A Fireside Chat with President Palin

12 Jan

[HTML1]

Asking the right to tone down its violent rhetoric is a “blood libel”, says President Palin.  “Blood libel” refers to an anti-Semitic slur, which alleges that Jews use human blood in their religious rituals.  It was used to spread hatred and fear against the Jews, who would use Christian children’s blood to make Passover matzoh.   Really.  That’s what the blood libel is.

She has no idea what that “blood libel” means, does she?  If she did, I doubt that she would cloak herself in the mantle of two thousand years’ worth of anti-Semitic hatred and oppression.  False equivalencies everywhere.

Sarah Palin.  The forgotten victim of the Tucson shootings.

31 Responses to “A Fireside Chat with President Palin”

  1. Bbill January 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    Question for the former half-term governor

    (and if she doesn’t answer, maybe one of the obedient Limbaugh acolytes here can help out)

    What, precisely, is a “Second Amendment remedy”? Thanks in advance.

  2. BobbyCat January 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    Ahhhhh, I have heard Jews call ‘blood libel’ a 12th century MYTH as well as a slur. I’m not sure you made it clear that its considered a myth.

  3. Bills Fan January 12, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    Did you know blood libel refers to an anti-semitic slur?  

    Any regret over racing in to essentially declare Jared Lee Loughner an agent for the tea party now that more information has come out which seems to indicate Loughner is mentally disturbed?  

  4. Beth Donnelly January 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    i really wish she would just quietly go away…..

  5. Alan Bedenko January 12, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    I’m pretty sure I communicated that it’s false. Libel is by definition false.

  6. Mike In WNY January 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

    “Blood Libel” is trying to assert responsibility for something that is unexplained. That is exactly what the left is doing. Palin’s statement was a perfect analogy. Her use of the term was anything but anti-Semitic, she was merely pointing out the false claims of the left.

  7. Chris Charvella January 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    Mike, you couldn’t be more wrong. Blood libel has a very specific meaning and it isn’t the one you’re throwing out there. I’ll agree that her use of the term wasn’t anti-Semitic since, in her metaphor, she’s the persecuted Jew and everyone that doesn’t like her is Torquemada.

    Even though it wasn’t anti-Semitic, the use of the term was insensitive at best. I don’t think Palin’s descent into public disfavor rates when compared with the thousands of years of persecution the Jewish people suffered. Care to disagree?

  8. Leo Wilson January 12, 2011 at 11:45 pm #

    Actually, I think “blood libel” is a pretty good analogy. You say what it is; a lie about Jews. Why would anyone tell such a lie? It convinced people to support the oppression Jews, make them second-class citizens, deny rights allowed to other citizens.

    The European tradition of political oppression of Jews didn’t begin or end with the Nazis.

    The transparent attempt to use tragedy to make political hay against a group of people that promise to continue electoral shellackings and embolden others to break with establishment political machines is just that: bold-faced deceit in an attempt to stifle a viewpoint you don’t agree with, yet resonates with and has the support of enough people to make a difference at election time.

  9. Leo Wilson January 13, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    … pretty soon, we’ll see if those people are more effective than this tack is at legislation time, too.

  10. Chris Charvella January 13, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    Sooo… you’re saying that folks on the left calling for an end to Palin’s ugly rhetoric is comparable to the oppression of, persecution of and lies told about Jewish people over the course of thousands of years?

    Crusades, Diaspora, Inquisition, Holocaust, Palin…right.

  11. Leo Wilson January 13, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    I didn’t create that whole analogy thing, I just think it works. It isn’t a comparison of Palin to Jews, it’s a comparison of libel to libel.

  12. Leo Wilson January 13, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    I’m not explaining myself well. I wish I could delete past posts.

    It’s a comparison of libelous intent to libelous intent: to convince people to support taking away rights for a class of people.

  13. Brian January 13, 2011 at 6:20 am #

    Isn’t using “blood libel” anywhere near the shooting of Jewish congresswoman just plain bizarre?  I don’t seem to be able to comprehend the complexities.  Is Palin claiming to be somehow Jewish? Or like the Jews in their terrible trials?  or what?

  14. Max January 13, 2011 at 7:13 am #

    The contrast between her comments – delivered prior to the memorial service in Tucson – and those of the President’s at that event are very vivid and clearly demonstrate which are from a real leader and not.

  15. Leo Wilson January 13, 2011 at 8:21 am #

    @Max, I couldn’t agree more. President Obama delivered a winner of a speech, and the contrast was stark. One was squirming under criticism by a political hopeful, the other was the President of the United States being dignified. The man came through.

  16. Bbill January 13, 2011 at 9:31 am #

  17. BobbyCat January 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Dear President Palin,

    Aside from you being a gun-toting, tought-talking ,sexy older chick that a lot of your Ramboesque supporters would like to nail, do you resent being called a ditzy airhead in the Pamela Anderson genre? And do you resent Pam Anderson for being smarter than you?

  18. Ward January 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    So the liberal use of “holocaust” to describe any unfortunate event–such as the result of a cut in government spending–isn’t a problem?

    Small wonder you folks so often occupy the 30% side on an issue.

  19. Ray January 13, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    Quite right Ward.
    In the modern world “blood libel” is used as a general phrase that means a false story spread in order to create hatred for a certain group of people.
    It seems that phrase can be used to describe what goes on here on this blog regularly.

    • Alan Bedenko January 14, 2011 at 6:16 am #

      Ray – have you been assigned the designated glibertarian commenter this week? Is Mike in WNY on vacation?

  20. Dave Staba January 13, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Of course, I’m sure Ward can name numerous examples of such use of the word holocaust by liberals. And at least one issue on which ‘you folks’ have been in such a decisive minority. Because otherwise, he’d sound like he was just making shit up to change the subject.

  21. Dave Staba January 13, 2011 at 8:44 pm #

    Ray, you mean like claiming that liberals routinely call, say, a long line at Wegmans a ‘holocaust?’

  22. Leo Wilson January 13, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    I wish ANYONE on either side of the aisle had the chutzpa to use the word “holocaust” appropriately while there was still time to do anything about it. Recent happenings like the Sudan and Rwanda were largely ignored, though all the intelligence reported them, until the damage was already done. Everyone has been SO sympathetic, wringing their hands eanestly and proclaiming, “If we’d only known!” Hooey.

  23. Ray January 14, 2011 at 12:14 am #

    I think Palin knew exactly what she was saying, contrary to Alan’s claim that she doesn’t know what “blood libel” means. I think the use of that phrase was pretty spot on since I’ve seen a liberal amount of libel spewed out at anything and everybody on the right for the bloodbath in Arizona.

    • Alan Bedenko January 14, 2011 at 6:19 am #

      Palin does what Palin always does. She rose above the grief and feelings of national unity, got defensive, and made it all about her.

  24. Bbill January 14, 2011 at 7:48 am #

    RT @BorowitzReport
    Asked to use “blood libel” in a sentence, Palin said, “When you hunt a moose, blood libel to pour out of it.”

    I’ve never heard a single example of a lib describing a flat tire or a stubbed toe as a “holocaust.” Shorter Ward: I love lamp.

  25. Leo Wilson January 14, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    I think Beth expressed it early in these responses: “I wish she would just go away…”

    OK, where is she that she should go away from? She’s not seated at Beth’s dinner table or mine, she’s just out there using her constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. What Beth meant is, “I wish we could curtail her rights.” In the context of this discussion, she was saying, “I wish we could use this deceit to curtail the right to free speech that I’m exercising.”

    Blood libel is an apt analogy.

    I don’t disagree with Alan’s point of it being all about her, but was it her who made it that way, or you?

    • Alan Bedenko January 14, 2011 at 9:47 am #

      No, Leo. I interpreted Beth’s wish as:

      “I wish middle-aged and older white males would stop politically supporting this woman, on whom they’re crushing, and that her political capital, such as it is, would wither and disappear.” Or, “I wish that Fox News and whatever other media outlets with whom she has deals would lose ratings and that her books stop selling so that her entertainment bankability falls to naught”. Because ultimately, she has become nothing more than a professional Facebook status updater. She pops up from time to time to give succor to her cult followers, or perhaps to slam Hannity-thrown softballs at libruls.

      As for her making it all about her, of course she did. Let’s say the freight train of blame that was coming her way this past weekend was unfair and unjust. Was it appropriate for her to give the finger to everyone she hates and further make herself into a poor, defenseless victim with a Fox contract, or should she have risen above it and made her point in a way that was less defensive and less personalized? She made it all about Sarah, as if she got shot. Her political instincts are horrific.

  26. Leo Wilson January 14, 2011 at 9:57 am #

    I can’t find much to argue with about your latter point, Alan. You and others are doing a great service by continually pointing out her shortcomings if she has aspirations to run for President.

    On the first point, I’m certianly projecting upon Beth, but I’m going to stick by my interpretation. We’ll just have to respectfully disagree.

  27. Leo Wilson January 14, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    She’s an effective rabble-rouser, but I don’t want her as a candidate.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: