Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:19 PM ET, 01/12/2011

Why Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' was a poor choice of words

By Ruth Marcus

Sarah Palin feels victimized by critics who accuse her of helping to create an angry political climate that led to the Tucson shootings, and she has a point. She chose a truly unfortunate way to make it, using the phrase "blood libel."

Here's the context, from Palin's eight-minute video statement on the shooting: "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."

Blood libel is a term with a specific and terrible history. It refers to the scurrilous accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood to prepare Passover matzoh. Charges of blood libel have spurred massacres of Jews throughout the centuries; the myth was revived by Hitler and persists today from Russia to the Arab world.

Using the phrase "blood libel" is akin to making a Holocaust analogy: It is almost always a bad idea. Very little compares to the murder of thousands or millions of Jews simply because of their religion.

In fairness to Palin, the Tucson shooting/blood libel connection did not originate with her. Writing in Monday's Wall Street Journal, conservative blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds expressed outrage that "as the usual talking heads begin their 'have you no decency?' routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?"

Excuse me, but where is the decency in comparing political critics, however overwrought or misguided, to mass murderers? Palin's usage, denouncing the "manufacture of a blood libel," adds an extra level of vitriol, with the suggestion that those who criticize her rhetoric are intentionally fomenting scurrilous charges.

As it happens, I think the attempts to link Palin's sometimes militaristic and violent rhetoric to the Tucson shooting are unfounded. Jared Loughner seems to have been propelled by the crazy voices inside his own head, not the crazy voices in the conservative blogosphere or on talk radio. Palin put Gabrielle Giffords in her electoral cross-hairs, but Loughner had already fixated on the congresswoman.

At the same time, the shooting offers a useful moment for reflection about the potentially dangerous consequences of incendiary political rhetoric. Both political extremes are guilty, but, at least recently, the anger seems more pervasive and more white-hot on the right. "Don't retreat, instead -- reload." "Second Amendment remedies." "Take our country back."

But self-reflection is not a Palin instinct; lashing out at critics and presenting herself as aggrieved victim is. She took time to consider and craft her remarks. She could have used the opportunity to try to elevate the discourse. Instead, she further coarsened it. At a time the country is looking for words that heal, Palin chose to do what she does best: attack and provoke.

By Ruth Marcus  | January 12, 2011; 12:19 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Speaker John Boehner: statesman
Next: Sarah Palin proves -- again -- that she is a terrible politician

Comments

Palin and Beck and the rest don't get it. Whether it is of the vast left wing conspiracy or the media, they just love being the victim, and that is the height of hypocrisy. The hard truth is this: Palin has decided that as part of her political persona, she is going to use extreme, aggressive, in your face, and threatening language and imagery to dehumanize and marginalize her opponents. Fine, that’s her right. But now, when people respond in kind because of a senseless and tragic event that more or less mirrors the imagery and language she uses, she is the victim? Please. She is incapable of bearing responsibility or showing humility. Had she said, "In light of what happened in Tucson we regret our use of unfortunate images and language in the election, and never intended for it to be construed as wanting to cause harm to anyone. We are shocked that this sick individual did this and will work to do whatever it takes to make sure these sorts of tragedies never occur again" she would probably deflect much of this. But no, Sarah nor the right can never admit to being wrong, or mistaken, or in error, not when there is an opportunity to cast themselves as the victim. If you need to be reminded just how dangerous and extreme the noise from the right and Palin's beloved Tea Party has been, take a look here - http://wp.?me/pNmlT-A?K

Posted by: Dh1953 | January 12, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I knew Holocaust(tm)was trademarked.

Now so is "blood libel"?

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

Most people usually speak their minds. I don't think anybody had forced Sarah Palin to say "blood libel".

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 12, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Jewish pundits in NY Times are accusing Palin of causing the Tucson shooting which is libelous and blood was shed. Hence Blood Libel has been committed by Jews. Jews had better stop accusing GOP of Racism for opposing our Kenyan born, Russian Academy of Sciences trained president or they will become the target of disrespectful talk. It is called the boomerang effect.

Posted by: mascmen7 | January 12, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The Jews need to get on with their lives. The "holocaust" wasn't the only genocide in history.

Posted by: boise91801 | January 12, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Poor, poor Sarah her mean mouth gave national prominence far beyond her own abilities and now that same mean mouth will destroy her.

Posted by: mhitchons | January 12, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

This is great, Marcus. When charges of racism don't work, and when linking a crazed murderer in Arizona to conservatives doesn't work, then bring on the Holocaust. This is so typical of people like you, who have Palin in the cross-hairs every single day, who target her with vengeance and a hatred rarely seen, and who would love nothing more than to annihilate this woman. And now we are going to try the Nazi card. Bring on the Holocaust and expect everybody to shut up with any criticism of a press that is clearly obsessed with demonizing conservatives.

Thanks, Ruth, for lowering the volume in political discourse. Let's see if your Nazi card works.

The hypocrisy is stunning.


Posted by: jpfann | January 12, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

DIDO to "Why Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' was a poor choice of words By Ruth Marcus"

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

palin got what she always wants. Her ignorant words are in the press, her stupid bovine-vaccant eyes stare out from every front page from under her layers and layers of makeup and designer specs, and everyone is talking about her as if she is relevant. She is like the kid who farts loudly in class because he/she knows that it will get them attention.

Posted by: John1263 | January 12, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Ruth, this is not 'poor diction', this is self-vicitmization and utter disdain for anyone not in her echo chamber. Yesterday, someone said that Palin had ONE CHANCE to 'redeem' herself in this this political dust-up and the redemption was pretty simple. But she has chosen the path that this person said who allow Palin to 'ERASE" herself from the American political scene... THAT'S NOW DONE. She's finished...over..out...end...

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | January 12, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

My Mother used to say the "Truth Hurts"....this is possibly why Sarah Palin appears stung by media criticism of her gun analogies when discussing political opponents, including Rep. Giffords who was clearly on Palin's Target Map.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | January 12, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

My Mother used to say the "Truth Hurts"....this is possibly why Sarah Palin appears stung by media criticism of her gun analogies when discussing political opponents, including Rep. Giffords who was clearly on Palin's Target Map.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | January 12, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

DIDO to "Why Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' was a poor choice of words By Ruth Marcus"

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

Sarah Palin does not retreat and apparently does little to no "self reflecting." Sarah Palin "RELOADS" only. This seems to be all she knows how to do, RELOAD, either with an actual gun or with her mouth.

When are we gonna be free of Sarah Palin this, or Sarah Palin that? Sarah Palin is a media creation and now that the media has had their entertainment can we send her back to Alaska, the land she loves. She looks so much better in Alaska, don't ya'll think?

Posted by: rannrann | January 12, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

My Mother used to say the "Truth Hurts"....this is possibly why Sarah Palin appears stung by media criticism of her gun analogies when discussing political opponents, including Rep. Giffords who was clearly on Palin's Target Map.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | January 12, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

It seems instead of words of healing and trying to downplay all the criticism flying around, Palin has managed to do the opposite - guess she is digging her own hole a little deeper every time she opens her mouth !
As a republican I'm ashamed with her. She still has time to mend her ways - hope she gets some proffessional staff to help her out. It would be sad that a capable women would lose sight and it would become a case of "so near yet so far" by 2012.
I don't think this country can afford to elect a person who is an extremist (right or left, tea party or coffee party !!!)

Posted by: DrVJ | January 12, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Citizens!

You thought that the REAL VICTIMS in the Tuscon shooting were the six dead, and 14 wounded? Perhaps you thought it was Congresswoman Giffords, Federal Judge Roll, or maybe even that nine year-old girl?

You socialist, un-American, evil, terrorist-loving jerks!

Let us bow our heads and say a prayer for the TRUE VICTIMS of this mass murder: Sarah Palin, and Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh.

Get with the program, you dirty hippies.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | January 12, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Well, there you go again... "BOTH sides do it" ~

No. There is NO comparison. 'radical liberal' ~ no such animal - much like the unicorn.

No, this is ALL from one side of this 'equation'.

When will mainstream media

#1 STOP the ridiculous political correctness when extremists like Palin decide to 'join the conversation'.

#2 STOP giving the GILF any creds thru exposure - she's a radical #Dominionist (google it).

#3 EXPOSE HER EXTREMIST VIEWS AND HER EXTREMIST ENABLERS. You would do U.S. all much good by actually doing that 'objective' reporting for once.

Sister Sarah actually believes she's a 'chosen one' ~ and we KNOW where THAT leads.... "Got Armageddon?" ~ #UBetcha!

Posted by: mommadona | January 12, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

There is so much crucial reporting that could done concerning this tragedy, but what does Ms. Marcus choose to do with her "talents?" Compose a pedantic retort of Sarah palin's use of the phrase "blood libel."

What a waste of time. Way to zero in on what's important Ruth! It's no wonder why news organizations like the Post are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

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

Wow, Macsman, Boise and jpfann, you really just don't get it - or slept through your history classes.

Justifying the use of this language is absolutely insane and evidences a propensity for self-pity and victimization that I would have thought unpalatable to people who espouse the value of individual responsibility. There can be no equivocation of the plight of Sarah Palin and the false accusation that Jewish people killed Christian children so that they could use their blood to bake matzah for Passover. Last time I checked Sarah Palin remains unharmed, and the beneficiary of media attention (both bad and good), which has made her a millionaire. Meanwhile the myth of "blood libel" has empirically caused the deaths of many Jewish people throughout history. The conflation of the two seems to be an act of pure narcissism and historical ignorance. The defense of which is indefensible.

This isn't about Nazi imagery or "owning" the use of the term Holocaust. To use the term blood libel in this context is not just wrong, but given that the shooter's original target is herself Jewish, obscene.

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

From Wikipedia:

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews[citation needed], murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints.[citation needed]
In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.[7] These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time.

Origins of the myth

Professor Israel Jacob Yuval of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem published an article in 1993 that argues that blood libel may have originated in the 12th century from Christian views of Jewish behavior during the First Crusade. Some Jews committed suicide and killed their own children rather than be subjected to forced conversions. Yuval investigated Christian reports of these events and found that they were greatly distorted with claims that if Jews could kill their own children they could also kill Christian children. Yuval rejects the blood libel story as a Christian fantasy that was impossible due to the precarious nature of the Jewish minority's existence in Christian Europe.[9][10]


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

Who cares what Jews think!!!!!

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

As a Jew I take no offense and actually thank Ms Palin for pointing out the "libelous" behavior of the media.My Israeli friends have told me that Sarah Palin is viewed as an Israeli supporter and friend and most of Israel as born out in polls show Palin with a much higher approval rating than Obama. I find it very curious that "journolists" such as Ms. Marcus failed to make a comment when as Newsbusters has pointed out.... "However, the National Review's Jim Geraghty pointed to an October 30, 2008 Ann Coulter column: Capehart's Washington Post colleague Eugene Robinson complained about "...The blood libel against black men concerning the defilement of the flower of Caucasian womanhood." Was Mr. Robinson using anti-Semitic language? Should he have been "more careful," as Capehart instructed Palin to be?....... How about it, Ms Marcus? No, this Jew will cast his lot with Sarah Palin and to those who seek to diminish, tarnish, or marginalize I say sunshine has exposed your corruption.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz1AqTsb3N9

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

"Poor choice of words" is the mantra Palin lives by. Not coincidentally Palins' earlier "poor choice of words" is the reason we are even having the discussion about this round of poorly chosen words.

How do you spend an entire week in hiding and not come up with an airtight statement?

John Boehner came up with his in mere hours.

Posted by: trident420 | January 12, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh for goodness sake Sista Sarah - STOP!


You are setting women who would want to race for president back in because of YOUR efforts to get ahead. At this point, you ain't going nowhere near the White House.

You of all people know how to QUIT. So just pretend this "thingy" is your governer's job and QUIT!!

***

Posted by: Evenfoolsarerightsometimes | January 12, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

with every word she speaks she proves that she is an !d!ot and a m0r0n.

Posted by: calif-joe | January 12, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

It took several well crafted days to reply, and blood libel never bothered her?

Yes Sarah, those 2 or 3 days of your name being wrongfully linked is the same as 5,000 years of dehumanization.

Great parallel.

This woman is unhinged.

Posted by: spynnal | January 12, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I would seriously doubt she even knew of the historical connotation and give her a pass for being uneducated because I never expect better from her.

Posted by: kchses1 | January 12, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

All New Media Yeah I talking to all of News Media Butt Kissers to the MAX. We are much smarting than you look an educated that is why the Gov't hates the Baby Boomers we know they are Crooked an in cahoots with Big Business. We know Americans Voice have been silenced but not for long there is NEW ERA up rising it is SARAH PAHLIN AN JAN BREWER TO THE RESCUE.

Posted by: JWTX | January 12, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I would seriously doubt she even knew of the historical connotation and give her a pass for being uneducated because I never expect better from her.

Posted by: kchses1 | January 12, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The reason her video comes across as nauseatingly self-serving is the lack of self-refelction and individual responsibililty she demonstrates. Hopefully, most of us by adulthood understand that we influence each other--that words, moods, emotions are contageous. Part of "individual accountabililty" should be taking responsibility for how you influence the group. That is what leadership is--Influening the group to a higher and more effective purpose. She demonstates the opposite--self-serving and cynical twisting that screams lack of genuineness and emotional integrity. She is not mature enough to be a responsible manager in a plumbing company (no offense at all intended to the plumbing industry), much less President. The overabundance of flags on a good day look silly and on a bad day look like a pathetic appeal to nationalism. A balanced and realistic love of your country doesn't reveal itself if flag-waving and puffed up nationalism. We are not at all the only country in the world that has spirited and legal political debate--we are one among many--any of one them could be shining examples. Again, the narcissism and puffed up nationalism...ick.

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please take away this woman's license to speak English?

And Sarah, the word is P-U-N-D-I-T, not P-U-N-D-I-N-T. And if you don't want your adoring followers to see the teleprompter reflection, take off your glasses.

Posted by: EAHarrison | January 12, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Jewish pundits in NY Times are accusing Palin of causing the Tucson shooting which is libelous and blood was shed. Hence Blood Libel has been committed by Jews. Jews had better stop accusing GOP of Racism for opposing our Kenyan born, Russian Academy of Sciences trained president or they will become the target of disrespectful talk. It is called the boomerang effect.

Posted by: mascmen7 | January 12, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

*******
Ah, another rightwing bigot exposes his party's dogma and prejudice. It is too easy to tag these hate-filled anti-American, anti-God racists. Everyday in everyway they bring our nation down. What kind of rotten parents raised these racists??????? fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | January 12, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's ugly mug just makes me feel sick now and I know a lot of Americans are with me on that.

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

Oh come on!

I despise Palin as much as anybody, but do you HONESTLY believe that she was being Anti-Semitic here?

Just because the term "Blood Libel" was used the way it was 800 years ago doesn't mean it has the same definition today.

The first time I ever saw the term was in Palin's speech. The idea that Jews might have suffered from such a concept hundreds of years ago never even occurred to me!

I would at least give the woman the benefit of the doubt that she was ignorant of its second meaning.

I'm WAY better informed than she is, and I had no idea!

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

"Blood libel is a term with a specific and terrible history," (Marcus implies - about only us Jews)

Sorry, as another poster states, good luck with trademarking that as a term only Jews may use ...or the progressive Jews like Klein, Paul Krugman can use as a weapon to smear those they politically detest within hours of the Tucson tragedy.

As for blood libels, forget the argument "it is all about the Jews" and "no other group suffered from blood libels."

People who remember innocent blacks lynched on blood libel might argue the "property of Jews only" claim Marcus makes.
Blood libel has driven much Muslim terrorism.
The Left is now regularly using blood libel to amp up it's base. Bush and Cheney blew up the Levees to drown blacks. Buch and Cheney "murdered a million innocent Iraqis". AIDs is an American plot.

Alinskyite tactics. (Like Krugman, Saul Alinsky, a Jew - knew that blood libel was an effective tool to Demonize political opponents).

This time the Left was a little too exploitative, a little too smarmy, and are now going to get burned for it..

===================
As for Ruth Marcus other point...OK, maybe the Right Wing had nothing to do with it but we all ought to agree this is time to have a Teachable Moment on the hating haters of the Right?
That's like saying - "Well, maybe black thug carjackers didn't drown Susan Smiths kids..but nevertheless, now that the accusation is out there...lets have a national conversation on black thugs.."

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | January 12, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin can call the criticism directed at her "blood libel", we should call all the profits she has received from her inflammatory speeches advocating violence "blood money". That woman has enriched herself from spreading the gospel of hatred. She should realize that all the wealth she has is now tainted with blood.

Posted by: fridaolay | January 12, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

How stupid, insensitive, irrelevant and relentlessly, solely self-promoting does Palin have to be before we collectively stop hanging on her every tweet and video message? She does not even pretend to engage in a conservation with anyone. This is beyond absurd.

Posted by: csaether | January 12, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm with you all the way, wideblacksky, she is a total idiot and I can't believe the idiots that follow her!!!!!

Posted by: pook1968 | January 12, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

'Using the phrase "blood libel" is akin to making a Holocaust analogy: It is almost always a bad idea. Very little compares to the murder of thousands or millions of Jews simply because of their religion.'

I should say the millions of children murdered in the womb compares.

What Marcus means to say is these comparisons are a bad idea if you're a conservative - liberals make these comparisons all the time.

Posted by: fishcrow | January 12, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Ruth,
I disagree. Seeing the video and Palin's remarks, I did not see "attack and provoke." I saw a fairly dispassionate call to use the tragedy to make the nation stronger. Commentators such as yourself, instead of capturing her intent, focused on a couple poorly chosen words. That, to me, is the essence of "attack and provoke."

Posted by: joneu316 | January 12, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin just needs to just SHUT UP and stop believing that every event, story, or tragedy is about her!

Linking these two words in her response is unbelievable. She has no idea what she is saying.

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

I'm sure Marcus gets upset with the term "crusade," as well.

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

The liberal media is once again out in force.

They're still not accepting responsibility for accusing Palin of hate speech, when the rhetoric on both sides is equally hateful.

Posted by: postfan1 | January 12, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo should really consider dropping their comments section - the discussion really deteriorates rapidly and is indicative of the hate speech being complained of. The WaPo is itself a facilitator of hate speech in this regard.

Posted by: NorthernNeighbour33 | January 12, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you call Congressman Robert Brady and have him put "blood libel" into his proposed banned speech legislation? Maybe he can add "use of the term 'blood libel' in any speech is prohibited and its use will be subject to a $250,000 fine and or three years in prison unless a special dispensation is obtained in writing from a left wing media member such as the Washington Post, the New York Time or a lefty columnist such as Ruth Marcus."

Posted by: tmonahan54 | January 12, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Poor Sarah she is the victim. Not the congresswoman she put in the crosshairs: not the six dead, not the others wounded. Just poor Sarah!
No one is acussing this self-absorbed prima donna of pulling the trigger or encouraging this lunatic. People are only asking if her violent language,her calling opponents not real Americans, her demonizing the President and congress might have contributed to this hyper-partisan atmosphere in which we find the country.
Poor Sarah she wants all the money and fame, but does not want to be held responsible for any of her words or actions.

Posted by: wstickney1 | January 12, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Yes a blood libel would be more like calling Saddam Hitler as an excuse for taking the country as a blood sacrifice for 9/11 despite his not being related to it at all... not of him but of his entire country thrown into the depths of destruction in the name of democrazy...
it is not the methaphor of war that is our problem it is the use of war and this persons acceptance of our principles for his personal war. We are his problem basically.

Posted by: Wildthing1 | January 12, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Poor Sarah she is the victim. Not the congresswoman she put in the crosshairs: not the six dead, not the others wounded. Just poor Sarah!
No one is acussing this self-absorbed prima donna of pulling the trigger or encouraging this lunatic. People are only asking if her violent language,her calling opponents not real Americans, her demonizing the President and congress might have contributed to this hyper-partisan atmosphere in which we find the country.
Poor Sarah she wants all the money and fame, but does not want to be held responsible for any of her words or actions.

Posted by: wstickney1 | January 12, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

It seems likely that Palin did not author a single word of her speach, and maybe understood but half of them. Chances are the poor dear had no idea of the historic meaning of blood libel. Not that I would be one to swoop to the defense of Sarah Palin, but fair is fair.

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

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/in-fla-palin-goes-for-the-roug.html

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago."
-------------------------------------------

After "Kill him (Obama)!", not only did she not stop or try to calm the audience, she went on with her reasoning to support "Kill him!"

Sarah Palin does not incite violence just recently. This has been her only strength since 2008. Her TLC reality show recorded every bit of her love for blood or called nature.

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 12, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about Nazi imagery or "owning" the use of the term Holocaust. To use the term blood libel in this context is not just wrong, but given that the shooter's original target is herself Jewish, obscene.

Posted by: DCSucks |
========================
Given the shooter, Jared Loughner, is also Jewish and according to friends, voted for Obama in 2008....I think the blood libel on half of America "Christian, conservative hating haters"...is the obscene thing that followed the original obscene thing Loughner did.

And besides the Congresswoman, you have 19 non-Jews killed or wounded. So saying that you can't use terms like "blood libel" out of deference to the 1 of the 20 shot by a Jewish gunman because a Jewish victim is involved...is quite a stretch.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | January 12, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Ms. Marcus, for identifying the probable source of Palin's incredibly odd and tone deaf use of the term "blood libel." Several of us reading and responding to her video this morning have recognized how bizarre and unlikely this term is in American usage. You can really use it as a "forensic marker" to trace back where conservative morons like Palin go for their "ideas."

So, I looked up this Glenn Reynolds fellow, whose name, frankly, I didn't recognize. Apparently, he's not actually the first person to have used this bizarre term this week: he just had the biggest forum. TPM has an interesting discussion of the etymology of "blood libel" in conservative circles since Saturday: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/palins_use_of_blood_libel_mirrors_that_in_right-wing_media.php

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

Maybe Ruth Marcus should have watched the video before unleashing all that criticism.

I guess she wouldn't have had much of a column, though.

Posted by: postfan1 | January 12, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

mascmen7:

What will you do if "disrespectful talk" as a weapon doesn't make those of us who don't agree with your completely unvalidated beliefs start echoing your opinions? Break some kneecaps?

"Jews had better stop accusing GOP of Racism for opposing our Kenyan born, Russian Academy of Sciences trained president or they will become the target of disrespectful talk. It is called the boomerang effect."

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"She took time to consider and craft her remarks."

A more accurate statement by Ms. Marcus would be "She took time to review and approve the remarks prepared for her by consultants."

The entire history of her extemperaneous remarks should be sufficient evidence that she is not equipped either for systematic analytical thought or for cogent expression.

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


Seems like to me "the manufacture of blood libel" is fairly accurate depiction of how the liberal media has handled this tragedy.

They went out of their way to accuse Palin of being an indirect cause of the tragedy.

Posted by: postfan1 | January 12, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Marcus wrote "the myth was revived by Hitler and persists today from Russia to the Arab world" Well, I am an Arab and Muslim and never heard blood libel or anything sort of antisemitism that comes out certain groups, yes there is conflict between Arab/Muslim and Jews and that is land issue.
1554 Ottoman Sultan Suleiman issued law that forbids under his empire a blood libel against Jews, please, let us focus on this not mentally ill terrorist and those who instigated this terrorist action and political assassination, which is really what happen in Arizona.

Posted by: Hhah72 | January 12, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"She took time to consider and craft her remarks."

A more accurate statement by Ms. Marcus would be "She took time to review and approve the remarks prepared for her by consultants."

The entire history of her extemperaneous remarks should be sufficient evidence that she is not equipped either for systematic analytical thought or for cogent expression.

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

The metaphors of war are not the problem!We like to use the metaphos of war because we are so fond of the recourse to war and force to get what we want versus others. The problem is when we use it others also tend to use it against us. It is not a very good tool, it is actually a tool of fools... it is like banging your head against he wall or committing suicide even. It is like planting seeds of ones own destruction and carefully watering them so they will bear fruit. That is metaphorical too...

Posted by: Wildthing1 | January 12, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Well considered and measured contribution to this issue which has stimulated the usual polemical slants from both sides - e.g. Krugman was as far off base as Krauthammer. Just to add a minor provocation: it is truly regrettable that the excessively colorful Mr. McCain advanced the utterly vapid Ms. Palin into her role as spokesperson of the resentfully befuddled masses.

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

"Poor diction?" No -- "you betcha" is poor diction. "Blood libel" is poor judgment. Unbelievably poor judgment.
But we can't be surprised, because Palin exhibits this level of audacity over and over again. For some reason, when she is criticized for what she says, she is suddenly the victim. Sarah, if you can't take being in the glare of public opinion, go home! You use the most extreme, most violent, most partisan rhetoric you can think of, and then when someone calls you on it, it's poor little me! And not just poor little me, but "blood libel???" That term has a specific, significant meaning, and it should never have been used in this circumstance.
And, to borrow one of your phrases, if you did think it was OK to use militaristic metaphors of guns and shooting and targets and reloading, then "man up" and admit it, but don't send your aide out to tell a bald faced lie and claim it was just "surveyor's symbols." Sheesh! How can anyone take you seriously as a leader and public figure if you insist on being so frivolous and disingenuous? If your imagery didn't cause the shooting, go ahead, say so! But don't try to pretend you weren't out there using that imagery to stoke your political fortunes.

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

"Poor diction?" No -- "you betcha" is poor diction. "Blood libel" is poor judgment. Unbelievably poor judgment.
But we can't be surprised, because Palin exhibits this level of audacity over and over again. For some reason, when she is criticized for what she says, she is suddenly the victim. Sarah, if you can't take being in the glare of public opinion, go home! You use the most extreme, most violent, most partisan rhetoric you can think of, and then when someone calls you on it, it's poor little me! And not just poor little me, but "blood libel???" That term has a specific, significant meaning, and it should never have been used in this circumstance.
And, to borrow one of your phrases, if you did think it was OK to use militaristic metaphors of guns and shooting and targets and reloading, then "man up" and admit it, but don't send your aide out to tell a bald faced lie and claim it was just "surveyor's symbols." Sheesh! How can anyone take you seriously as a leader and public figure if you insist on being so frivolous and disingenuous? If your imagery didn't cause the shooting, go ahead, say so! But don't try to pretend you weren't out there using that imagery to stoke your political fortunes.

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

Not too surprising the ususal suspects at the ComPost rail about Palin et al taking offense at being demonized and blamed for the barbaric actions of a deranged and (as it turns out) left wing dope smoking nutbag who , by his friends account, never listened to political speech or talk radio. Why would it upset anyone to be blamed for that? Are you sure this guy didn't hear the President say "if they come at us with a knife we bring a gun"? There is about as much support for that as the "vitriol and uncivil rhetoric" spewing from the lefty windbags almost before the ambulance was on the scene.

I think this is all about silencing the recently reawakened "silent majority" who think things should run smoothly between elections but have discovered the fools we have been electing have been going to DC and not folowing the Constitution and furthering special interest agendae and not the will of the people. If they can't convince us all is well they will silence the alternative sources of news and opinion.

Posted by: theduck6 | January 12, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo should really consider dropping their comments section - the discussion really deteriorates rapidly and is indicative of the hate speech being complained of. The WaPo is itself a facilitator of hate speech in this regard.

Posted by: NorthernNeighbour33 | January 12, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Leave Britney alone!

Posted by: js_edit | January 12, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect from a person like Palin, who believes in blood sports,like hunting moose or bear and watching bird like turkey being butchered.She is a blood hater, and like to show her skill shooting animals with a rifle or gun in her hand, and then a posing for a national newspaper.

Posted by: jatihoon1 | January 12, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect from a person like Palin, who believes in blood sports,like hunting moose or bear and watching bird like turkey being butchered.She is a blood hater, and like to show her skill shooting animals with a rifle or gun in her hand, and then a posing for a national newspaper.

Posted by: jatihoon1 | January 12, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Can't such more to this than "Oy" and "Vey."

Posted by: password11 | January 12, 2011 2:03 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.

The fact that this is an issue, that any writer spends even one second writing about this shows how depraved, contemptuous and lacking of serious thought the political left is in this country.

++

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

Hey 'we' all know Palin's unstable but will the news stay fouced on the hungry, the out of work and disabled -folks with no S.Security increases for 2 yrs while prices are clearly going up-and the uninsured!
Time to grow up folks and forget about quiters who make millions with hate speech. USA is betterr than that. PUT folks to owrk get infrastrure done-High speed trains, etc. Volunteer...

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

Given the obvious amount of time and careful reading she devoted to this, I'm surprised she didn't take the time to research 'blood libel.'

A charge of simple 'libel' would have sufficed; no need to drag anti-Semitism into an already overheated discussion.

I'm not sure what's worse - that she didn't do the necessary research; or that she did and still chose something so potentially inflammatory.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | January 12, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Loughner did not go to the mall to kill innocent bystanders doing their shopping on a quiet Saturday morning. He went there to kill a clearly targeted political figure and her small gathering of supporters. What moved him? Only he knows, but he sure knew what he was doing. He went there well prepared for it. We must focus not only on his madness. His act was also political. That is why politicians, political thinkers and leaders should be attentive to what they say. Palin's response today seemed distant, cold and too calculated. It did not help the nation to find unity and comfort in the midst of a political tragedy.

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

The best part of Palin obviously ran down her father's leg - so who really cares what this illiterate says?

Posted by: the_observer1 | January 12, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah "Death Panels" Palin doesn't want to be on the receiving end of political hyperbole, then she needs to find another line of work. She'd make a fine hostess at Denny's.

Posted by: paul6554 | January 12, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

DRUDGE REPORTS:

'HE DID NOT WATCH TV. HE DISLIKED THE NEWS. HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO POLITICAL RADIO'

HOW CAN YOU BLAME ANYONE BUT THE PERP WITH THIS INFORMATION? LIBERALS AND THEIR MINIONS ARE IDIOTS.

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

You know I find it very frightening that this person who has a poor command of diction wants to be my President of the United States. I dont get how the right apparently believes that a functional illiterate should and could effectively be our President of this United States. How low are we going to drop the bar in this country? Not only do we seem obsessed with regressing as a Nation and going backwards, we need to consider what kind of a message we are sending to our kids by telling them through these type of gyrations that they should only aspire to be a c student, because they can still become President. Or...you dont have to articulate the King's English very well and you can still be President. Not that these individuals should not have a chance to be POTUS, it's just that it begs the question, should we be lowering the bar and expectations for the POTUS? Sarah Palin is a disaster, and I dont care if she was a democrat, republican or pseudo conservative liberal, she stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ruthella10 | January 12, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The mainstream media is unethical.

Instead of investigating the shooting and reporting facts, they have politicized the event and attacked their political opposition.

Her choice of words is absolutely appropriate.

The media has no credibility. They are political hacks.

Posted by: thinker16 | January 12, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Is the problem that so many people think Palin is stupid or is it that so many people think Obama's policies are so bad that even Palin could beat him in the next election?

(NOTE TO RUTH: I was not trying to incite violence against the President when I used the term 'beat him')

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

Professor Reynolds (accurately) described this orchestrated Leftist smear campaign against Mrs. Palin as "blood libel."

There's a very good reason the term "blood libel" was applied in such situations, and that's because of the common meanings of "blood" and "libel."

I see very little distinction between accusing Jews of killing children and accusing Sarah Palin of prompting a mass murder, except the difference between a principal and an accomplice. (And keep in mind the law punishes the accomplice-before-the-fact the same as the principal.) These are both horrific examples of defamation.

For what it's worth, the phrase "blood libel" has been used more recently, and fairly commonly, to describe suggestions that gays might be more likely to molest, or recruit, children.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/paladinos-rants.html

There are other examples.
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/12/joy.01.html

Try harder to take a little responsibility for this Leftists smear campaign and adding smear on smear by implying anti-Semitism where there isn't any, Ruth.

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

Sarah Palin is not the future for America. She is a disaster waiting to explode. You do not need you in Washington, DC. Stay in Alaska.

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

boise91801 wrote: "The Jews need to get on with their lives. The 'holocaust' wasn't the only genocide in history."
-------------------------------------------
I think there are about six million who might not be able to take your advice.

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

Sarah Palin is not the future for America. She is a disaster waiting to explode. We do not need you in Washington, DC. Stay in Alaska.

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

This is a leftist smear campaign.

At this point, it's so over the top that the media doesn't even realize how out on a limb they are. They are in so deep, I'm not sure how they'll walk it back out.

They are proving that they have a political agenda rather than just a job reporting the news.

Posted by: thinker16 | January 12, 2011 2:24 PM | Report abuse

She is driving the news today, which was the goal, and she's even impinging on Obama's planned speech. The Fourth Estate is enabling her once again. Score one for Caribou Barbie.

Posted by: scaypgrayce | January 12, 2011 2:25 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 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Listening to Palin in order to chart a national course forward is like listening to Gilligan about maritime geography.

Posted by: josh13 | January 12, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Outside of the Jewish community, I don't believe most gentiles one would know the historic reference to "blood libel" since I heard it and interpreted it as blood libel-- sans the quotes.

Libelous accusations linking Palin to a mass murder is how I understood it...which is exactly what progressives and their sick, vicious scumbag henchmen in the media have attempted to do.

Incredibly accurate description if you ask me.

Posted by: VaPatriot | January 12, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

All these left wing socialist self-righteous basturds that say the Right is to blame - should be horsewhipped and tarred and feathered...then sent to Zambia where they can see what real bloodshed is all about.

The lamestream media forever tarnished its image these past few days...and Ruth Marcus is one of them....a shill for the Obama's and other elitists, Marcus has really done herself in this time. SHAME ON YOU RUTH.

Posted by: MoonDoggie | January 12, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Next Ms. Airhead will proclaim that anyone who disagrees with her is antisemantic.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | January 12, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Well ... I grew up in Russia, and I cannot deny that there is a lot of racism, especially against Jews there. My Jewish friends tell me so, whom I believe and respect. However, the term 'blood libel' has no translation into Russian. In history class, I have heart that the legends of blood libel had been driving religious fanatics against Jews in the capitalist West. The term Jew is not even a religious concept, it is an ethnic concept in Russia. Therefore Russian racists find other excuses for their paranoia that do not involve religion.

I find that putting Hitler and Russia in the same sentence in terms of the motivation for prosecution of Jews is offensive, misinformed, and false in principle. Russians spilled more blood fighting Hitler than any other race. Jews suffer in Russia to present day. But the evil cannot be confronted with lies, ignorance, or cheap propaganda.


Posted by: akula | January 12, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16"

-- Jesse Kelly, Giffords' Tea Party opponent and terrorist.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | January 12, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, you hit the nail squarely on the head with the last three paragraphs. She is and does all those things, which in my mind makes her unfit for President. On top of that, she is stupid, which in anyone's mind should make her unfit for President.

Posted by: JJ_1970 | January 12, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Professor Reynolds (accurately) described this orchestrated Leftist smear campaign against Mrs. Palin as "blood libel."

There's a very good reason the term "blood libel" was applied in such situations, and that's because of the common meanings of "blood" and "libel."

I see very little distinction between accusing Jews of killing children and accusing Sarah Palin of prompting a mass murder, except the difference between a principal and an accomplice. (And keep in mind the law punishes the accomplice-before-the-fact the same as the principal.) These are both horrific examples of defamation.

For what it's worth, the phrase "blood libel" has been used more recently, and fairly commonly, to describe suggestions that gays might be more likely to molest, or recruit, children.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/paladinos-rants.html

There are other examples.
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/12/joy.01.html

Try harder to take a little responsibility for this Leftists smear campaign while adding smear-on-smear by implying anti-Semitism where there isn't any.

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

The blood libel I remember being taught as a child was that the Jewish people killed Christ and that they and their children were punished by God for what the Jewish nation had done. That wasn't a central theme of religious instruction, but some concept of collective guilt that passed by blood was communicated at Easter time.

Christians are no longer taught that, but its much more likely that Governor Palin was referring to the lie that Jews as a group were responsible for killing God than that she was referring to medieval rumors about Jewish people drinking children's blood.

The Biblical blood libel quotation seems like a very appropriate analogy for Dems blaming conservatives for the actions of a mentally disturbed person not affiliated with any conservative group.

Governor Palin was both succinct and accurate in her decription of what Dems are doing for political gain.

Posted by: jfv123 | January 12, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus demonstrates her bias directly and completely in the following sentance. "As it happens, I think the attempts to link Palin's sometimes militaristic and violent rhetoric to the Tucson shooting are unfounded. Jared Loughner seems to have been propelled by the crazy voices inside his own head, not the crazy voices in the conservative blogosphere or on talk radio." Clearly by labling conservatives as crazy, she indicates her liberal bent and demonstrates no tolerance for opinions by those who differ from her. Also, it's instructive that she waits three full days to state that she thinks that the efforts to link Ms. Palin to the violence are "unfounded." How about a column, Ms. Marcus, on the rush to judgment by your fellow travelors rather than a diversionary column to continue attacking Ms. Palin by another route. Oh wait, I just used the work "attack.' I guess I'm using militaristic and violent rhetoric.

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

Ms. Marcus demonstrates her bias directly and completely in the following sentance. "As it happens, I think the attempts to link Palin's sometimes militaristic and violent rhetoric to the Tucson shooting are unfounded. Jared Loughner seems to have been propelled by the crazy voices inside his own head, not the crazy voices in the conservative blogosphere or on talk radio." Clearly by labling conservatives as crazy, she indicates her liberal bent and demonstrates no tolerance for opinions by those who differ from her. Also, it's instructive that she waits three full days to state that she thinks that the efforts to link Ms. Palin to the violence are "unfounded." How about a column, Ms. Marcus, on the rush to judgment by your fellow travelors rather than a diversionary column to continue attacking Ms. Palin by another route. Oh wait, I just used the work "attack.' I guess I'm using militaristic and violent rhetoric.

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

You are right Ruth...all Palin ever does is 'attack and provoke.' She has never once suggested taking a 'constructive' stance when confronting or discussing our nation's issues. She always stokes the flames of discontent in order to highten anomosity between the sides rather than take positive steps to build concensus and look for solutions.

Posted by: mcdy01 | January 12, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

sportbr wrote "Oh come on!

I despise Palin as much as anybody, but do you HONESTLY believe that she was being Anti-Semitic here?
...
I would at least give the woman the benefit of the doubt that she was ignorant of its second meaning.

I'm WAY better informed than she is, and I had no idea!"

You might be right but someone who currently has a lot of influence over so many people and perhaps has aspirations to be President must be better informed and more sensitive. This is especially true since she wasn't speaking extemporaneously, since she and her staff had plenty of time to prepare.

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

Jewish pundits in NY Times are accusing Palin of causing the Tucson shooting which is libelous and blood was shed. Hence Blood Libel has been committed by Jews. Jews had better stop accusing GOP of Racism for opposing our Kenyan born, Russian Academy of Sciences trained president or they will become the target of disrespectful talk. It is called the boomerang effect.

Posted by: mascmen7 | January 12, 2011 1:02 PM |

Mascmen, you are the poster child for the type of ignorant dupe that Palin and Beck need to survive. Well, at least you have that.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | January 12, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Palin is not a healer or a uniter. She will remain who she is: an instigator, and a divider. Such people have their place and are useful to the society but never as President.

Posted by: impressed1 | January 12, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Boobala,

Looks like Allan Dershowitz agrees with those who share my opinion..

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 12, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is an idiot of epic proportions. Everyone wants to get riled up by her. She is a luny just like Jared Loughner. The voices in her head are just as stupid. I am sure with her shoot first mentality, that we all are in danger. I am still trying to figure out the gall that she has in thinking she can be POTUS. We would be the laughing stock of every country on the planet. See, she has even riled me up. I wish she would go back to her igloo and shut the heck up.

Posted by: jlwadd123 | January 12, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow, talk about stepping up the rhetoric!!

Calm down, this is NOT about the Holocaust.

Posted by: gm123 | January 12, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I knew Holocaust(tm)was trademarked.

Now so is "blood libel"?

-----------
Well, actually, yes it is. The phrase has a very specific meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

Posted by: sr31 | January 12, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Sarah, since you are into quoting famous Americans, here's one especially for you.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: freedomgirl1 | January 12, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

To impressed one who wrote "Palin is not a healer or a uniter. She will remain who she is: an instigator, and a divider. Such people have their place and are useful to the society but never as President."

Obama is an agitator and divider. He should have NEVER been President.

I think the attacks on Sarah Palin are unfair and politically motivated, but I agree that we need a different leader than either her OR Obama.

Obama has done great harm to our country by consistently going against the will of the people. The political divide is a result of this as well has his views. Us vs. them, enemies, etc.

We must elect a leader in 2012 who will respect the will of the people, improve the economy, and restore sanity to our out of control country.

Posted by: thinker16 | January 12, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

So now Palin's remarks are being distorted and propagandized to imply she is insulting the victims of the Holocaust; therefore she must be a Nazi.

Keep it up Liberals - this insane bull is exactly the rocket fuel the Conservatives will use to defeat you in 2012.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 12, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

We're still finding out about the deranged gunman and what he thought. At this point, it seems possible he had a lot of other written material in his room, perhaps some was political rhetoric by Gifford's opponents.

It's pretty clear that some people close to Loughner knew a lot more than they are letting on, at this point. For example, why would the murderer's father be keeping such a close eye on his son and actually chase him down, unless he was very suspicious of what he might be thinking of doing?

It's possible that even if they find evidence Loughner was influenced by Palin or other right wing nuts, we will never know about it.

Posted by: rak1 | January 12, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

There is room for blessed silence in all things, and Sarah should have let it stand at her last statement of sympathy for the victims.

Posted by: hakafos44 | January 12, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's ugly mug just makes me feel sick now and I know a lot of Americans are with me on that.

Posted by: wideblacksky

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

Actually, most Americans are not sick of Palin's face.

Your mug might be a good substitute for Epicac though...feel free to post it/we've been waiting for a good laugh all day.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 12, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

hahahahahaha....

blood libel also has legal connotations about trying to profit from murder...

marcus is a silly pied piper leading the palin haters....ooops is that another religious term????

Posted by: TerpfanMA | January 12, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Look, I love a Palin controversy as much as the next man, but it's fairly obvious to me that she didn't mean to intend any comparison to the Holocaust. She just doesn't know what blood libel means.

Posted by: monongahela79 | January 12, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Please tell me when palin has made a good choice of words? Come to think of it --this is written for her so she makes no choice--unless she likes the sound of the word--because she certainly does not understand the meanings or consequences!

Posted by: jetlone | January 12, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

People should understand by now that certain phrases and words have become registered trademarks, the property of aggrieved groups like Jews and blacks. Such phrases as "blood libel", holocaust and goyem(cattle)by Jews and "slavery" by blacks can only be used in the proper well defined context as related to historical events. Others using these phrases even metaphorically do so at their peril.

Posted by: slim21 | January 12, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Forget the fact Palin had nothing what so ever to do with anything Loughner did, she is being attacked now for what she said in her defense. Give me a break. Palin could have talked about the three little pigs and she still would have been attacked. The fact of the matter is that it's clear who and what influenced Loughner. Too much information from his close friends have put too much light for anyone to say Palin, talk radio, and the Republicans rhetoric was responsible for anything Loughner did. In fact Loughner was a far left radical who had a problem with Gifford's, a moderate Democrat and thats a fact. You want to talk about a poor choice of words. How about the words the sheriff used to cover his own butt when Loughner was all over the radar and the sheriff dropped the ball.

Posted by: houstonian | January 12, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, this article shows why you and other liberals are so non-effective. You use the term "blood Libel" and then spend the entire time saying you can't blame her for this and that. So you are trying to make up a "HIT" article. Had she left out that term, you would have found another sentence to "hit" her with. Liberals are the haters.

Posted by: gsms69 | January 12, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, this article shows why you and other liberals are so non-effective. You use the term "blood Libel" and then spend the entire time saying you can't blame her for this and that. So you are trying to make up a "HIT" article. Had she left out that term, you would have found another sentence to "hit" her with.

Posted by: gsms69 | January 12, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

To paraphrase jpfann above: "When charges of racism don't work, and when linking a crazed murderer in Arizona to conservatives doesn't work, then bring on the Holocaust. This is so typical of people like you, who have Palin in the cross-hairs every single day, who target her with vengeance and a hatred rarely seen, and who would love nothing more than to annihilate this woman."
Too bad for Palin's enemies she's quite capable of defending herself against their constant, vitriolic and hate-filled attacks. In fact, she often does so with one hand tied behind her back!

When a person is absolutely driven by feelings of hatred and hostility as Palin's detractors are, they frequently 'jump the shark' and their attacks become increasingly shrill, nonsensical and ultimately ineffective if not downright laughable. Being blinded by hatred is NOT an advantage...

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

When one considers the psychology of Sarah Palin, she tends to magnify matters more than they really are. What kind of person does this sort of thing?

If one were to look under the hood, one sees a very aggressive and hostile person. Do we really want someone like this in office?

Just go away Sarah Palin. Don't go away mad, just go away.

Posted by: kgblankinship1 | January 12, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives probably conned themselves into thinking they controlled the agenda after their election victories in November. So when reality catches up to them and bites them in the butt, what happens? They throw the mother of all tantrums that theirs isn't the only voice being heard.

Two words for the poor whiny conservatives out there: "Grow Up!"

Posted by: drazen1 | January 12, 2011 3:38 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!!!

ARE MOST OF THE JOURNALISTS BASHING SARAH JEWS? YOU BETCHA!

MR. KRUGMAN??


Posted by: jjcrocket13 | January 12, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

My god will you please shut up and go back into the kitchen. If you're not criticzing Sarah directly, it's either her daughters the pet dog, or the state of Alaska. I guess none of these worked up to now so you decided to pick on her poor choice of words. Why, because her words insulted the jews? Or did you mean the insult was directed at christians? Can you ever write something informative and educational in your column, or are you too dumb to do that.

Posted by: lori9 | January 12, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

This is not palin's fault. It is of the idiots who take her seriously. Personally I would ftb.

Posted by: letemhaveit | January 12, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

thinker16--

I am truly baffled by accusations that Obama is a divider. Sincerely, in what do you find evidence for that? He practices politics to be sure---all Presidents do. He also has continuously included the solutions from political opponents to come up with negotiated outcomes. His methods are clearly rooted in his experience as a community organizer--if anything, he is open to charges of being to "hands off" in expecting Congress to be able to negotiate solutions between viewpoints and reluctant to use hardball tactics (the reason he hired Emanuel, presumably). His rhetoric has not at all been divisive--just the opposite (and got "Liar" hurled at him during a Presidential speech). With any kind of intellectual honesty, can you claim his speach is divisive--compared to George Bush or Ronald Reagan "Government is the problem?" way? How could he have possibly have been more bi-partisan and still been a leader?

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

More corcodile tears from the permanently offended Left.

How about "unsubstantiated, vilely opportunistic partisan libel"?

Does that make the Left feel better?


Posted by: drjcarlucci | January 12, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

My god will you please shut up and get off of Sarah Palin. If you're not criticzing Sarah directly, it's either her daughters the pet dog, or the state of Alaska. I guess none of these worked up to now so you decided to pick on her poor choice of words. Why, because her words insulted you personally? Can you ever write something informative and educational in your column, or are you too dumb to do that.

Posted by: lori9 | January 12, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

thinker16--

I am truly baffled by accusations that Obama is a divider. Sincerely, in what do you find evidence for that? He uses power because we pay him to do that---all Presidents do. He also has continuously included the solutions from political opponents to come up with negotiated outcomes. His methods are clearly rooted in his experience as a community organizer--if anything, he is open to charges of being too "hands off" in expecting Congress to be able to negotiate solutions between viewpoints and reluctant to use hardball tactics (the reason he hired Emanuel, presumably). His rhetoric has not at all been divisive--just the opposite (and got "Liar" hurled at him during a Presidential speech). With any kind of intellectual honesty, can you claim his speech is divisive--compared to other Presidents? How could he have possibly have been more bi-partisan and still been a leader?

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I am so happy you are outraged. I was outraged that the left "Blood Libeled" an innocent politician and a bunch of talk show hosts as well as half the people in the US who are conservative. Now Palin quite accurately describes what you did, and calls you on it and you are outraged. Good for Palin. She's got it right. No pun intended.
Alan Dershowitz agrees, read his statement in the Washington Post:"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."

Posted by: nychap44 | January 12, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

ANOTHER UPDATE: Frank Rich, New York Times columnist, October 15, 2006: “The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.”

Posted by: nychap44 | January 12, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

lori9-

I think the author is pointing out the lack of emotional maturity and naricissism of using inflamatory speech while lecturing everyone on personal accountability--unable to take any herself. It hardly matters if you consider the term objectionable yourself--a good leader does not deliberately and intentionally use a loaded term that is meant to conjure up hurtful connotations if trying to genuinely lead people to higher ground. She is self-serving and immature.

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

why did this video have to be released today? the day for the memorial for the victims. i don't get it. she's turned the event into something about her. is she a narcissist or sociopath? decency requires that she should have waited until tomorrow to release this. but it's all about her. i had a beagle like that once.

also found it interesting she won't appear in front of the press w/these comments. so no way to question her. she gets her say and flees. she's a piece of work.

Posted by: frieda406 | January 12, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Statement today by Allen Dierkiwitz(sp)

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.

Ruth do your homework before writing about something you know nothing about.

Posted by: gsms69 | January 12, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

why did this video have to be released today, the day for the memorial for the victims. i don't get it. she's turned the event into something about her. is she a narcissist or sociopath? decency requires that she should have waited until tomorrow to release this. but it's all about her. i had a beagle like that once.

also found it interesting she won't appear in front of the press w/these comments. so no way to question her. she gets her say and flees. she's a piece of work.

Posted by: frieda406 | January 12, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

why did this video have to be released today? the day for the memorial for the victims. i don't get it. she's turned the event into something about her. is she a narcissist or sociopath? decency requires that she should have waited until tomorrow to release this. but it's all about her. i had a beagle like that once.

also found it interesting she won't appear in front of the press w/these comments. so no way to question her. she gets her say and flees. she's a piece of work.

Posted by: frieda406 | January 12, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

frieda406 wrote:
why did this video have to be released today? the day for the memorial for the victims. i don't get it. she's turned the event into something about her.

Frieda, she did not ask, or was it warranted for the left to blame the shooting on her. So why is your question even relevant? I just dont get it.

Posted by: gsms69 | January 12, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Come on, folks, just shut up already! "The right is evil", "the left is evil", "it's Palin's fault, it's Krugman's fault, yada yada Freakin' yada..."

We in the middle get it, the left hates the right, the right hates the left, and yet these two extremes just decimate the middle as we won't pick a side. Yeah, 'cause you both suck as rhetorics and agendas!!!

Man, I can't wait until 2012, as I can only hope and pray that if sensible people can't run as candidates in the primaries to return either of these parties to get some normalcy, then maybe it is time for a third party to come to the forefront and help us have sane representation?!

Let's call it the Purple Party, after all the bruising and bashing by the Red and Blue parties and their ilk!

Let us also hope the healing that can begin in Tucson can spread across the country and drown out this despicable commentary. And maybe stimulate some responsible dialogue and action in D.C.?

Posted by: Joelhassfam4 | January 12, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

mychap44--
"Alan Dershowitz agrees" Ha! I have the distinct displeasure of trying to sit in restaurants and coffee shops with Mr. Dershowitz who with amazing egoism and total lack of emotional or social intelligence loudly holds forth as if he is on stage. It is hard to hear yourself think in there. It is Ms. Palin's judgement and behavior (leadership) that are at issue in her reaction--not whether she could legally use the term and whether Jews should or should not be offended. Ha! Of all people to see nothing wrong with her comments. Thanks, you really made my day with the AD comment!

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Come on, folks, just shut up already! "The right is evil", "the left is evil", "it's Palin's fault, it's Krugman's fault, yada yada Freakin' yada..."

We in the middle get it, the left hates the right, the right hates the left, and yet these two extremes just decimate the middle as we won't pick a side. Yeah, 'cause you both suck as rhetorics and agendas!!!

Man, I can't wait until 2012, as I can only hope and pray that if sensible people can't run as candidates in the primaries to return either of these parties to get some normalcy, then maybe it is time for a third party to come to the forefront and help us have sane representation?!

Let's call it the Purple Party, after all the bruising and bashing by the Red and Blue parties and their ilk!

Let us also hope the healing that can begin in Tucson can spread across the country and drown out this despicable commentary. And maybe stimulate some responsible dialogue and action in D.C.?

Posted by: Joelhassfam4 | January 12, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has diarrhea of the mouth. Someone needs to tell her to shut her mouth. There are so many intelligent and articulate women in the US. Is this the best that the Republican party can offer. Pleaseeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jjack1 | January 12, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

mychap44--
"Alan Dershowitz agrees" Ha! I have the distinct displeasure of trying to sit in restaurants and coffee shops with Mr. Dershowitz who with amazing egoism and total lack of emotional or social intelligence loudly holds forth as if he is on stage. It is hard to hear yourself think in there. It is Ms. Palin's judgement and behavior (leadership) that are at issue in her reaction--not whether she could legally use the term and whether Jews should or should not be offended. Ha! Of all people to see nothing wrong with her comments. Thanks, you really made my day with the AD comment!

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I never cease to be amazed at why anyone would pay any attention to Sarah Palin. I remember when her selection by John McCain was announced and as I watched her flirt with the camera on TV I could not help but to think " My God, I am back in high school and the empty headed cheerleader is running for class president or more accurately vice-president". ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

Posted by: techcomp | January 12, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Since Loughter is alive and well who knows what he will eventually say? He may be "disturbed" but he apparently is not dumb. This might get very interesting. But really, Sarah you should be more concerned for those other than yourself, particularly the 9 year old victim. As far as I'm concerned many have blood on their hands for enabling such senseless slaughter.

Posted by: chucko2 | January 12, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Marcus have you and your colleagues "no shame."

Where are you when others (liberals)want to hurt and maim conservatives?????

Posted by: pechins | January 12, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I think that you have it just about right, Ms. Marcus. Yesterday, I posted a comment on Mr. Gerson's column stating that I largely agreed with him, that Sarah Palin was not directly responsible for the actions of the shooter. Even so, we should think about how we can behave responsibly.

I find today, however, that my patience with Ms. Palin is wearing thin. While she seems to be able to grasp the injustice that was perhaps done to her in creating such a direct link between her actions and the shooters, she is so locked in to her sense of victimhood that she can't seem to rise above it and address the larger questions about political discourse that are so clearly at hand.

Poor, poor Sarah. She seems to indicate that if everyone would just leave her alone she could get back to lying about death panels...oh wait, I mean "exercising free speech."

One can understand why her map should not be blamed for the actions of one person. But her inability to reflect on what was undoubtedly poor judgment (and poor taste) in posting it in the first place, suggests that she has a dangerously inflexible mind. She once again misses the forest for the trees!

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

Ms. Marcus, you state that, “attempts to link Palin’s sometimes militaristic and violent rhetoric to the Tucson shooting are unfounded.” I agree. However, you go on to criticize her use of language, her lashing out at critics, and her presenting herself as a victim. Well, if you agree that she was wrongly accused, shouldn’t you also agree that she should stand up to those critics, and moreover, wasn’t she a victim of their wrongful accusations. Or, would you prefer that Sarah be a good little soldier and just stand silent as your newspaper and your fellow travelers smear feces in her face (Note: I know you are not really smearing feces in her face, this is hyperbole, a literary technique; see “blood libel.”) Sarah, stands up to the troglodyte, leftist, media types such as yourself, and you hate her for it.

Where were you when your Washington Post colleague, Eugene Robinson, used the term “blood libel” in reference to Pittsburgh hoax. Here is a link to other author’s use of this term along with others who used it outside its strict Jewish reference.

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

Here is the hard truth with folks like yourself, you don’t use reason to come to your political decisions. We just ran a two year experiment where the far left had a virtual monopoly on the controls of government, and virtually all indices got worse. Unemployment skyrocketed, energy costs rose, the deficits skyrocketed, and we had worst oil spill in American history (Rahm Emanuel lived rent free in a British Petroleum apartment). After the results of this two year experiment, you still stick with your liberal Democrats–THINK! Please use some reason and science to change your mind before the country is completely bankrupt.

Posted by: HonestDebate | January 12, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Blood Libel or any other kind of libel, libel is libel, and Sarah Palin (along with every other Conservative personality as well as Conservative Thought in general) has been shamelessly libeled in a campaign right out of the old Democrat Party Oklahoma Bombing playbook. This uncivilized lynch mob mentality and ruthless, lying smearing woke me out of a pleasant delusion that I could actually compromise with/work with/vote for Democrats.

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

Blood Libel or any other kind of libel, libel is libel, and Sarah Palin (along with every other Conservative personality as well as Conservative Thought in general) has been shamelessly libeled in a campaign right out of the old Democrat Party Oklahoma Bombing playbook. This uncivilized lynch mob mentality and ruthless, lying smearing woke me out of a pleasant delusion that I could actually compromise with/work with/vote for Democrats.

Posted by: mirabeaulamarr | January 12, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The phrase "blood libel" has come to mean, in common modern usage, the false accusation of a group of people killing someone. Was not Sarah Palin, and the entire Tea Party movement, accused of having "blood on their hands" by many on the left?

If Alan Dershowitz doesn't have a problem with Sarah Palin's use of this term (and in fact considered it appropriate to the situation), then why should Ruth Marcus be offended? Other than to manufacture additional bile to be directed towards Sarah Palin, of course.

Posted by: lopence | January 12, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

From "Jewish Week"

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

Let's count who has been blamed so far by the Moderate & Tolerant Ones: Sarah Palin, the entire state of Arizona, the Tea Party (which was slandered as anti-Semitic during the election campaign, as well, by the same people who defended Obama churching with Jeremiah Wright), and let's blame all of talk radio, too, while we're at it, because the killer in Tucson must have been listening to talk radio stations in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, blaming talk radio for the Tucson killer is like blaming hard rock radio for the Columbine killers.

It's like blaming Paul McCartney ("Helter Skelter") for Charles Manson, or J.D. Salinger for Lennon's killer. At least Manson and Chapman said they were inspired by "Helter Skelter" and "Catcher In The Rye." The Civility Police are only guessing when they blame talk radio or everyone who is opposed to criminal immigration from Mexico.

In other words, according to the Civility Police, here's what it comes down to: Something is wrong with everyone in the United States, even whole states like Arizona and whole radio stations, except for the politicians and the radio stations the Civility Police agree with.

The Civility Police blame millions at a time, then change course when their illogic becomes obvious, and so quickly move on to blame millions of others.

Sarah Palin is right. She is being slandered. Nothing reflects the vulgarity of the national conversation over the past few years more than the relentless "hating" of Sara Palin, particularly in the Jewish community, particularly those Jews who flatter themselves as being tolerant, as masters of civility.

Yes, articles, such as Michael Daly's in the Daily News, are exactly a blood libel, with headlines charging "Giffords' Blood Is On Sarah Palin's Hands."

It's just as reasonable to blame J Street every time a Palestinian kills a Jew, but of course, the Palin haters blame only the killer when a Moslem does the killing.

They don't connect Islamic killers to anyone, anywhere, but they blame the Tucson killer on "talk radio" hosts like Michael Medved, Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager. That's civil. That's insightful.

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

Yes, she has stirred up another tempest in a teapot. But this time its the other side she is stirring up and energizing against her. Her rhetoric is supposed to inflame her supporters, not her enemies. Her handlers made a serious misstep her, using this ancient canard without knowing fully what it meant or what effect it might have. And Monkey see monkey do is never an excuse, not even for children.

Posted by: underhill | January 12, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Here's the thing: do we know that divisive and violence-themed political rhetoric "caused" this unhinged young man to kill? No, we don't. But we also don't know that it DIDN'T contribute to the crazy stew the "voices in his head" created. Why not err on the side of caution when running our mouths then? Isn't that all any rational person is saying?

Posted by: lizgwiz | January 12, 2011 4:38 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 4:39 PM | Report abuse

So, on the day we're solemnly remembering the victims of this tragedy, Sarah Palin gets herself front page coverage by claiming she's a victim. This person is a sociopath.

Posted by: Bill8 | January 12, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus and the hate Palin battalions won't be happy until someone assassinates the Ex Governor. Then the right can point out how all the hate made it happen. It will truly be a sorry day.

Posted by: lewisdapa | January 12, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

That woman is an idiot.

Posted by: cjy561 | January 12, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

In an alternative universe where Sarah Palin possessed both good judgment and sobriety, she would have simply said at the outset of this:

"Like the rest of America, we are shocked and heartbroken by the murder of six innocent people in Arizona yesterday. While we know of no evidence that the unstable shooter was in any way motivated by the crosshairs we had on our website, if he somehow was, then we deeply regret that. While versions of this sort of martial language has been common in political campaigns, we will refrain from using it in the future. We all can argue our political points of view without resort to violent allusions."

Instead she got defensive, defiant, and suddenly is the persecuted Jew of the Middle Ages. She did not have to take it to this point. She really didn't.

Posted by: B2O2 | January 12, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Palin's "blood libel" shouldn't have been mentioned at all - especially since Giffords is a Jew.
But Palin, as usual, was only thinking of her OWN "victimhood" - NOT the real victims.

Posted by: angie12106 | January 12, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

mirabeaulamarr-

Of course you can work with the other side. You may think that linking Ms. Palin's comments directly to the shooter were inaccurate, but most people have not accused her of that--"contributing to a climate" is hardly libel. Come on. It is her leadership and wisdom and maturity that are issue. Right?

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Palin is pure evil

Posted by: rappahanock | January 12, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Just as in the TV reality show, Survivor, the TRIBE is OUTSPOKEN! Sarah Pallin should be swiftly kicked off the island...and perhaps this planet for her display of arrogance and ignorance regarding the 'blood libel' remark with respect to the assination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. One just can't overlook this as another example of her Pallin-latin.


Posted by: 7thandL | January 12, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

...from the mouth of Hitler to that of Shotgun Sarah.

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

Let me guess RUth...you're a liberal Jew? Not sure but that's my guess...anyways, I thought she shouldn't respond to these left wing nuts just for this reason...no matter what she said it would be used against her....

Posted by: mjandrews8 | January 12, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

You would think the press would be contrite by now for abandoning the standards of their profession for the chance to link Palin to a mass murder. Turns out the press were wrong about Loughner's motives, but that doesn't apparently matter. Now they're claiming that Palin's talking in mysterious anti-Semitic secret code.

Does anyone in the press care about the truth anymore?

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

Let me guess RUth...you're a liberal Jew? Not sure but that's my guess...anyways, I thought she shouldn't respond to these left wing nuts just for this reason...no matter what she said it would be used against her....

Posted by: mjandrews8 | January 12, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

That woman Sarah Palin is an idiot> Why does the media even give her the time of day?, they should ingore her and then she would go away

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | January 12, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Let me guess RUth...you're a liberal Jew? Not sure but that's my guess...anyways, I thought she shouldn't respond to these left wing nuts just for this reason...no matter what she said it would be used against her....

Posted by: mjandrews8 | January 12, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

This whole debate has just become effing ridiculous. I'm a college graduate, middle aged guy, fairly well-read and somewhat intelligent. I didn't know the origin of the expression "blood libel". I mean seriously.

Did to. Did not. Am too. Are not. You said. No YOU said. That's offensive. You're mean. No YOU'RE mean. You're stupid. I know you are, but what am I? Nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah.

Good lord. Six people were murdered by a lunatic and we respond with a national childish squabble, seizing on the opportunity to direct criticism at the (left/right - pick one).

It's disgusting.

Posted by: bethesdaguy | January 12, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin is so committed to her views, then why oh why did she pull her bullseyes off the internet. Is it because she felt a bit of sorrow at what happened? Where is her humanity that she responds by going on the offensive? Why can't she just leave it at "I'm sorry for the victims and their families"? Memorial services are still ongoing. Seems like extremely, extremely poor taste to continue this line of attention-getting commentary. At the same time, what is with the love affair with guns? When I was growing up, I knew plenty of people who had rifles and shotguns, but I don't recall a single person every discussing them, unless it was in the context of hunting. And back then, no one needed an automatic weapon or a scope to kill a buck!

Posted by: readerny | January 12, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The writer should read "Stuff White People Like" to learn more about herself and the group think that she lives in.

Posted by: StopTheHate109 | January 12, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Shocking how many people revert to Jew-bashing if they don't like the column or commentary. Sad and sick.

Posted by: readerny | January 12, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

@readerny: If Palin was a liberal and took down the gunsights in the aftermath of the shootings, she would have been labeled by the press as "sensitive to the situation".

Posted by: diehardlib | January 12, 2011 5:08 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing about Sarah Palin that isn't contrived and controlled. She was fed the term "blood libel" because it's evocative and emotional and would get traction among conservative bloggers and pundits. What would be more newsworthy is if she said anything genuinely from the heart or head. She is a creature - much like Frankenstein - with no feelings or thoughts of her own, created in the image of her makers, and destined to be a regrettable experiment.

Posted by: eriksmom | January 12, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Caribou Barbie and her ilk would be only too happy to yell fire in a crowded theater if they thought there was a buck in it for them. Ego, arrogance, greed, and deceit - welcome to the Tea Party.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | January 12, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

What a pitiful and sad attempt to make yet more political hay on this tragedy. Do you people know no shame?

Posted by: tom75 | January 12, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I agree, I didn't have any feelings towards her, but honestly as soon as I listen what happens in Tucson the first thing that came to my mind was that ugly board that she posted. It is even worst that they try to cover saying they are survey symbols, haven't seen anything like this in the many maps I have work on. And is the way she state her comments, I am tired of listening people bragging about this country like they are the best representation of them. It was regular people that got sick of their stupidity and lack of responsibility. I hope they sue her for conspiracy.

Posted by: Sula1 | January 12, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

To all you holier than thou LibDems -- Just Google hateful things said about George W. Bush -- your computer will overheat and blue screen from all the results-!! Can't you at least wait till the bodies are cold and buried to spew your drivel? What a pathetic lot.

Posted by: BadNews | January 12, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Ivfab

And at the end of the day, a distasteful comment that belies Ms. Palin's petty defensiveness and absorbtion with herself, rather than putting the focus on the real victims. If she is not just stupid and lacking in awareness but intentional, she is a far worse person and leader than we ever imagined, even if more intelligent! Ms Palin considers herself a far more important and intersting victim that those who were killed and wounded.

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else find the irony that Ruth Marcus is trashing Sarah Palin for her negativity, and in turn accusing her of anti-Semitic speech?

This column is hypocritical to the point of being pathetic.

Posted by: diehardlib | January 12, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

A blood libel is a murderous accusation. Those who blame rightwing talkers are guilty of a murderous accusation. Palin had evwery right to say so. I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT LIBERAL JEWS SAY OR CHRIS MATTHEWS FOR THAT MATTER.

Posted by: ravitchn | January 12, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Where was all the outrage over the Sheriff using "Mecca"- the Holiest City and a required Islamic Pilgrimage- to describe the influx of fringe and extremist elements to Arizona? Hypocrisy at its finest!

Posted by: HDVet | January 12, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's OK for other politicians and pundits to use the term "blood libel", such as fellow Post liberal Eugene Robinson (who used the term in a column on October 30th, 2008) but not Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin just drives liberal nuts and gets blamed for anything that goes wrong in the world. A raving lunatic tries to kill a Congresswoman and Sarah Palin gets the blame. Not one single time in all his rantings did Jared Loughner ever mention Sarah Palin or Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or any other liberal bogeyman. The guy was just nuts and there is no other deeper meaning to what he did other than he was nuts.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 12, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

You know Palin - monkey see, monkey do, monkey is a dumb B!tc# too!

Posted by: xconservative | January 12, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Sarah is such a great example of beauty being only skin deep. She comes across repeatedly as a really nasty, angry person who is fixated on a couple of party theology soundbites, and who cannot take the kind of stuff she dishes out. So in that spirit, I still want to know: how do she and Beck and Limbaugh decide which parts of which assault victims to put over their mantels? They hunt with deranged proxy agents whom they inflame with their rhetoric -- just like al Qaeda.

Posted by: frodot | January 12, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Where was all the outrage over the Sheriff using "Mecca"- the Holiest City and a required Islamic Pilgrimage- to describe the influx of fringe and extremist elements to Arizona? Hypocrisy at its finest!

Posted by: HDVet | January 12, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's OK for other politicians and pundits to use the term "blood libel", such as fellow Post liberal Eugene Robinson (who used the term in a column on October 30th, 2008) but not Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin just drives liberal nuts and gets blamed for anything that goes wrong in the world. A raving lunatic tries to kill a Congresswoman and Sarah Palin gets the blame. Not one single time in all his rantings did Jared Loughner ever mention Sarah Palin or Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or any other liberal bogeyman. The guy was just nuts and there is no other deeper meaning to what he did other than he was nuts.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 12, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Reminds me of Bush's use of the word "crusade." What's far more disturbing to me is Palin's empty, vicious narcissism. While sane people mourn, in her mind -- as usual -- it's all about her, how HER feelings were hurt, how SHE was wronged. She is a truly contemptible human being.

Posted by: monk4hall | January 12, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

It's not like Palin was ever gunning for the Jewish vote.

Posted by: itsnick | January 12, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

so she's accused of indirectly murdering a bunch of people then accused for taking something like that personally. She has to take the high road, as do all conservatives. There's no use getting into a yelling match with these fools.

Posted by: batigol85 | January 12, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has moved from being just a joke to something much more dangerous and unpleasant.

Posted by: glynnjp1 | January 12, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

defjoy-

I appreciate your comment below--I think reflects where most of the country is today, regardless of party. I suspect that even those who scream the loudest that this is unjust liberal libel and unjustly critical of her, feel shame at her behavior and know that she did herself in with this behavior. There may be jousting here, but she's finished and everybody knows it (she should be). If the Tea Party can't come up with a reasonable person to get down to work on compromise--which is what politics is--then they are finished too.

"I think that you have it just about right, Ms. Marcus. Yesterday, I posted a comment on Mr. Gerson's column stating that I largely agreed with him, that Sarah Palin was not directly responsible for the actions of the shooter. Even so, we should think about how we can behave responsibly.

I find today, however, that my patience with Ms. Palin is wearing thin. While she seems to be able to grasp the injustice that was perhaps done to her in creating such a direct link between her actions and the shooters, she is so locked in to her sense of victimhood that she can't seem to rise above it and address the larger questions about political discourse that are so clearly at hand.

Poor, poor Sarah. She seems to indicate that if everyone would just leave her alone she could get back to lying about death panels...oh wait, I mean "exercising free speech."

One can understand why her map should not be blamed for the actions of one person. But her inability to reflect on what was undoubtedly poor judgment (and poor taste) in posting it in the first place, suggests that she has a dangerously inflexible mind. She once again misses the forest for the trees!"


Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I wish Sarah Palin would forever disappear from the national stage. That said, I can see exactly what she means with those words and the context she used them in. It's because the leftist media somehow ties her into everything bad in the world, including a lunatic in AZ. Now the leftist media is trying to manufacture another controversy. The media is despicable. I don't know what is worse for this country, our federal government or the leftist media. I hope for major changes to both and the sooner the better.

Posted by: ArlingtonHokie | January 12, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Of course Sarah Palin did not DIRECTLY cause the Tucson massacre. But she, Limbaugh, Beck, and others through their incendiary, murderous language fueled the hatred. The killer didn't shoot his co-workers or a taxi driver -- he shot someone directly targeted by Sarah. And Rep. Giffords presciently warned her last March that her tactics could result in violence.

Posted by: Sion1 | January 12, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

All the Left has become is a bunch of demagogues. Quit with the blame game. If anyone is inciting violence and division between classes of people and people of diverse ethnicity it is Left. No question.

Posted by: sonofliberty09 | January 12, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Why are Palin and her ilk so hypersensitive?
You tell them that salt is bad for the health, and they scream that you are taking away their right to decide what to eat.... you ask them to tone down their rhetoric for the sake of civil discourse and they react as if they have been charged with murder...

Posted by: Rachelva | January 12, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I grew up knowing that the words "blood libel" were vitriolic. I can't recall the first moment I ever heard the words and in what context they fell. But I always thought it meant something like the animosity between, say, the Hatfields and McCoys, an animosity so deep that it might end in the spilling of blood. I know now that that kind of thinking shows my ignorance. But perhaps lots of people share this ignorance, perhaps including Sarah Palin?

I don't write in general support of Sarah Palin; my favorite television personality is Rachel Maddow, not Glenn Beck. I just don't think we ought to assume she knew things she probably didn't know. Her writing and speaking style is to exaggerate for effect; she probably thought a Hatfield and McCoy kind of adjective would spice up the talking point, and that's probably all she was doing with it. It was just an unfortunate choice of words to use for saying that she was really annoyed by the folks who criticized her.

In her heart of hearts, she probably regrets what she said, now that she has been informed of the history attached to it. It's hard for someone in her position to say, "I'm ignorant!" but that's probably all she's guilty of in that remark.

As for the crosshairs, well, that clearly showed a lack of imagination for the possible interpretations in some quarters; that much was clear at the time to many people who knew about the crosshairs/reloading symbols. I'd guess she wishes she'd not done that either, regardless of whether it did or did not play a part in this particular tragedy.

The first thing that crossed through my mind after the shooting was the crosshairs thing. On reflection, though, I realize that's not really fair and certainly not what she would have intended. She might be thinking of herself as Presidential timber and was using the shooter kind of political analogies to try to make sure she didn't come across as a passive female not capable of leading an aggressive political party.

I think that now we'd all be better off if we could put this Sarah Palin stuff behind us now, right and left together, and think of more important things to argue about.

Posted by: MaryB6 | January 12, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The liberal hypocrisy these past five days has been astounding to say the least.

Sarah, Beck, Rush, Tea Party -- all have plenty of material to pour over. Not a one are hateful or spew dangerous rhetoric. I'm sure you can find small snippets of content and try to make a case, but when put in it's proper context and making the assumption that people can think this stuff through recognizing metaphors, glib remarks, etc, then the case just falls apart.

Sorry libs, you are gaining no traction on this issue, and in fact this latest campaign of true hate has backfired on you.

No worries here.

Posted by: bvdon | January 12, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I would be defending Sarah Palin on anything, but I can understand her metaphor. I cannot believe that people from either side get paid well for these editorial potshots. The shooter is a lunatic; we should all agree on that.

Jim

Posted by: swanjame | January 12, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, Beck, Rush, Tea Party -- all have plenty of material to pour over. Not a one are hateful or spew dangerous rhetoric. I'm sure you can find small snippets of content and try to make a case, but when put in it's proper context and making the assumption that people can think this stuff through recognizing metaphors, glib remarks, etc, then the case just falls apart.
Posted by: bvdon
***

OK, here's a snippet. Glen Beck did a piece on his show where he fantasized about killing Nancy Pelosi with poison. Would you care to put that in its proper context for me? Cuz to me it looks like a guy saying Nancy Pelosi deserves to die because she disagrees with his views.

Posted by: Rachelva | January 12, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Ruth says: "Using the phrase "blood libel" is akin to making a Holocaust analogy: It is almost always a bad idea."

+++

Yet she is trying to conflate two in this column. It's still a bad idea Ruth.

++

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 12, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The Jews need to get on with their lives. The "holocaust" wasn't the only genocide in history.

Posted by: boise91801 | January 12, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse
==================================

Yeah, silly Jews. You need to forget the masacre of 6 million of your friends and family and move on with your life like boise91801. I'm sure boise91801 knows exactly how it felt to be kept in a concentration camp, dehumanized, then murdered. I'm sure he's at least seen film footage during parties at the local KKK gatherings and has realized it was no biggie.

Oh, and you silly African-Americans, you should also forgot about slavery. It happened in the past, which means you should forget about it, according to boise91801.

Posted by: chadborman | January 12, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Won't someone please pay this person to go away?

Posted by: zephyr99 | January 12, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

How many times did we hear Bush compared to Hitler? People openly relished his death/demise. How many heart-attack jokes were there about Cheney--by pundits, politicians and the masses of the left wing? How about that K. Olberman idiot and his nightly rants? Where does one even begin??? What a joke.

Frankly, I don't think the political rhetoric is hot enough. Yobama and the left wing Congress did a number on the people and the country over the past two years as they fundamentally seek to remake it in their own warped image. We need the new Republicans to not just use words, but ACT--roll back the socialism...and we need to roll over the American hating, socialism loving, fag-friendly, God-mocking Democrats--i.e., your typical Washington Post reader.

Have a great day!

Posted by: Robster1 | January 12, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Many argue that Ms.Palin isn't the brightest knife, nor the sharpest, in the drawer; thus, we should point a finger at the organization that wrote her speech and set up her video-- for which she likely paid hundreds of dollars.
They should have known the implications of the phrase "blood libel."

Posted by: janna2 | January 12, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

glynnjp1:

That's why tragedy and comedy are so close! I think she was more of dangerous person before all of this, where people could use her as an ink blot test where they projected their hopes onto her. The reality has turned most people off. I can tell because I live with and socialize mostly with conservative Republicans (shocking, I know, to befriend those with political leanings different than my own) and not a one of them can stand her. They literally hold their nose. The kindest words I have ever heard about her were from a Republican woman friend who said "I think she is really cute, but I am not sure if she is really that intelligent or is seasoned enough for higher office." I am telling you, if you can turn off my spouse and everyone one of our very conservative friends, you are in deep do-do.

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

and we need to roll over the American hating, socialism loving, fag-friendly, God-mocking Democrats--i.e., your typical Washington Post reader.

Have a great day!

Posted by: Robster1
------------------------
Robster1

Aren't you late for a Klan meeting? You don't want to keep the Grand Dragon waiting!

Posted by: xconservative | January 12, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

and we need to roll over the American hating, socialism loving, fag-friendly, God-mocking Democrats--i.e., your typical Washington Post reader.

Have a great day!

Posted by: Robster1
------------------------
Robster1

Aren't you late for a Klan meeting? You don't want to keep the Grand Dragon waiting!

Posted by: xconservative | January 12, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin: The intersection of a small mind and a large microphone.

Posted by: zave1 | January 12, 2011 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, you stick your foot in it everyday. You have no cause to call Sara out.
By the way, your earlier column of today was the pits

Posted by: sandynh | January 12, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Pay no attention. Sarah was too stupid to even know what point she was making. Move on, nothing to see here.

Posted by: knutton | January 12, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

This issue has been very enlightening. Examining the basis for the phrase gives historical context to the birth and history of antisemitism globally. But, in seeing how the term came about, it's apparent that Ms. Palin uses it only because it is the right's phrase of the week. How she uses it is almost unintelligible. This begs the question: Did Ms. Palin actually compose her comments? I suspect not.

Ms. Marcus deserves credit for a thought-provoking piece.

Posted by: pensivebob | January 12, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

As usual Ruth makes wild leaps of illogic when she goes from "blood libel" to the Holocaust. I wonder how long it took her to create this strawman. As Ruth says, "blood libel" refers to a "scurrilous accusation". The accusations of the left that this homosexual loner (who is known to have disdained watching the news) shot these people because of something Governor Palin wrote (even though he never saw it) is certainly a "scurrilous accusation". As usual Ruthie is an idiot and this time she gets shut down by Godwin's Law.

Posted by: oldno7 | January 12, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Why are lefties so afraid of Sarah Palin?

Posted by: drowningpuppies | January 12, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

If Palin is so stupid and inconsequential, why do so many so-called smart folks pay such close attention to her utterances and remark negatively on them?

Posted by: JAH3 | January 12, 2011 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This issue has been very enlightening. Examining the basis for the phrase gives historical context to the birth and history of antisemitism globally. But, in seeing how the term came about, it's apparent that Ms. Palin uses it only because it is the right's phrase of the week. How she uses it is almost unintelligible. This begs the question: Did Ms. Palin actually compose her comments? I suspect not.

Ms. Marcus deserves credit for a thought-provoking piece.

Posted by: pensivebob | January 12, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus is married to an Obama appointee. She obviously is looking for an opportunity to viciously attack Palin in the name of political correctness. That's the totalitarian way.

In the process, she's showing the anti-Christian, anti-conservative biases of the Washington Post, which has rushed all kinds of blood libel articles into print on this web site.

Sorry Ruth. With all due respect to Jews, they don't own "genocide," "pogrom" or "blood libel." The irony and tragedy is that so many hard left Jews are viciously blood libeling Palin and even Reagan.

No wonder that there is a backlash agains the Paul Krugmans, Washington Posts, New York Times and Politicos of the media world.

I only hope that the backlash won't turn into a wave of anti-Semitism.

I am not a Palin supporter, btw.

Posted by: donaldjohnson | January 12, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

MaryB6

What a nice, thoughtful post.

I don't think cultural ignorance is a good excuse--it is not a term that is used often today, so you should look it up before you use it. We cannot afford that kind of cultural ignorance today--not only domestically, but can you imagine the repercussions internationally?

Don't feel too guilty that the first connotation that sprang to mind when you heard about the shooting were Ms. Palin's crosshairs. She intended them to be memorable and the analagy was just the kind you made immediately. And that is exactly the subconscious effect of those crosshairs--"my political enemies need to be shot." She used it to her effect and she now doesn't like or accept the public offense. Does the sword usually cut only one way?

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I notice that the large number of far right consipracy theorists posting here have not grasped that Palin has foreseen a shooting like this and in fact factored it into her strategy. OK she's not an obvious candidate for World Government so maybe that explains why. But why wouldn't her management team have considered a shooting as an outcome of their activities? I think there's already been at least one involving police and a guy holed up in a house worried that the government was going to take his guns. This one has sharpened focus more and polarized in the wake of the drill baby drill mess and declining interest. Keep your head down.

Posted by: gb_5 | January 12, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I would be defending Sarah Palin on anything, but I can understand her metaphor. I cannot believe that people from either side get paid well for these editorial potshots. The shooter is a lunatic; we should all agree on that.

Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim:

Thanks for bringing some sobriety to this discussion.

Posted by: sonofliberty09 | January 12, 2011 6:10 PM | Report abuse

JAH3--
Besides political comedy (or a car accident) being almost irrestible to watch, she is confirmation to folks on the right and the left that populism has a dark side. All Americans are populist to some extent--we believe, all of us, yes all of us, so much more than other cultures, that an ordinary person can thrive and use his or her talents. The dark side of course is a glorification of ignorance that relies on the effects of nationalism and racism. The world has a history of that in recent memory, only a generation ago. Her kind of chest pounding and stick shaking ruined the world and she seems ignorant of how closely she resembles the past. So, we are all transfixed on the edge of comedy and horror.

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

You folks at the Post seem to forget that Palin believes that God puts words into her head (she has no words of her own inside her head) so Palin can NEVER be wrong about anything...EVER.

Posted by: jjedif | January 12, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Ruth: I agree with you this time.

A more straightfoward way of saying it is:

Sarah Palin = Dumb + Getting Dumber

Posted by: Joallen8 | January 12, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Ruth: I agree with you this time.

A more straightfoward way of saying it is:

Sarah Palin = Dumb + Getting Dumber

Posted by: Joallen8 | January 12, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The term blood libel was used to incite Christians to give them justification to kill Jews. I wonder if the idiot Palin might consider the possibility that some of her mentally unstable paranoid followers might take her reference literally and actually believe that they are now the targets for extermination?

Palin is a professional victim who is never responsible for anything that she says or does. In her make believe world she can pretend to be a leader and say what ever she wants without consequence.

Good bye Sarah, your 15 minutes are over

Posted by: ChicagoSteve | January 12, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

If Palin had a shred of decency she would apologize for using the phrase "blood libel". But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Posted by: James10 | January 12, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Ruth: I agree with you this time.

A more straightfoward way of saying it is:

Sarah Palin = Dumb + Getting Dumber

Posted by: Joallen8 | January 12, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't care for Sarah Palin and am still in shock that McCain selected her as his VP running partner 2 years ago. What I do consider interesting though is the many supporters this woman has and who would love to have her run for President. Washington Post please do your statistics homework and let us know what percentage of the US population is supporting this woman. I want to know the figures of the size and strenght of cancer in this country.

Posted by: ridagana | January 12, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Most people usually speak their minds. I don't think anybody had forced Sarah Palin to say "blood libel".

Posted by: dummy4peace

===================

No doubt one of her staff saw it used in the Wall Street Journal the day before and thought it was neat. I can't imagine Palin reads the WSJ.

Posted by: James10 | January 12, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"those who criticize her rhetoric are intentionally fomenting scurrilous charges"

Let's all agree on one thing. The Democrats had such a contingency plan all worked out in case there was a shooting just before election day. In October, what they're doing today would have just been politics as usual. Without an impending election, it just looks like they're waging a battle long after the polls have closed.

I love Ruth's logic -- both sides are guilty but their side is more guilty.

Giffords's surviving a gunshot clean through her head is a miracle. But if Ruth had suffered the same fate, there might not have been any gray matter for the bullet to strike.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 12, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

with every word she speaks she proves that she is an !d!ot and a m0r0n.

Posted by: calif-joe | January 12, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

==========================================

Proven by whom? The left-wing politicians, journalists and bloggers who started their political attacks before any evidence had been collected or before the wounded had reached the hospital?

You people are poor excuses for human beings. Your agenda is first and foremost: silencing anyone who opposes your politics. You've used this tragedy to amp up your attacks on Palin, not because she inspired the attack, but because she has been your "target" for months now. Let's face it. You could care less about the people who were massacred or their grieving families.

Marcus, as far as I am concerned, you fit into the above category. "Blood libel" refers to falsely accusing a person or group as a result of a tragedy. It's been used for years by individuals or groups who have an agenda. Yours is apparent.

Posted by: bethg1841 | January 12, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Everyone simply needs to remember the Toles cartoon of a couple of months ago: John McCain's impaired judgment created Palin.

Posted by: drlatham22 | January 12, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm 100% certain that Sarah Palin doesn't know how the term 'blood libel' has been used throughout history. She knows that blood was spilled in Tucson and she feels, probably correctly so, that she's getting way too much of the blame for Loughner's actions. Put it together and it spells 'blood libel'.

People give Sarah Palin way too much credit: (1) that she has any understanding of history (2) that her words and actions have the power to motivate anyone outside of her immediate family to do anything.

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

Are there people who really CARE WHAT palin SAYS IF you do please seek HELP!!!!!

Posted by: jwilsonte | January 12, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

jjedif:

You are right. GWB thought the same thing and it made it difficult for him to aborb external feedback that contradicted his beliefs about himself to see himself more fully or realistically--even now. Chicken & egg thing, maybe. Those challenged by self-reflection or self-awareness believing they are chosen by God and can do no wrong or the other way around? Doesn't matter. I was going to say that it was ineffective but then I think in our narcissistic culture, it actually is effective, just terribly unwise and dangerous as we have seen in the Middle East. Plus, not being able to compromise on anything and not being able to see one's beliefs, as opposed to "hold" beliefs, ruins the world--small side effect.

Posted by: communique101 | January 12, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Palin is the epitome of evil. This worm brain b.... never takes responsibility for her actions. She has Beck, the alcoholic sending our her skewed messages and finally she showed her face. This nasty, pitiful excuse for a woman, politician, human being should stay in her lair in Alaska and save America and the world from her evil and stupidity.

JOHN MCCAIN SHOULD BE TRIED AND SENTENCED FOR UNLEASHING HER ON THE AMERICAN SOCIETY.

This registered Republican will NEVER vote for the evil mascots on the scene. Give me a republican like Colin Powell and or a decent,civil person and I will return to my party. My republican family and friends feel the same way.

Posted by: muffet | January 12, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

One of the key differences between left-wing progressives and right-wing Republicans is that the former choose words primarily for their intellectual content, while the latter choose words primarily for their emotional content.

Ergo, "blood libel" used by the left hearkens back to a specific historical meaning, so, to the left, Sarah's use of it simply doesn't compute because it has no logical relationship to its historically accepted origin, and in fact has no relationship to either blood or libel as applied to the words or actions of her perceived enemies. Yes, the words rouse the emotions of progressives, but that was a lucky accident, I doubt that was her intent.

My guess is that Sarah was force fed the words by one of her handlers, whose intent was to arouse her followers to anger, and to support and defend her.

IOW, the words "blood" and "libel" naturally appeal to her purely for their emotional content, which she has built her success on, and because they comport with the Momma Grizzly image she tries to maintain.

I would bet she had absolutely no idea of the background of "blood libel" (and perhaps still doesn't - since, like GW Bush, she is intellectually incurious - and proud of it).

Posted by: mikeaq | January 12, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin simply cannot avoid traveling the low road of life. Additionally, she apparently lacks the discipline to keep her mouth shut as self incriminations appear to be a Hallmark.

Posted by: louismraskin | January 12, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate and always have been. For the past 6 years, I have been a former republican and an independent voter.

The only intelligent Republican voices I hear anymore are on Joe Scarborough and George Will. I know more exist but I only have so much time to read/watch the news and political commentary.

Sarah, Glenn, and Rush et al, are so loud that they are as much like Howard Stern as anything else.

Republicans will have to get more embarrassed by them than are now before anything will change. I will consider voting Republican then.

Posted by: jbryson2 | January 12, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate and always have been. For the past 6 years, I have been a former republican and an independent voter.

The only intelligent Republican voices I hear anymore are on Joe Scarborough and George Will. I know more exist but I only have so much time to read/watch the news and political commentary.

Sarah, Glenn, and Rush et al, are so loud that they are as much like Howard Stern as anything else.

Republicans will have to get more embarrassed by them than are now before anything will change. I will consider voting Republican then.

Posted by: jbryson2 | January 12, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate and always have been. For the past 6 years, I have been a former republican and an independent voter.

The only intelligent Republican voices I hear anymore are on Joe Scarborough and George Will. I know more exist but I only have so much time to read/watch the news and political commentary.

Sarah, Glenn, and Rush et al, are so loud that they are as much like Howard Stern as anything else.

Republicans will have to get more embarrassed by them than are now before anything will change. I will consider voting Republican then.

Posted by: jbryson2 | January 12, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on!

I despise Palin as much as anybody, but do you HONESTLY believe that she was being Anti-Semitic here?

Just because the term "Blood Libel" was used the way it was 800 years ago doesn't mean it has the same definition today.

The first time I ever saw the term was in Palin's speech. The idea that Jews might have suffered from such a concept hundreds of years ago never even occurred to me!

I would at least give the woman the benefit of the doubt that she was ignorant of its second meaning.

I'm WAY better informed than she is, and I had no idea!

Posted by: sportbri | January 12, 2011 1:34 PM
=======================================
I agree sportbri.

Sarah is not the shiniest bulb on the Christmas Tree. I'm pretty sure my Jewish friends know what I mean. Sarah can refudiate this of course, but I think she meant to allude to "blood atonement". Ask Mitt what that means, although he probably does not want to go there.

Posted by: gannon_dick | January 12, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"Blood Libel" are lies Christians told to justify killing Jews.
Considering Giffords and Zimmerman are Jewish and Palin is not, using that term to glorify Palin's victimhood is beyond poor taste.

Posted by: karenfink | January 12, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous article! I'm no palin fan but she WAS indeed falsely linked to this tragedy, just as the jews were falsely accused (newsflash: i'm jewish and i could care less about the comparison). To dig back eons to complain about the origination of a saying it seriously grasping at straws. Better yet Ruth, why don't you focus your writing on taking those on the left to task for making such ridiculous and false statements regarding what caused this nutbag to go on a shooting spree - you said it yourself that palin is not to blame, so why not call out those who are blaming her???? then maybe you'll have a little credibility!

Posted by: amsalty | January 12, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Somebody needs to put Palin in her place and tell her that goyim aren't allowed to play the anti-Semite card.

Posted by: politbureau | January 12, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Marcus is 100% right.

1. Palin reads from the teleprompter, reading and understanding ...not the same thing.

2. "Blood liable" is a very specific term, it has a spine chilling effect for the Jews, very poor choice of words.Really! Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

3. It is quite an impressive turnout of ignorant and anti-Semite comments. Is this a party of some sort?

Posted by: Lakerda | January 12, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Can we all just STOP making everything political in the United States about Sarah Palin?
In the midst of this tragedy why are we even talking about her and featuring her self-serving videos on the front page of the paper.
Why does this have to be about her?

Posted by: DeeNY | January 12, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Allan Dershowitz stated today that the use of "Blood Libel" in Palin's video was a valid,appropriate and effective reference in making her point to chastise the media.The same media in their zeal to destroy Palin tried to create a big flap over two words,and instead displayed their own ignorance and stupidity. I don't believe the distinguished Dershowitz is a "dittohead",although he must be distraught with the flagrant absurdities of those who share his ideology.

Posted by: bowspray | January 12, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.
---------------------------------
Happy now, Ruth Marcus.

Posted by: drowningpuppies | January 12, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Boo Hoo, that's "our" term. Oh Brother, this is a silly article, and Ruth Marcus is being whiny in a way that will only resonate with the choir.

Whatever Sarah Palin's strengths or weaknesses there's no doubt SHE has been the target of popular media in a way rarely if ever seen. Yes, in the past she has said things that have tweaked the noses of quite a few, and said some things that don't stand up to the scrutiny of objective thought.

And she has endured systematic smearing of through ad hominem attacks by both "credible" news sources and the internet yak-sphere.

However, the recent fusillade of implied accusations linking her to murders perpetrated by a mentally ill lunatic (who didn't implicate her) is beyond the pale and should engender shame in anyone who participated. It is clear that will never happen. Reading the mean-spirited rants of folks even today after news of the man's instability is out should sadden anyone who values accuracy. But folks are so worked up in a lather now they are dieseling on despite the facts.

Ms. Palin has experienced almost unprecedented repugnant libel from all corners in the last couple days. In my book she's earned the right to use whatever language she wants to express her disagreement.

Ruth you are being ridiculous.

Posted by: dogwolf | January 12, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted at 12:19 PM ET, 01/12/2011
Why Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' was a poor choice of words
By Ruth Marcus

"Sarah Palin feels victimized..."

...and what do you feel Ruth when you make a poor choice of subject matter for an article?

Tell you what the victims of your malfeasence, malpractice, and malignancy in journalism feel Ruth Marcus. You are not qualified to speak to what anybody feels, you self-condescending sycofant of the cage whacking bats from the ABMSNBDNCNNPBSR Public-Private, Government-Media Complex @ the moveon.ogre belfrey.

You bring nothing to the table, in fact you don't even make it to the table.

Posted by: RichNomore | January 12, 2011 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Boy was that all it took to bury this turkey?

Posted by: RichNomore | January 13, 2011 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Ruth -- you are wrong again. Lots of Jews (as well as Israelis), myself included have no problem with Palin's use of the term "blood libel".

Additionally you have done a good hackney'd job of back handing Palin by trying (and failing) to appear unboased by saying the critics who produced the blood libel were wrong.

You said "Excuse me, but where is the decency in comparing political critics, however overwrought or misguided, to mass murderers?" All the left wing unmeritocracy media morons have been doing exactly that for over a decade. It really got bad when George W. Bush was elected and has gotten worse because the liberal media keeps pushing it farther -- that's why the use of BLOOD LIBEL is correct.

Next time if you want to do a beter job of appearing unbiased, make your "passioned defense" when it happens, not days later when you realize your illiberal cohorts have overreached once again.

Posted by: LawrenceCooper | January 13, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Oh and regarding the blogger who said "The Truth Hurts" -- I guess that's why the ill-liberals are so distraught about being called on the carpet for their blood libel.

Shame on all of you -- almost all the posts here are divisive, hurtful, namecalling, and violence engendering. The very things the ill-liberals have been blaming on Talk Radio.

Shame on all of you!

Posted by: LawrenceCooper | January 13, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I seriously doubt that Sarah Palin had any idea that the term "blood libel" was linked to past incitement of mass murder of Jews. The United States thankfully has no experience with the pogroms that plagued European nations in past centuries, so very few Americans had any idea what that term meant until the latest controversy.

In any event, this once again proves that nothing Mrs. Palin says or does will satisfy Ruth Marcus and other liberal critics who hold the former Alaska governor in contempt, disdain, and ridicule.

Some years ago the Post published a front-page article describing evangelical Christians with conservative political and social beliefs as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command." Ms. Marcus and other Post staffers would do well to heed the saying that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Posted by: austinrl | January 13, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

When homosexuals are pressured by the left to give back to the other 95% of us the word "gay," once innocuous enough to be included in the Flinstones' theme song ("i.e., "We'll have a gay ol' time!"), then perhaps Palin and others could be pressured to leave the 2,000 year old original meaning of "blood lible" to the Jews.

Posted by: NorplantNow | January 13, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's use of the term "Blood Libel" says one of two things:

Either she is ignorant of the true meaning of the term (which would be entirely in keeping with her level of seemingly willful, almost prideful, ignorance about nearly everything else), or she is so arrogant as to assume that people complaining about her constant violent metaphors is somehow equivalent to centuries of unjust religious persecution of the Jews based on false accusations by Christians.

Her complaint basically boils down to claiming that HER words have no real world consequences, but the words of those complaining about her words do.

She may argue that her electoral gunsights are "surveying symbols," or that she really meant that a person's "vote" is their weapon in the political sense, but the folks she's talking to -- her "base" doesn't hear it that way.

The fact is that words DO have consequences, and the consequences of this statement by Palin should be that she is never again seriously considered as a viable candidate for any public office. Six people killed, another dozen injured by a deranged nut, and yet she somehow manages to make it "all about her" and play the aggrieved victim.

The woman simply has no class.

Posted by: alert4jsw | January 13, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company