But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.Palin is once again playing the victim card.It's what she does best. She will attack first and then, when someone responds to her dehumanizing, usually violence-charged rhetoric, she will immediately play the victim.Such is the case with her use of the term blood libel. Tom Diemer at PoliticsDaily spells out the meaning of the phrase accurately and succinctly:
"Blood libel" is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread.Evidently Palin is a follower of the classless and outright lying bag of batshit Andrew Breitbart, as he used the phrase in a tweet yesterday. His use of the term was turned against the GOP itself. Since Breitbart has already been proven to be a thug who generates nothing but lies and then the right, without fact-checking, perpetuates them, we can ignore his bleating. Palin prattles on, attempting to deflect the criticism of her violent-laden rhetoric:
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?Palin has used degrading, illogical rhetoric since the 2008 presidential campaign, it's her stock in trade. Her 'palling around with terrorists' line, used to describe Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, was unconscionable and an outright lie.You can count on one finger the number of times Obama and Ayers actually spent one on one time together.
Palin actually nails herself to the wall in the following:
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.Palin can say now she meant voting but her rhetoric said otherwise to millions of extremists who began to carry weapons to political meetings. She has shown little, if any, respect to Democratic candidates. Her 'crosshairs' map was nothing more than a visual image of violence for her supporters. Palin of course, did not mention her crosshairs map in her speech. She actually seemed to defend her type of violent speech with the following:
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.Intolerance of hate speech is a good thing. Refusing to allow speech that uses words that invoke violent mental images should never be tolerated. Shrill cries of imagined insults? The crazy among us will take her at her word....literally.
If Palin and her ilk can not intelligently speak to the issues without invoking hate or violent mental images, we must stand up and call them out every chance we get.
If we take Palin's words at face value her logic, as always, is skewed and intelligently infantile.Violent rhetoric, according to Sarah Palin, does not inspire violence...but criticism of the violence-laden rhetoric does.
If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.The Republicans have already created a bill entitled To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.They do not propose any 'better idea's' in that bill Sarah, not a one. Where are the proposals to replace what the R's want to remove? The also have stated there will be little time for 'debate' on this bill and they will not allow any amendments. As attorney Jeff Golberg notes: No alternative Republican plan to reform the health care system is included or referenced. Why? Because Republicans don’t have a plan.
Like her brethren, Palin offers nothing in her speech to replace her negative rhetoric of violence and obfuscation. We should be pissed, but certainly not surprised.
