Obama’s Tucson speech preempted by THAT WOMAN.

JadedByPolitics

because unlike Sarah he does NOT love this Country more then himself!

http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

This is about BOzo (AKA Obama the Clown). About exploiting the tragedy a la the MSM and, regrettably, Fox News. About kicking off BOzo’s re-election campaign. It’s about everything BOzo EXCEPT the victims.

irishgirl

Palin does an excellent job in this video. Her speech is very good, but her tone is even better. Somber yet not maudlin.

profnickd67

You do understand that you are watching President Palin.

RSSS

Thanks Governor Palin, and thanks RedState for posting.

jaykali

I read the transcript, I am very bothered by the democrats super eagerness to limit free speech at every turn. I mean they must be super optimistic that if free speech is limited that they can control which speech is limited. I wonder why liberals can’t see the forest through the trees, are they that short sited? What happens when the public throws the bums out which happens every other election cycle and the conservatives are in charge if they can limit the left’s free speech? I doubt they’ve ever considered that, similar to the filibuster rules – they live in the moment I suppose.

On the subject of hate speech, one thing that amuses me is how off the charts MSNBC personalities are, wasn’t it like 2 weeks ago that Ratigan or one of those characters were talking ab a blood filled revolution being required right after the most recent elections?

My interpretation is that liberals view anything they say as just no matter the tone and any disagreement as hate speech.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

That is, to use their new powers with the force of pliant bureaucrats and prosecutors and judiciary to crush opposition, thereby preventing their changes from being used against them.

We’ve seen this model in multiple countries (Venezuela is just one of the latest examples) where the left comes to power and subverts democratic institutions to create a one-party state, resorting to electoral fraud or military force as necessary (along with capture of the judiciary).

gwalt

We know he sees this as an opportunity to advance his [leftist] agenda. Look for more Clinton than Reagan or Bush. I am not looking forward to this.

http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

I think that this portends very good things for her in 2012. Every time the MSM blathers on about THAT WOMAN in the absence of THAT WOMAN they have some credibility. Credibility in a vaccuum, so to speak. Then, when she actually speaks, demolishes their narative and hits a home run with the American people, the MSM looks impotent and libelous. Yes, they are going to be vitriolic and relentless, but she hits back – and connects – like nobody else in politics. THAT WOMAN, on TV, is Muhammad Ali in the ring. Like his boxing was poetry, her politics is poetry. It is a sight to behold.

MathMom

I pulled the text into Word, and searched for “I” followed by a blank, which I believe found all the self-references. Searched for me with a blank on each side.

Now – let’s get a pool going – what is your bet on the number of self-references in Obama’s upcoming lecture?

speciallist

she is freakin Awesome

and the timing is perfect

redneck_hippie

Where’s the graphic?

http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

Toss his speech in the trash, get some hot cocoa and throw a dvd on for the evening…

On the other hand it’s ok for him to go ahead and blather because the few who listen to him will likely be comparing him to Palin’s speech or just more disgusted with him (if not both) or all tingly in the legs. No matter what he says, it is probably just another shoe meets mouth moment unless he does something truly surprising like saying “knock it off, Palin’s right, stop exploiting every crisis”. But then it is really cold today…

jpshinn

I’ve always like and respected her but this was the first time I really put her in the category of legitimate Presidential candidate.

Getting_Back_to_Basics

This is the statesman speech of the day. A very high bar to top, indeed.

http://www.criterionchemical.com Chemical Sam

Excellent speech. Thoughtful. Rose above every libel that was laid at her feet. Timing is perfect, which forces comparisons between what Barack Obama, the head of the Left, will say. She left our President no room for error, and in fact must exceed Ms. Palin’s speech in order to not appear to have his thunder stolen. I want THAT WOMAN spearheading the American front line (pardon the violent, offensive militaristic analogy, Hyah!)

speciallist

‘resident Obama’ might include a cameo appearance by SWSNBN

sta46

msctex

. . .allow sufficient time to pass so that the (what we have come to term) “Blood Libel” spin can have full impact, or do as much Good (from his point of view) as it can. It was a coordinated effort and will run its course like any other.

He will then give an impassioned speech calling for civility, love and for all of us to remember we are, after all, Americans. He may even not be able to resist throwing in a, “If only the shooter had had access to universal healthcare” line. He will then be hailed in the Press as the compassionate, thoughtful leader we need in times of crisis, and somehow above it all.

http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

we are witnessing statemanship, leadership, and conviction. She embodies the American spirit. This is Presidential leadership. Thank you Governor Palin.

proudmarinemom

.

http://www.va5thdistrict.blogspot.com va5thdistrict

Obama won’t even come close. Compare this to what Chris Matthews had to say the other night.

http://va5thdistrict.blogspot.com/2011/01/matthews-calls-for-palin-to-be-erased.html

carolina

You guys will have to let me know how it goes. (and, of course, there will be the endless newsclips)

carolina

You guys will have to let me know how it goes. (and, of course, there will be the endless newsclips)

renny

because he does not know how to “communicate” otherwise.

Go, Sarah.

carolina

If no one else can step up to the bar…….. the people will demand that she run for president.

gekster

Hell, MI 22.7 degrees. 1/12/2011.

Did I see some Reagan in that statement.
Yes, I think I did.

RSSS

I might have the Mark Levin show while the speech is happening. That helps me tolerate it.

Tbone

My fellow American’s, I would like to second the speech given by the next President of the United States, Sarah Palin!”

http://www.va5thdistrict.blogspot.com va5thdistrict

good link;

http://va5thdistrict.blogspot.com/2011/01/matthews-calls-for-palin-to-be-erased_12.html

jeepingeoff

They just flail away at her while she deftly absorbs the blows, then when they start getting tired, she delivers an uppercut like this to knock ‘em outta their shoes.

I’m lovin’ it.
Them……..not so much……

Well done Madame President.

Old_Dominion

But as a Jew and descendant of Holocaust survivors, I part company on the acceptability of “blood libel.” The idea that a loon like Loughner was motivated by anything other than the voices in his head is laughable, but Sarah Palin’s terminology made me cringe. I would guess her communications staff is more to blame than she is, but hopefully she’ll lay off the invocation of anti-Semitic tropes that have had deadly consequences.

oldphart

Great people are remembered for what they do or say in times of great stress. The attacks leveled by the MSM over the past few days have to compare with what Lincoln endured during the latter stages of the War Between the States. At Gettysburg he chose brevity over oratory – just as she has. One can only hope that her words are as revered145 years from now as are his.

scipio62

proudmarinemom

Here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/breaking_adl_condemns_sarah_pa.html

streiff

Very mild indeed

Abraham Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ?blood-libel? in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term ?blood-libel? has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

Bobcat51

http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

Big Government got a statement from Alan Dershowitz, no right-wing sympathizer, on Palin?s use of the term ?blood libel?:

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.

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

proudmarinemom

for being too weak in their criticism of Palin’s criticism of the criticism directed at her.

Or something.

indy82

We must also understand that, by the very admission of the ADL itself this morning, the term “blood libel” has simply become apart of the English dialogue, whether for better or worst. Speaking as somebody who is also of Jewish descent and is a founding member of the Illinois Holocaust Museum in Skokie, IL, the term doesn’t bother me in the least. It is not that it is a preferable term, but rather it is just too engrained into common American speech, especially in regards to politics. That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but it should make it at least somewhat understandable.

carolina

shaitra

unclefred

Since Gov. Palin emerged on the national scene in 2008 the more that I have seen of her, the more that I have listened to her, the more that I have read by her and about her record, the more respect I have for her.

It’s hard to give a perfect speech. This is true even when the goals are not as far as they were for this speech. These goals were to address this tragedy, comfort the families, defend the rights of americans from the escalating moves of the progressive left. all without pandering or seeming political. By any measure that is a very tough speech to give, and she did so perfectly. She was reasoned, articulate, and steadfast. She spoke to us, not at us or down to us. In so doing, she demolished the caricature the left has created for her. Many people will see this speech. Many strongly held negative opinions shaped by that caricature, will be shaken and reexamined because of this speech.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

joayn

Think Barry finished that book on Reagan yet?

Praying

She gets it. I feel much better after listening to her terrific speech, and frankly, I don’t want to dampen my mood by listening to Mr. Obama demagogue and scold us, as he certainly will. He just can’t help himself. So I won’t. “La la la la la … I can’t HEAR you!”.

Duke

After bing told months ago that Oblahblah needed a Bubba-like “Oklahoma Moment,” here it is. And here comes the hated, reviled, brainless Caribou Barbie who steals the precious moment away from the one and only Moonbat Messiah – OUCH!

I wonder if it will make him stop with that annoying little high-pitched whistle at the end of nearly every sentence. I can’t stand it – sounds like the hiss of a snake or something. I always have to hit the mute button when he talks so the dog doesn’t wet the carpet again.

Duke

I use the mute button a lot when watching the news. If I don’t fast for at least 10 hours before listening to The One, I projectile vomit.

chihank

Within hours of the AZ shooting, the media started blaming Palin. They demanded that Palin issue a statement. Now that she has, the media now complains how its all about Palin. Can’t win with the Left.

gekster

LOL

grandma

Thanks Duke. Funny stuff.

blaze422

Hey, Blaze422, don’t be a jerk and copy other people’s work and fail to leave a link to the original.

The Management

proudmarinemom

we needed some relief and that was it

blaze422

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

The Campaign Spot

Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.
The Term ?Blood Libel?: More Common Than You Might Think
January 12, 2011 9:51 A.M.
By Jim Geraghty

grandma

This is better than anyone could ever say or deliver. Thank you Sarah.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Bobcat51

to savor and keep. Real class on show, it makes one so proud to be an American and love our country so much. Thankyou Sarah .

Now what’s on TCM tonight ?

traversecityconservative

using “I” or “me” is only 21. But that’s because it’s just supposed to be a 15 minute speech. As for Palin, I REALLY like Herman Cain for prez. but she’s a close second. Great speech.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

I like Palin and generally support her, and the rest of this speech is great, but using the phrase “blood libel” was incredibly ill-conceived if, as Moe asserts, she meant to compare her treatment in the media to the historical treatment of the Jews.

Blaming conservatives for Loughner’s evil crime is, of course, absurd and wrong, but it cannot compare to the claim that Jews, a small religious minority which has been persecuted for millennia and (historically) been politically powerless, murders the children of non-Jews and uses their blood to make unleavened bread for passover. People believed this for hundreds of years, and it has led to countless deaths.

The blood libel is not a quirk of history; it was part of a pattern of demonizing the Jews as an evil and dangerous out-group. It was long a driving force in European anti-Semitism, and it is still promoted as true on some Arabic television programs. It has recently resurfaced in Russia as well.

Dershowitz’s argument is legitimate (I’m stealing the link from above), but it’s one thing to say that her use was fair and inoffensive and quite another to say that, if she used it knowingly, it was a good comparison. It was not.

Goldwater_Conservative

she only knew the term as we apply it to mean today (falsely accused), I doubt she had any idea as to the jewish historic meaning, which is scary for the annointed mouth piece of the conservative movement.

blaze422

who is editting my post?

blaze422

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Hit the contact form if you have further questions.

blaze422

I am asking who is editting my post and calling me a jerk?

blaze422

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Hit the contact page if you have questions.

This is not negotiable.

oblio

I must be an ignorant Conservative. I wonder haw many know the history of the term, or care.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

I didn’t edit your post but I would have were I a moderator.

When I flagged it, I just assumed that you didn’t know anything about fair use. And now, after seeing your responses to Neil – who IS a moderator, and a very even tempered one, lucky for you – I’m revising my opinion.

Your commentary, at best, indicates someone who is less than careful and I would suspect you probably deserve the appelation.

Have a nice day. If you keep this up it will likely be your last at RS.

Goldwater_Conservative

it used twice before today. But if you are Sarah Palin and you are going to use it in you main rebutal to the media dont you think you would do a quick wikipedia on it or something? Thats one of my biggest problems with her, she is sloppy and careless and doesnt seem to care even when she is caught in it.

Martin Knight

… get all this confidence to proclaim just what it is Palin knows or doesn’t know?

I remember Kathleen Parker confidently proclaiming that Palin had never read “To Kill A Mocking Bird” so she couldn’t possibly know who Atticus Finch was … David Frum swearing up and down that Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent when the man has never been in the same building with her, much less talked to her.

You sound exactly like them.

So where do you get off assuming she has no idea as to the etymology of “blood libel”? Why should we trust your “expertise” on the limits of Sarah Palin’s knowledge?

proudmarinemom

that the term “blood libel” had ANY connection at all to Judaism. I have worked for large law firms in which most of the partners were Jewish and have never picked up on that connection.

To expect the former governor of Alaska to know this is absurd. Obviously, she did not have a team of New York speechwriters doing her thinking for her — the words were obviously her own.

It is elitist snobbery to demand that every speechwriter research the lexicographical history of every term in the English language out of fear of offending someone in such a wide audience.

Next, we’ll hear that the expression “tea party” offends some tribe of indigenous forest-dwellers somewhere. This just needs to stop.

gumpy

Be careful what you wish for. . .you just might get it.

Martin Knight

Bill S

We take a VERY dim view of intellectual property theft. Don’t post other people’s stuff without permission. That’s a pretty jerky thing to do. Just take the advice and drop it.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

I assume that your username is a Harry Nilsson reference. If so, it’s great to see another fan.

The point about Palin is that she used the term in a self-serving and manipulative way (my opinion), or she used it in ignorance. If the latter, that’s fine. Not everyone is Jewish (obviously) or well-versed in anti-Semitism. Again, fine. My objection is to the idea that the media treatment of the Phoenix murders is somehow equivalent to the blood libel. It isn’t, and the suggestion is a bit silly.

Please don’t use combative language, by the way. It’s really not conducive to working together, which is what RedState is all about, if I understand its purpose correctly.

Goldwater_Conservative

basic speculation. I would like to think that if she knew the ugly anti-semic history tied to it she would have chosen another word. Its what I would have done, but hey what do I know, I’m just a “pragmatist”?

gumpy

Oh, you’re just so damned clever, Duke. Give yourself a big pat on the back. Don’t break your arm doing it.

pamela1631

Comes a voice to calm fears and to remind people of what is truly important to each of us right now.

Well said Sarah Palin .

Mr. Obama-
You might want to start looking for a new line of work now.
Come January 2013, you’ll need to be moving.
Your temporary assignment will have ended.
You are not eligible for rehire.
Someone more qualified and eminently more practical will be taking the position you now hold.
Letters of reference will not be forthcoming.

proudmarinemom

See reply above. This is elitist snobbery.

blaze422

I have posted stuff I have come across surfing the net before and never was told about intellectual prperty issues etc In my defense…I did cite this as an essay by Jim Geraghty in the comment title, so I just couldn’t fathom why I was being called a jerk. Won’t happen again.

oblio

I know I don’t. For me the problem was I wasn’t sure what it meant, that might be the bigger problem in this case. Now I know it has something to do with being falsely accused, I’m fine with it regardless of the history. Perhaps Palin know this, or that I am wrong.

I know this goes outside your point, but many of us have little patience for overly sensitive choice of words. Years ago my own company ‘banned’ the use of the terms ‘dikes’ (for diagonal cutters) or ‘slave/master’ (for client/server relationships) in engineering context.

Goldwater_Conservative

and say the phrase, but dont whine when the lamestream media runs with this for another week. She was being vindicated by keeping silent and letting the real facts about what this kid did and did not believe in come out, but now she just right into the fray.

oblio

And yes, I am a Nilsson fan, thanks for noticing

Goldwater_Conservative

the word police world that we live in either, but especially in the polticial realm its the reality. Look what they did to George Allen

proudmarinemom

would quote her description of Lady Russell:

“She had prejudices on the side of ancestry; she had a value for rank and consequence, which blinded her a little to the faults of those who possessed them.”

(And gave her leave to see them in the less exalted?)

Mary Beth

rightwingmom52

proudmarinemom

that I wouldn’t research it.

I have and still do not believe it is improper or offensive to use it.

And I never, ever whine.

carolina

Someone else mentioned this, and tonight NBC showed the article headline with the term “blood libel” – just published in the last day or so. I imagine she felt ‘safe’ using that term based on that article. (just my guess)

And, I’m not aware of any giant backlash on the use of the term in that article/opinion piece. Ahhh, but Palin can make ANY word radioactive. (just like Bill Clinton and “is”) hmmm She MUST be presidential material!

Martin Knight

Her usage of the term was clearly metaphorical and no different in degree or kind in the way it is used in writing today. Jim Geraghty is putting up examples of it from writers as diverse as John Derbyshire and little stains of fecal matter like Andrew Sullivan and Frank Rich.

Andrew Sullivan

A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of ?perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.? This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.

Frank Rich

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.

Let’s recap; a Congresswoman along with others was shot and the first thing the Press did was accuse her in particular and (here’s what brings blood libel to mind) and every other person who shares her political philosophy in general of being accessories to murder.

For you to now pretend that she is directly comparing herself to actual Jews who were subjected to pogroms because of vicious smears is bad faith, pure and simple.

Goldwater_Conservative

that after you researched it and found the historic meaning behind the phrase you would still use it in a political statement that will be played around the world?

proudmarinemom

worldwide, GC. Yet.

lol

Martin Knight

By the way, does this restriction on the use of “blood libel” apply to everyone who has used it in non-historical non-Jewish context or is it just when Palin uses it that it becomes a world-ending faux-pas?

chbroussard

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

…originally; I’ve used it in the same fashion that Sarah Palin did; and it’s a perfectly accurate metaphor for what the Left tries to do to the Right every single day.

So why don’t you call *me* ‘sloppy’ and ‘careless,’ Goldwater_Conservative?

Goldwater_Conservative

and thats my point, me and you could make this mistake and no one would notice, she has a much higher bar to cover and I just see this as an unforced error.

carolina

Martin Knight

Arguments can get pretty heated – we don’t trim them to make people comfortable and we don’t let weak arguments pass just so we don’t hurt your feelings.

Still doesn’t stop us from working together though …

Martin Knight

Goldwater_Conservative

are outrageous in my mind, you can tell from how they context it that they were aware of the historic use of blood libel and they were trying to put it in the anti-semitic context. Palin’s use of the term today leaves everyone trying to figure out her meaning.

Goldwater_Conservative

so are you saying I’m a traitor, or I just collaborate with the enemy?

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Her use of the term was obvious, accurate, and only controversial for people trying to start a fight. You do not get to define reality, and I am now telling you to stop putting words in other people’s mouths. Including mine.

Do you understand me?

Goldwater_Conservative

who did I say I spoke for other than myself, and how do I put words in peoples mouth, inculding yours?

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Repudiate that ‘everyone.’ Now.

Goldwater_Conservative

MK put up two quotes from Rich and Sullivian where they used the phrase, and they also clearly trying to context its meaning to its jewish tradition. Palin’s use of it today was most likey in the context that we use today of those falsely accused, but one can’t tell for sure which meaning she meant.

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Renounce ‘everyone.’ Now.

Jack_Savage

Is that cowards who call themselves Republicans were more comfortable clucking their tongues behind his back than defending him.

With friends like that, who needs enemies. Right?

Goldwater_Conservative

take out everyone and insert the MSM

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

You can go back to what you were doing, now. Only, remember: just because *you* assert it doesn’t make it true.

I’m so glad that we had this chat – but please, next time remember that a site moderator’s time is very valuable, so please don’t waste it.

Martin Knight

Do you refer to yourself as “everyone”, Goldwater_Conservative?

Let’s recap; maybe I can help you understand how her use of the term was perfectly appropriate and perhaps even prepare you for the shock when you realize that others have used “blood libel” metaphorically before …

A deranged psychopath went on a killing spree and immediately, the Press pointed the finger of blame at Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and every other person who shared their political philosophy.

That’s what prompted her use of the term “blood libel”. Falsely indicting an entire group of people of being responsible for the crime of a particular individual that may (or in this case, did not) share a particular characteristic.

Here’s another use of “blood libel” – no screams and shouts there;

Andrew Cohen (CBS News)

So-called ?judicial activism? occurs, in other words, when it?s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.?

Are you suffering trying to figure out Andrew Cohen’s meaning?

Martin Knight

You’re willing to let them dictate your speech, your actions because you’re afraid of what they might do if you don’t follow their rules.

You’re more of a coward actually.

gekster

I don’t think it’s working

Goldwater_Conservative

I completly agree with how this thing has gone down and the MSM have created a circus in outter space when they tried to link Palin to the shooter. So I think it was a mistake for Palin to join the circus by even addressing the issue in the first place (the facts were setting her free). Now she has entered the MSM world of loonyland and they can do what they want with her use of blood libel and say it over and over again until most people accept it.

Martin Knight

Andrew Cohen (CBS News)

So-called ?judicial activism? occurs, in other words, when it?s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.

You can’t tell for sure what meaning Cohen meant here too, right?

Martin Knight

Now you think they’re going to succeed in making her anti-semite?

Especially when people have been using “blood libel” in the exact same context (Mark Levin did so just this morning) without them going apesh*t until she said it?

Wow. You really are a gutless wonder.

bobmontgomery

…all found time to be used by the MSM as the ‘voices of reason’ . None of these was attacked; none of these is ever attacked; all operate from the safety of their niches. So they all start out with the ‘Republican view’ that Sarah did a good and respectful job and blah, blah, blah …..and then the BUT. Sarah didn’t need to say this and Sarah didn’t need to say that and Sarah was good up to a point and Sarah went too far and Sarah shouldn’t make it personal. These are the very people who will say that they support the Second Amendment, BUT, your right to self defense stops 1,000 feet from any federal official.

Goldwater_Conservative

GWB then, because he would always take the high road when it comes to sucker traps like this.

Goldwater_Conservative

on the accessory to murder idea because the truth came out, not because she did this video, but by doing the video response she now has a new mustang to rope.

Martin Knight

The “New Tone” meant allowing Democrats free rein to accuse him of lying the nation into War for fun and profit. To slander and smear his judicial nominees without any pushback from the White House. To place all blame for Katrina on his shoulders. To stymie his attempts to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under control and then blame him when the two GSEs sent the economy down the drain …

In the end, did GWB taking the high road earn him any new friends or respect? No? High approval ratings? No? Make him not a weight around the necks of his fellow Republicans running for office? No?

So … what exactly is the advantage of taking the so-called “high road”, Goldwater_Conservative?

Martin Knight

And tomorrow, the truth is going to come out that “blood libel” is not actually a shockingly rare phrase in the media and that her speech was actually an appropriate use of the phrase.

Martin Knight

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

First, Martin: Good metaphors enlighten. Bad metaphors distract.

Yes, it was a metaphor, but it was a bad metaphor. ?Flesh is grass,? is a good metaphor, because it enlightens, simultaneously pointing out that flesh is mortal and organic, and it allows the reader to draw his own conclusions as well. It clarifies thought, although it is not particularly accurate. Flesh is, after all, nothing like grass. (I?m paraphrasing from Walker Percy essay ?Metaphor As Mistake?, which I don?t have on hand, or I?d quote and cite it properly.)

?We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.? Brilliant. Excellent political metaphor. Unforgettable.

?[E]specially 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 that they purport to condemn.? I agree. Excellent thought. However, by choosing a metaphor that is orders of magnitude worse, in degree of impact and historical importance, than the event being discussed, Palin overstates things badly, especially because there has been no hatred or violence as a consequence of the media?s irresponsibility. Activists on the left have bleated about it, and so have Olbermann and Krugman, but if no one on the right did anything objectionable, at all (even, say, raising their voice a bit too much at a restaurant when their kid acts up slightly), these folks would find a way to object to their not doing anything, or they?d dredge up something from a politician?s personal life, which happened twenty years ago, in order to take offense at something and have a cause du jour.

It does not help that blood libel is relatively obscure, in current, mainstream American thought. If you have to explain a metaphor, it becomes an obstacle to effective communication. The fact that other people, of varying ideological stripe, have used the same bad metaphor does not make it a good one. Those on the left play the victim well, but the role does not suit us, and Palin strays a bit close to doing so by conflating her treatment by the media with the Jews? experience in Europe and, more recently, in the Middle East.

If Palin did not mean it metaphorically, then it?s fine, and as I said before, I have no problem with it. If she did, it was inartful. Either way, it?s not a huge deal, and Abe Foxman (quoted by streiff above) phrased the objection gently and pretty effectively.

Marine Mom, thanks for the Austen quote (One can never have too many of those). Can you please help me understand what you mean, though? I?m a bit dense tonight.

Oblio, sorry for accusing you of using combative language. I was referring to your ?ignorant conservative? comment. Now that I reread it, I?m guessing that you were replying to Goldwater, who has a habit of manufacturing controversies and talking down to people, so I can understand why you objected. If you subscribe to Netflix and watch movies on Instant View, here?s a movie that they just added (I haven?t watched it yet but look forward to it).

Goldwater_Conservative

I guess the answer to that is something someone like you cant understand.

flannery

proudmarinemom

forgave the faults of those from “good” families (ancestry) and of those of importance (consequence) and rank more easily than than the faults of those from places like Wasilla, Alaska (less exalted ground).

She would forgive the use of “blood libel” by the Elitist Left, but not by the common Miss Sarah.

All of the criticism lobbed at Palin for the use of “blood libel” smacks of that elitism.

I’m no scholar, but I think that’s what Jane would say.

earlgrey

carolina

just ended! shew (I did NOT watch it)

JadedByPolitics

makes me wretch when I see him speak and so I don’t watch him speak.

bobmontgomery

I am not watching, but from the down stairs TV can hear the cheering and clapping and Obama’s voice rising and my wife muttering to the TV”It always has to be about you, doesn’t it”.

aesthete

Not a fan of the guy, but Obama did make a point of criticizing the “finger-pointing” that was going on, and to his credit, the speech was quite good.

spainishirish

Maybe there wasn’t another one large enough in Tuscon, but holding a memorial service in a college gym came across as a pep rally. Obama isn’t responsible for the audience but his political operatives should have known better.

The speech wasn’t bad, in fact, for the reason you cited. But Obama still acted like he can set the parameters of debate in a democracy and that is disconcerting.

earlgrey

Never had a chance to tune in. Watching people adore him makes me sick.

lineholder

I don’t know all the reasons why I experience such a gag reflex every time he speaks…maybe because I’ve come to expect lies?

bobmontgomery

and Obama’s campaign rally tonight, we may want to mark January 12, 2011 as some sort of important date. All I know is, I’ve got to go back and read EPU’s diary again.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Very similar to a piece by Thomas Sowell, and I would add that it would be accepted if it had been said by one of the media’s chosen few on the right (such as McCain before he was the nominee). Here’s the Sowell piece: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/not_one_of_us.html

aesthete

I also agree with you on the venue being odd, but if we’re going to be over-critical, Palin’s speech was sort of hammy. Considering the low expectations I had, I think it was a good speech: I didn’t have much opportunity to cringe and more than a few moments I could agree with.

gonzo55

What a self-serving, childish speech. Dear Leader Obama descends from on high to favor the people of Tucson with his presence, and then starts making bizarre pronouncements about who’s a hero and who isn’t. Yes, Dear Leader, I don’t think us gun-clinging religious hillbillies could have possibly figured out that the 70-year old woman who grabbed the clip from Loughner was a hero by ourselves. And thank God there were so many thunderous applause lines, I know your ego is damaged if you go 5 minutes without getting a standing ovation from your drones.

proudmarinemom

after watching that, so please go up and check on her.

If you find her in the fetal position, mumbling something about a back-slapping sheriff and his posse of bootlicking deputies, give her a hug and prescription-strength Pepto-Bismol.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Seriously.

natalie

… it may have been purposeful, since Giffords was the first Jewish Congressional representative for AZ?

I am a Jew too and the “blood libel”seemed to be an oblique nod to Giffords’ being a Jew, not an insensitive hyperbole. But, tat’s just how it came across to me.

http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

The left has been demonizing the right for the last century. It’s the same sort of bigoted mindset except they lack the support to be successfully violent against the conservative majority. If the leadership on the left really thought they could get away with violence you’d see them go straight to it “in everyone’s better interest”.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

I still think that the blood libel metaphor was ill-considered, but I had not heard that Palin has received numerous death threats. How awful.

bobmontgomery

As I said, I didn’t watch it, but I got my Politico breaking news feeds and the first one said Obama, not the doctors or the family, but Obama, reported to the nation that Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time. The next one said that Gifford’s ‘close friends’ – Pelosi, Gillibrand, and Wasserman-Schulz – were in the room with her when she opened her eyes for the first time………………. .

johnms

Palin’s use of “blood libel” was dead accurate and appropriate. Although the literal definition of the blood libel is unrelated to the events here — the lie the Jews kill Christian babies to use their blood to make bread — the purpose of the blood libel makes the term absolutely appropriate.

The blood libel is used by antisemites to incite hatred and provoke murder of Jews by falsely accusing them of murdering children. For the last few days, Sarah Palin has been falsely accused of being complicit in the murder of, among other people, a 9 year old child. Just like the purpose of the blood libel is to incite Muslims to murder Jews, the purpose of blaming Sarah Palin was to incite her assassination by falsely claiming that she had the blood of a child on her hands.

Rather than be frightened or intimidated into silence, Palin called it what it was and threw it right back in liberals faces in brilliant fashion. Now, instead of the topic of the day being Barack Obama’s speech, the topic of the day is whether Sarah Palin is the victim of blood libel, or just regular libel. She also preempted Barack Obama’s awkward, unfortunately misconceived memorial service with a speech that closely resembled an oval office address.

If there was one flaw in her delivery, it was that she needed to completely suppress her natural ebullience during the most serious parts of her speech, but it came through at the edges.

I will give Barack Obama credit for seriously trying to do the right thing today. His problem today was that he has very poor advisers and little to no experience conducting himself with the gravity and dignity required in this situation. I would have advised him to invite religious leaders and speakers representing the religions of all the victims, and limit his own speaking time to five minutes. Had he done so he would have earned a lot of respect and admiration today. Instead, he went on for over a half hour, and near the end appeared to really be enjoying listening to himself talk, especially when he got to the jumping in puddles part, which a good speechwriting team would have left crumpled up in the wastebasket. Experience matters.

Martin Knight

You see, I do know there is a time to rise above partisanship and even take a hit – what you refer to as taking the “high road.” Like 9/11 for example.

But I also know that the “high road” does not always mean passive impotent silence in the face of slander and calumniation. Sometimes the “high road” demands you draw the sword and start swinging lest you encourage similar behavior down the road.

In fact, and this is something someone like you would find mind-boggling, I believe the lack of strong pushback against the slander and lies the Left launched against Bush is as much to blame for the poisonous atmosphere in today’s politics as anything else because it encouraged Lefties to keep pushing the envelope.

Here’s a rule of thumb of when it is appropriate to take the “high road”. It’s not when you’ve been accused of being an accessory to murder.

Capiche?

Goldwater_Conservative

I take the high road, let your staffers go out and answer the questions. If the media goes out creates a pic that shows Palin put explosives on the BP oil rig right before it blew up, and then they spend a week drumming up the story you still dont answer it, and actually I would say it takes guts to take the high road. Its real easy to go out and say “nuh uh, its your fault” thats what 3 year olds do. An adult lets the facts and the situation speak for itself. If there was an actual link from this kid to Palin, then yes she would have to go defend herself, but in this case the truth would have set her free.

JSobieski

The facts in that matter were self-evident. Democrats, foreign intelligence agencies, etc. all thought Iraq had WMDs.

Bush stayed above the fray. He let subordinates and conservative pundits deal with the accusation that he was lying.

What percentage of people believe that Bush misled the public to start a war with Iraq? Its a higher percentage than those who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

You are prescribing a recipe for decline and defeat. Rove to this day has concluded that not responding more forcefully was a big mistake.

Goldwater_Conservative

the main reason we went to war with Iraq is because Bush, and most everyone else, was adament that they had WMD’s and to then charge him with dilliberatly lying about it is a charge you would need to address, and thats because the entire issue is related to you personally.

If they said that Bush’s warmongering was what isnpired the ruthless leaders in Mynamar to kill their own people, well I think thats an insane charge you dont even dignify with an answer.

oblio

Goldwater_Conservative

Did you lie about WMD’s in Iraq…No, I did not, here is the documents on what we knew when we knew it and here are all the other people that believed they had them too and here is what they said…

A poll was taking that says 25% think 9/11 was an inside job, did you have anything to do with it? You absolutly dont dignify that with an answer.

JSobieski

I reference the 9/11 truther as a contrasting data point.

Folks who believe 9/11 was an inside job are lost souls. However, people who aren’t 9/11 truthers are “gettable”.

Bush missed out on “gettable” citizens by letting the meme go relatively unopposed.

Something in the neighborhood of 40-45% fo the population think Bush manipulated intelligence reports leading up to Iraq. The result of an “above the fray” media strategy.

Democrats want our guys to use that strategy in the future. That’s why they are mad at Palin for speaking out.

Martin Knight

Neither he nor his staff went out to answer the questions or counter the slanders launched against him on a daily basis. Where was the strong rebuttal speech by Scott McClellan {*snicker*} to BushLied™?

Reagan, on the other hand, a great President and statesman by any measure, regularly drew the sword and laid into his opponents with joyous abandon when the situation called for it. And he wasn’t the first to do so. So did FDR and Truman.

And to be honest, you really have to be seriously prejudiced against the woman if you think Palin’s response to days of being libeled as an accessory to murder absent even a scintilla of proof as amounting to?nuh uh, its your fault?.

Hopefully, it’d never happen to you – but I’d be shocked if you’d be as concerned about being an “adult” and silently waiting for the “truth to set you free” if you are falsely accused of rape. I’d bet you would suddenly find yourself becoming a fervent supporter of self-defense then.

PS: Again, I disagree with your definition of “taking the high road” as remaining silent when you are slandered or libeled. It requires no guts whatsoever to take abuse without protest. And second, you’ve interestingly changed your reason for why Palin should have remained silent from the Press would beat her up for it.

Goldwater_Conservative

if it isnt your fray, but if it is, and the charge that bush lied is his own fray, then you must answer it. This wasnt Palin’s fray, most people understand that and that group was only going to get larger as the facts came out. Its not like the 20% who thought she had something to do with it have changed their minds now, instead what has happend is that Palin has entered the MSM’s created fray.

Goldwater_Conservative

I said on here 3 days ago that she should not dignify this with a response and I was proud of her, at that time, for not descending to the MSM’s level. Now, when Drudge and everyone other conservative outlet was going to be running with the headlnes that this kid didn’t listen to any politician instead now we are talking about blood libel.

Goldwater_Conservative

if you would like to argue that Palin’s new main goal is to exploite the MSM and really take them on in a day to day battle (which will cost her more credibility) but will be worth it because she can show the world the hypocrisy they opperate in, then I’d be for that.

gekster

Are you that blind, or are you arguing just for arguments sake.
Oops, mybad.
I forgot that you are allways right.

Goldwater_Conservative

to make it her fray, but they cant create reality, which is why it was backfiring. I’m not always right, never said I was, but I have an oppinion and it may be different than everyone. I just dont see how she made the situation better for herself by answering this rediculous charge.

MathMom

“I” count, 14. “Me” count, 2.

I expected at least 50. He pulled out a reasonable speech, ruined by the carnival atmosphere of the “memorial” rally.

If I were one of the grieving families, I would have run out sobbing.

Martin Knight

A significant plurality of Americans (the average swing voter especially) do not pay attention to politics – what they know about it is what little snippets they catch in the evening broadcasts and what they see in the headlines of the newspapers as they line up at the checkout counter.

Over the past few days, they saw it on the news shows and in the headlines that there is a direct link between Sarah Palin’s speeches, her congressional target map and the murder attempt on a Congresswoman and the actual death of six people including a federal judge and a nine year old girl.

Notwithstanding the collapse of this story, we all know that Alan Simpson’s observation is still a very good reflection of reality; “An allegation unchallenged is an allegation believed.” Any lawyer will tell you this applies in court before a jury. This also applies in the court of public opinion, especially among the marginally informed.

Again, as JSobieski has pointed out, your “above the fray” approach helped castrate a President’s administration and ended up costing his party heavily. Think about it; what could be more ridiculous than believing that a President deliberately lied his nation into war knowing that it would eventually be found out and making no effort to cover his tracks? Or that a President would deliberately let a city drown?

Even Karl Rove admitted it that counting on the American people to see the ridiculousness of the Left’s charges and reject them without any effort on the White House’s part was a big mistake.

In other words, we have empirical evidence that your prescription is frankly not applicable in this world.

Martin Knight

Bush lied American into the War in Iraq.

Just two examples of the Press creating their own “reality” and getting a whole lot of people to believe it. You’re right – the media can’t create reality, but they certainly can totally warp perceptions of it.

bobmontgomery

…not my wife! Like you, my wife is a bastion of strength. I am reduced to staring off into space, reliving my childhood and wondering ‘how it ever got this crazy.’

JSobieski

While I think you bring a perspective to Red State that we need (call it the splash of cold water perspective), I think your argument on the Palin response is over the top.

She was called an accessory to murder. Frankly, if anything, I fault her on waiting as long as she did to get her video out. But to say that she should just sit there and take it is contrary to all empirical evidence on this point.

Conservatives lose when they let leftists paint them into leftist memes.

You respond to comments here at RS rather than stay above the fray. Why is that?

Goldwater_Conservative

the lefty blogs are the ones that painted her as an accessory to murder. Every single time the MSM brought it up they always prefaced it with “there is no direct link to palin from the shooter” they then go on to ask the question of if the harsh retoric helped give rise to violence.

I know what yall are saying on here about letting the left paint you without answering, but I think the MSM planned to draw Palin into this all along. And I go back to the Bush/truther movement (dont use the iraq thing because I agree he should have addressed that) but lets say a reporter asked Bush a truther question. If Bush doesnt dignify that with an answer the same 25% will still believe what they want, but if he actually stoops to addressing it, I would say then about 30% would believe it, if he said no I had nothing to do with 9/11 that would only fuel the 25% even more, not refute them.

gop2010

NYDN headline: Gabrielle Giffords Blood is on Palin’s Hands. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_palin_put_a_target_on_her_she_should_have_known_the_dangers.html

It was Paul Krugman, MSNBC, Rep. Jim Clyburn and a whole lot of othger influential media figures and politicians. This was a public libel. She needed to answer it publicly.

gop2010

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257106/blood-libel-and-beyond-jonah-goldberg

JSobieski

The idea that Palin should have stayed above the fray is really bad public relations advice.

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama’s Tucson speech preempted by THAT WOMAN.

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL