a long time.

The hard left Jews, including the Anti-Defamation League, doth protest too much.

They don't own "blood libel", pogrom or genocide, and they are displaying their anti-Christian, anti-conservative prejudices shamefully.

By continuing the vicious, totalitarian anti-Palin attacks, the left, and now, sadly, the hard left Jews are adding fuel to the anti-left backlash that will only grow in intensity.

Posted by: donaldjohnson | January 12, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

“I think this is an occasion for us to reaffirm that our political differences shouldn’t degenerate into demonization.”

Bill Clinton, as quoted in Politico

"What does he know?"

WaPo commenters

The bodies haven't even been buried and commenters are more vicious than ever, all the while decrying the supposed demonizations from the other side -- even as nobody really knows WHAT motivated the killer. FWIW, I know what "blood libel" means and I get what Palin is saying. People trying to turn this against her would have applauded had the phrase been used by Obama or his supporters to describe Tea Party namecalling (e.g., he wasn't born here, he's a Muslim, etc., ad nauseum).

Ms. Palin's sole offense is to take a phrase that has been used to justify persecution of an entire people to complain of how she, individually, has been slandered. But in terms of characterizing a big lie, she's on point, and if we think about all this in terms of a big lie, it is easier to put in the proper perspective.

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 12, 2011 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Well what was everyone thinking? That she'd apologize or show some form of sensitivity? Mark my words, if her and her cadre of like-minded politicos ever run this country, the Jews, Catholics, African descendants, Latinos, Gays, Asians and every other perceived "fringe" group, including "liberals" better run or be very prepared to fight to the death!

Posted by: kenalexruss | January 12, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Palin wouldn't recognize "responsibility" if it slapped her in the face. This is avery dangerous woman - she is demonstrating that she knows no bound of human decency!

Posted by: Factfinder2 | January 12, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

This bickering between political camps sort of ends up with:

Ultra-liberals want right vs. wrong than good vs. evil.


Ultra-conservatives want a holy war.

It's the wants of the people, not the needs. And in these times, it's more about what you need vs. what you want.

Posted by: recharged95 | January 12, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"... It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.'"--Sarah Palin

Yes, Sarah, that is EXACTLY what we want from YOU. Be accountable for YOUR actions!!

We want you to admit that your inflammatory and irresponsible shouting intentionally stirs a dangerous frenzy of emotions in unstable individuals.
We want you to vow to limit yourself to intelligent, responsible, constructive political arguments going forward.

But I guess Sarah just doesn't believe in following Reagan's direction.

Posted by: jgarrisn | January 12, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is all talk, and she has now inspired nut jobs with guns to murder children with that reckless talk, good one Palin! I was saying just a few short months ago, this woman will self destruct very soon with all her irresponsible words and actions, it was just a matter of time. I think once Gabrielle recovers the Giffords should file a civil suit against Palin for that cross hairs target map and take her for everything she has, make Palin pay! that would be a good website, someone want to design that?

Posted by: Hillary08 | January 12, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't "Blood Libel" have been trademarked or registerd if only Jews can use it? In the past is meant a terrible libel and was appllied mostly to Jews. I imagine it can also mean a terrible thing LIKE the one that used to be applied to Jews.

Posted by: powellsanmiguel | January 12, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Aha, yes! Here in the United States of Sarah Palin, how dare anyone insult the insecurity of the empress!

Posted by: Arjuna1 | January 12, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"The Gospel says the crowd shouted back: "His blood be on us and on our children," a phrase taken to indicate that the Jewish people as a whole and for perpetuity bore direct responsibility for the crucifixion and were therefore fair game for persecution and extermination."
///////////

This narrative spins the verse into a completely opposite of its intended meaning. For his own purposes, the author embraces the same misrepresentation that Jew haters use to justify their malice.

But taken in context, the meaning has a completely different metaphysic. This verse merely dramatizes recalcitrance; that God's chosen people (in the end, all mankind) are determined to crucify those who challenge the powers that be. Threats to the establishment status quo impassions hyperbole - just like today. Mass narcissism is accompanied by haughty arrogance.

Christ was a Jewish rabbi and He forgave his accusers: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The entire message of the Gospel and the crucifixion of the Christ embodies forgiveness and prayer for one's enemies; it is the opposite of the distorted rationale of the author and those who misinterpret this verse for the purposes of destroying the object of their own hatred.

Posted by: corneliusvansant | January 12, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Strong leaders don't whine, "They're picking on me...Not fair!"

Posted by: mmmapache | January 12, 2011 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Partisans are morons. All of them. Both sides. They spend their time arguing about stupid stuff while achieving little and solving nothing. Sigh.

Posted by: baldinho | January 12, 2011 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Now, Sarah Palin doesn't like the Jews. Right? I can't keep track. Unfortunately, Palin is correct in her indictment of the media and the pathetic manuever to tie her to the Tucson shooting. No, never let a good tragedy go to waste. Oh, by the way, touching memorial, Mr. President. Nice.

Posted by: djphilbin | January 12, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for her. The words are obviously not her words. She probably didn't even know what they meant. Bless her heart, she is so unknowing.

Posted by: beaone | January 12, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

This woman (Palin) is incapable to write her own books, nor her own statements.

I would not blame her for what she says. It's all being put there for her to read. Good thing she knows how to read!

Posted by: MrsD1 | January 12, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Miss Sarah can use the term "blood libel" if she wants. Words can mean what she wants them to mean. Her critics are merely attempting a holocaust of her political ambitions, and a diaspora of her supporters. Never again.

Posted by: PostSubscriber | January 12, 2011 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I have never seen a comment from Sarah Palin that was worth making, worth consideration, or worth repeating in print.

Posted by: rwcole | January 12, 2011 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I see the Palin Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | January 12, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty interesting to remember the historical context in which Reagan made his oft-quoted remark, as well as the object of his criticism.

Posted by: metonyme | January 13, 2011 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Palin's Speech was better than Obama's but his was pretty good too.

Posted by: cmagnuson | January 13, 2011 3:19 AM | Report abuse

This is what happens when you let Bill Kristol write your diatribes.
BTW...was she using a teleprompter?

Posted by: ginabw | January 13, 2011 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Knowing Sarah Palin prominently published a map showing crosshairs over certain Democrats including Giffords, the far right flails desperately now to paint Loughner as a "Liberal", who shot a liberal.

Sure. And was it a "liberal" who threatened her and vandalized her office after she voted for Health Care Reform last March? Golly. Liberals were real angry then too, and you know - assassins shoot people they agree with...

Teabaggers? Why, they've never had a candidate who ran ads against Giffords showing a shooting range (2010). And in 2009 they never showed up at Health Reform Town Halls, kicking & screaming and carrying guns. Nooooo...

Posted by: RField7 | January 13, 2011 3:37 AM | Report abuse

"Blood libel" may have been an overkill, but vicious libels they have written and libel and scapegoating belong together like rat poison and rats.


Dr. K's column, and that of George Will were vindicated by none other than the President of the United States, last night.

One thing is very clear-- It is time to stop attacking and scapegoating the innocent for something they had nothing to do with.

Most that write for the Wapo should have read Dr. Krauthammer and George F. Will before writing their columns where they were using the tried and true methods of dictators and the unintelligent mob inciters, to scapegoat Sarah Palin and others without a scintilla of evidence to back their discourse.
President Obama said:

"... at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do

-- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. (Applause.)

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light, then came darkness."

Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. (Applause.)

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. (Applause.) That we cannot do. (Applause.) That we cannot do. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.

Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together."

And I say that the use of the term,
"Blood libel" may have been an overkill, but vicious libels they have written and libel and scapegoating belong together like rat poison and rats.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | January 13, 2011 4:52 AM | Report abuse

The lady protests too much, me thinks.

Posted by: cbday | January 13, 2011 6:18 AM | Report abuse

The lady protests too much, me thinks.

Posted by: cbday | January 13, 2011 6:20 AM | Report abuse

The media is a skewed purveyor of sensationalism and muck raking (shreak, did I use a word out of context?) Given that they represent a marginal part of the American populace - less than 20% of Americans self-identify as "liberals" - the media has become nothing more than an ideological bull horn broadcasting whatever propaganda and mis-truths they deem necessary.

As a Jew, I am deeply offended by the media's actions; namely individuals like Paul Krugman who within hours of the shooting was blaming Tea Partiers and Conservatives. I am deeply offended by radicals like Chris Matthews who spewed blood libelous remarks at numerous people including Jewish talk show host Mark Levin. The media in this country is no longer the "fourth estate", but has become a "fifth column" of the left. They should be held to task.

Posted by: freepost | January 13, 2011 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Three points.

1) Polls in Israel place Sarah Palin at very high approval levels. These same polls place Barrack Obama at historically low approval levels, many Israelis views Obama and the just ended Pelosi Demoocratic Congress as hostile.

2) J Street might as well be part of the anti-Israeli left. Why weren't Alan Dershowitz or the "Jewish Week" cited? Both have given unequivocal statements approving of Sarah Palin's use of the term "Blood Libel".

below see both statements;

MUST READ......Sarah Palin Is Right -- We're Looking At A Blood Libel
Submitted by Jonathan Mark on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:03

http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/route_17/sarah_palin_right_were_looking_blood_libel

and Alan Dershowitz......Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’by Publius


In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.


Posted by: pauldia | January 13, 2011 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Sara Palin said "Journalists Incited Hatred after Arizona Shooting", but actually the liberal media have been spreading hate to their audiences for many years.

“Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch.” -- Chris Matthews

“So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to -- or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” -- Montel Williams talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country.... You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” -- Ed Schultz

“I’m just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” -- Bill Maher

“I hope his wife feeds him [Justice Clarence Thomas] lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” -- Julianne Malveaux Pacifica Radio talk show host.

Posted by: fury60 | January 13, 2011 7:05 AM | Report abuse

In general I'm not a proponent of "reserving" general-purpose words for certain specific scenarios or events. So, for example, I'm opposed to the notion that we must only use the word "genocide" to refer to one specific genocidal campaign to the exclusion of all others.

However, "blood libel" is a clear exception. The words are common enough, but the combination has always carried a single, specific meaning -- a hatefully repugnant one.

It is a phrase as loaded with specific ill intent as "Final Solution". Far from its usage being further broadened, it should be entirely retired from current use except when used to discuss its original historical context.

Posted by: laboo | January 13, 2011 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Wow, all the negative comments about Sarah in the left-wing, ultra-liberal Washington Post! What a surprise!

Posted by: ransr01 | January 13, 2011 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Who made this guy the fact checker? This is like playing God.

Posted by: tina5 | January 13, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

The media's obsession with Palin is pathetic. It shows the weak minds of the current cadre of journalists that have an agenda and use their columns and pens to focus on that agenda at the exclusion of real news, facts, and perspectives that apply to normal people.

Pretty much every day the Washington Post has something on Palin. By now it is clear the WH is driving this as a distraction effort as the more they bash Palin, it distracts from the pathetic job Obama is doing and how inept and clueless he is on how to run the gov't.

When ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, and WP along with other left leaning news organizations are this focused on a citizen that holds no office, you have to wonder about the quality of their leaders and why their ratings are in the tank.

Time to move on from Palin, the election ended years ago.

The author should have fact checked another topic and an elected leader.

Posted by: asdf9876 | January 13, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

So liberal bigots in the news media are now trying to decode words and phrases to find hidden meanings with nefarious intent.

Isn't that what Glenn Beck does all the time?

Posted by: burnedout | January 13, 2011 8:38 AM | Report abuse

if palin was a smart, decent, caring human being, her statement would of simply wished for the speedy recovering of those injured and sympathy for the friends and families of all affected by this tragedy.
she then could of gone on to say no manner of insults against her, could possibly compare to what the families involved are going thru now, and she would defer any response to her critics till heads had cooled and the flags were once again flying at full mast.

but that didnt happen because palin is a self-serving uncaring egomaniac who things she is the most important thing in the world.

Posted by: MarilynManson | January 13, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is too dumb to understand what "blood libel" meant but not too dumb to understand what posting her speech - with the flag on the wrong side - would do on the same day as the memorial service. The woman is an idiot.

And to think, she was a "heartbeat away" from the presidency. If she runs, I will do ANYTHING legal and proper to make certain that she does not win.

Posted by: carolineC1 | January 13, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Are you people obsessed with this woman? What's next? A linguistic meta-analysis of socio-economic idiomatic usage? Get over her!

Posted by: bryan37 | January 13, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" (Edward R. Murrow)

Correction: It was not Edward R. Murrow. It was Joseph Welch.

Posted by: kw121 | January 13, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Can't we just ignore this harpy?

Please?

We know there are always going to be that 20% or so who worship her and will hang on her every word but does the media need to repeat every mumble, gaff and screed by this woman?

Posted by: Observer001 | January 13, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Sarah bin Palin.

Posted by: Garak | January 13, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Voters need to realize that not only do they get the “Talking Head” they cast their ballot for, but also the staff behind the Head. Palin is not intelligent enough to have come up with the “Blood Libel” phrase; her staffers and advisors did. Vote for her, you get the whole sordid package.
Or maybe, that is what the Tea Baggers want. Does America?

Posted by: SidelinesObservant | January 13, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Always laugh when I see leftists, who love to say how smart they are and how we dumb right wingers can't understand metaphors and nuance, jump on the narrowist possible meaning of a phrase, completely out of context, then distort and twist themselves into a Gordian knot.

Keep it up, y'all. Keep it up. Every time the left pulls this malarkey, more and more reasonable people open their eyes. Did you hear them disagreeing with Bill Maher yesterday when he proclaimed how Republicans love to kill people or some such nonsense? His OWN FANS were telling him to cool it. Can't wait to watch his numbers drop. Of course, he couldn't help himself in his demogogic arrogance..he accused them of not reading enough.

Well, let me leave you to tightening that noose for the liberal side! ( For those on the left, allow me to explain that this is an old American metaphorical expression, meant to convey the idea of "give someone enough rope to hang himself with", along the lines of people may think you are fool if you are silent, but if you open your mouth you prove it...do you understand? Do NOT take a noose to yourselves or anyone else, ok?????)

Posted by: BridgePerspective | January 13, 2011 12:39 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to be Jewish to be offended by the misuse of terms. If she'd said that people were trying to "ethnic cleanse" her, or "defenestrate" her, or "infibulate" her, it would be just as tone deaf and ignorant.

When you parrot terms you don't understand, in a carefully crafted publicity piece, you insult everyone who actually checks what their words mean.

Posted by: JFS_in_PA | January 13, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Blood libel was an entirely apt metaphor for watching liberals immediately accuse conservatives OF MURDER when a clearly insane man obsessed with government conspiracies about grammar randomly shoots up a crowd of people.

Did liberals wait for the facts? No.
Did they consider the possibility that there are mentally ill people in America who sometimes commit violence? No.
Did they use their vaunted "intelligence" to look at the situation rationally and reach a logical conclusion? No.

What they did do is immediately try to exploit a tragedy to smear their opponents with heinous allegations of bloody murder. And, when called on it, they didn't even have the dignity to apologize -- they instead claimed Sarah Palin is the one exploiting the situation and insulting people by defending herself against those smears. Are you kidding?

I am not a Palin fan, but it's ridiculous to attack and insult her over her "wrong" use of the phrase blood libel when you have a President who infamously said America has 57 states, and pronounces "Navy corpsman" as "Navy corpse-man".

I also find it hilarious that the legendarily anti-Semitic squadrons of the left wing of the Democratic party suddenly care about the proper use of the term "blood libel." Afraid someone else might be breaking in on your racket?

Posted by: zippyspeed | January 13, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Worth noting most of the Progressives posting on this particular thread actually support a continuing blood libel against Jews by making contributions to the Rachel Corrie Foundation.

It's purpose is to continue to push the lie that Jews purposefully murdered Rachel Corrie.

You'll find that' it's usually the anti-semites who don't like the expression "blood libel" ~ gives 'em bad dreams or something.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 13, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Bring back the Pinocchios! Palin's earned it.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | January 13, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is propelled to the national spotlight for one reason and one reason only. It is because the liberal media is terrified, terrified, terrified of the hockey mom and outdoors mom, so her name is put above all names. Because of this I welcome the first female president of the United States of America, Sarah Palin.

Posted by: garf3ozg | January 13, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't the media giver Ms Palin her wish and quit covering her and reporting her every move. At least until she actually is running for another office.

Posted by: rsteffens1 | January 13, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Posted by: nychap44 | January 13, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I thought this was a very balanced and factual treatment of the "blood libel" issue ... probably the first I have seen since this cropped up.

However, isn't it true that "blood libel" long pre-dates Judaism? Maybe not the actual term, but certainly the same kind of myths and slanders:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib1.htm

Clearly, the term came to be almost synonymous with anti-Semitism, but isn't it possible that we're focusing on that a little too much and forgetting the broader sweep of history (to say nothing of the unrelated blood libel references Geraghty dug up)?

Posted by: mattr1970 | January 13, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The only thing dumber than Palin is the scores of moronic libs who were rushing to wikipedia or their dictionaries yesterday so they could decide whether to be outraged or not.

Fact is about 90 percent of Americans are unfamiliar with the term "blood libel."

Posted by: loux24 | January 13, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard professor of law, one of America's most accomplished attorneys and a noted liberal, is quoted at the Slate web site as saying:

"The term 'blood libel' has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report."

In other words, Sarah Palin used the term correctly as it is currently understood.

Posted by: Oracle3 | January 13, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin used the Reagan quote because her advisors felt it gave her words credibility with her fellow travelers. Palin took his words out of context and his point doesn't apply to what she was trying to say. Besides, not all of us worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan and, in fact the, way that Reagan originally used those words was wrong, very wrong.

Palin uses rhetoric that appeals to people who prefer simple answers to all problems. That is what the simple thinking Ronald Reagan was also doing when he uttered those words. Palin also appeals to those who feel aggrieved and those true believers who complain about everything and are generally negative in tone.

Posted by: Obadiah55 | January 13, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin used the Reagan quote because her advisors felt it gave her words credibility with her fellow travelers. Palin took his words out of context and his point doesn't apply to what she was trying to say. Besides, not all of us worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan and, in fact the, way that Reagan originally used those words was wrong, very wrong.

Palin uses rhetoric that appeals to people who prefer simple answers to all problems. That is what the simple thinking Ronald Reagan was also doing when he uttered those words. Palin also appeals to those who feel aggrieved and those true believers who complain about everything and are generally negative in tone.

Posted by: Obadiah55 | January 13, 2011 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I truly hope that the narcissistic miscreant that is Sarah Palin exhausted her "15 minutes" of fame. It is my naivete to think that this person would see what she has become and realize that she is not the most important person in the world. I would like to offer a prayer in her behalf that she comes to the realization that she is allowing the Becks, Limbaughs and O'Reillys to use her for their own gains. I truly feel sorry for her.

Posted by: chrismel091 | January 13, 2011 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The village has elected their idiot queen, and she has spoken.

Posted by: chrisjac341 | January 13, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

What IS reprehensible is Sarah Palin and her reading something that she would have no ability to ever write. What is reprehensible is her denying any responsibility in creating hatred nationwide. What is reprehensible is that she has a national platform. That is a sad statement to who some consider leaders.

Posted by: larryzach | January 16, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company