There is an unfortunate tendency by Conservatives, particularly on TV, to acquiesce - sometimes without really being conscious of it - to false premises put to them by liberals, either simply for the sake of argument so they can move on or just simply because they want to get along. An example is Michael Steele nodding along to D.L. Hughley saying the GOP Convention looked like a Klan meeting.
Anyway, sometimes this is harmless.
Other times - like now - it is giving them the proverbial inch that gives them the wherewithal to take a mile.
For example, every single time a Republican or Conservative went along with a liberal host who claimed that Jared Loughner's murder spree in Tucson in any way reflects something or other about the "political climate" or "tone" (anymore so than CAFE standards or Hurrican Katrina) just conceded the argument. From there, it is no difficult thing to start claiming that the Right somehow made it more likely that some deranged idiot would open fire on a Congresswoman.
In this case, the transparently contrived "controversy" about "blood libel" - anyone who, in a bid to appear "reasonable", concedes that Sarah Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel" is "inappropriate" or "over the top" is doing the exact same thing. Accepting a blatantly false liberal premise and essentially conceding the argument.
And besides, who, after the way this woman has been treated since 2008, actually failed to predict that the Left - desperate after the backfiring of their ghoulish attempt to blame her for a deranged man's murder spree - would pick on something no matter what it was Palin said?
And just to be clear; the idea that prior to Sarah Palin, the use of the phrase "blood libel" had always been exclusively used to denote the smear against Jews of using children's blood in rituals is so blatantly false it borders on the ridiculous. So ridiculous and blatantly unfair that an arch-liberal like Alan Dershowitz had to jump in ...
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.
As Jim Geraghty is all-too-easily demonstrating - and it shocks me that it actually needs to be pointed out - it's been used as a metaphor in every major news outlet from the AP to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal by people ranging from Mark Levin (this morning) to steaming brown puddles of mendacity like Frank Rich and Andrew Sullivan in their columns.
So the proper response to any liberal hemming and hawing and huffing and puffing about the supposed hitherto unprecedented use of "blood libel" by Sarah Palin, whether on TV, radio, on the phone, in the streets, etc.?
"Are you &%@! kidding me?!! First you try to pin a murder on her and now this ...?!! Are you idiots really that &@#! desperate ...?!!"
NOTE TO ERICK:
Here's an idea - if you are on air and some Lefty starts bloviating about the supposedly unprecedented use of "blood libel" by Sarah Palin, you should immediately challenge the guy to put his money where his mouth is.
Challenge him to a bet; if you can find more than five metaphorical uses of the phrase "blood libel" in any mainstream media outlet prior to today, then he must give ten thousand dollars to charity.