Video: “Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel”; Update: Dershowitz defends Palin

posted at 8:45 am on January 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Sarah Palin has given her first extensive public remarks after the shootings in Tucson and the media attempts to blame the Tea Party and herself for the violence. She firmly but calmly rebuts that notion, quoting Ronald Reagan to insist that individuals are responsible for their actions, and that robust political dialogue in a free country should not be blamed for acts of individual lunacy. Palin reserves her harshest criticism, delivered in a tone of sadness, for those journalists and pundits who wound up slandering not just her but millions of people who participated in political activism:

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Earlier this week, I told a reporter that a public response would be tricky for Palin. She needed to defend herself but without being seen as descending to the level of the debate as it stood at that moment. Plenty of others were defending conservatives already, but Palin needed to engage the debate on her own terms at some point in a manner that allowed her to rise above the accusatory morass that the media encouraged almost from the hour in which the shootings took place.

This video message affirms the wisdom of that approach. Palin does an excellent job in making her point without lashing out in anger over the attacks, and underscores the importance of personal responsibility rather than group guilt in a free society, the priority of free speech as an underpinning of democracy, and the determination of Palin and the rest of the conservatives to defend those principles. It’s precisely what Palin needed to say, and precisely the manner and forum in which she needed to say it.

Now, what will Barack Obama say?

Update: Some are criticizing Palin’s use of “blood libel,” saying that it refers to a specific anti-semitic charge from centuries ago that Jews supposedly used the blood of Christian children in preparing ritual food. But as Glenn Reynolds points out to Politico’s Ben Smith, Israel uses “blood libel” today to rebut charges of deliberately killing Palestinians, and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murtha’s accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha. It’s a functional political term.

Update II: 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.

That should settle it, but probably won’t.

The transcript follows, via The Corner:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. 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. 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.

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? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

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.

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.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 15

But not her fellow Republican pols.
Pawlenty’s response was weak sauce.

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

That’s because Pawlenty IS weak. I like the guy and I’d prefer him over Mittens of Huckster, but you can tell from his interviews that the dude wants to get along with everyone.

And many of the other high profile GOP figures are just flat out wimps who cower under the heat of constant pressure from the Democrats and media(I know, I’m being redundant).

Doughboy on January 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM

sesquipedalian on January 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM

It has a broader meaning.

Brian1972 on January 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM

so if likudniks and two right-wingers decide that ‘blood libel’ doesn’t mean what it means, we should just accept it?

sesquipedalian on January 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Why don’t you find out if “bring a gun to a knife fight” means go kill some Republicans. That’s what I think it means … don’t you?

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Tim Pawlenty: I wouldn’t have said “blood libel”.

RedRedRice on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

CONCLUSION

There is nothing wrong with either side using over the top rhetoric

There is nothing wrong with either side spewing misinformation

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

To riff of Jeff Foxworthy, you know you may not be very bright when you contradict your own argument in the matter of a couple paragraphs.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

To riff of of Foxworthy: You know Tom_Shiply’s an idiot when… well you just know it.

darwin-t on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

She waited for the fanatical left-wing media to make absolute jackasses of themselves, waited a few days to enter the fray out of respect for the mourners, waited for more facts to come in, and then delivered a wonderful message more level headed than most of us could have produced.

Well done.

Dongemaharu on January 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

She also sucked out virtually all of the air from the room in which Obama has to try to make a speech tonight.

BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

LOL@sequi parsing words so selectively.

Get bent. Jog off.

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

There is a huge difference in a person seeking out a specific political point than to have a news story cloaked in a view point thrust on them. People are naturally going to go to a news source to hear or read about an incident. If you don’t think the media has been trying to project an agenda or establish a working argument of the Right’s complicity than your are very naive.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Many have been defending Palin against the lies from the media–Andrew Breitbart, Rush, Beck, many Conservative bloggers. Even O’Reilly.

conservative pilgrim on January 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM
//
Yeah well I never watch o’r and I guess I was thinking of the 2012 contenders mostly.

ohiobabe on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

I realize she’s defending herself, but she’s doing so by using the same argument used against her, which she spends two paragraphs and a Reagan quote trying to discredit.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

You have a knack for legitimizing the word “drone”.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM

I mean come on, it is possible to like and respect Sarah Palin without feeling the need to dislike everyone else.

Terrye on January 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

The knee-jerk attacks on Sarah Palin, incessant since 2008, promote knee-jerk defensive responses. There is no “need to dislike everyone else” in our defense of Sarah Palin. That perception is a personal problem.

Extrafishy on January 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM

I realize she’s defending herself, but she’s doing so by using the same argument used against her, which she spends two paragraphs and a Reagan quote trying to discredit.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

She is illustrating the hollow nonsense being used against her, which if they meant what they were saying, they would refrain from putting Palin, and many other conservatives, in danger by inciting the very kind of vitriol they accuse her of.

You don’t think a headline saying Palin has blood on her hands is a little bit over the top?

I do, and so do most rational people.

Brian1972 on January 12, 2011 at 9:55 AM

There is nothing wrong with either side spewing misinformation

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Obamacare will reduce the deficit based on our bogus numbers.

HOORAY!

BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Meanwhile…

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

I’m not claiming this guy was set off by any politician’s rhetoric. all I’m doing here is questioning Palin’s logic in her statement.

She says: “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

Then she says: “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.”

She defends herself and others by saying we can’t let other’s claims that our words incite violence silence us, then attacks her critics by saying their words incite violence.

To riff of Jeff Foxworthy, you know you may not be very bright when you contradict your own argument in the matter of a couple paragraphs.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

She was pointing out the press’ contradiction and you acccuse her of contradiction. Slimey.

oddjob1138 on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

This guy is the perfect example of a liberal. Zero personal responsibility because his heros tell him what to think. Not one second of open mindedness. If his beliefs are threatened, he desperately searches for an explanation and is spoon fed the talking points of the day.

Use your intellect Shipley! Open your mind to the possibility that your liberal masters are sometimes wrong.

Vince on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

HOORAY for not defining “over the top”.

Does the term “political campaign” scare you, it was taken from the military you know. Better go hide.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM

She says: “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

Then she says: “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.”

She defends herself and others by saying we can’t let other’s claims that our words incite violence silence us, then attacks her critics by saying their words incite violence.

To riff of Jeff Foxworthy, you know you may not be very bright when you contradict your own argument in the matter of a couple paragraphs.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

And you are thought of as an intellectual?

It’s like playing Limbo. How low can that bar go…?

Listen up, sparky, ’cause this is instructive. To falsely accuse a person, or a group of people, of incitement to violence and foaming at the mouth for the blood of a fellow citizen is indeed an incitement to violence.

Only in the world of Halperin (and you, apparently) is it right and proper to hang your head when you are accused of egging someone on to murder without any evidence that makes any sense, or that isn’t also shared by the people doing the accusing (and don’t pretend, kiddo, that you don’t know what I’m talking about), rather than defend yourself against the baseless accusations.

When the accusers double down on a baseless accusation, it burns people up. That’s freaking human nature. I have said this before, repeatedly, and I say again, you can only call a person a villain, murderer, or Nazi for so long before they genuinely become angry. You cannot beat someone about the head and scream about their violent nature indefinitely without them eventually clenching a fist and punching you in the thrice-damned nose.

That is what Palin means by the Left’s foolish accusations being an incitement to violence.

Now, I understand that projection is the Leftist way, but I recommend that you try it elsewhere. No one here is going to be much impressed by your so-called intellectual musings, judging by thread responses.

You must not be very bright if you can’t see the danger to your position that is inherent in accusing Palin of incitement to murder with the same imagery Kos, the DNC, and various Democratic candidates used in their own work. Then again, Leftists were never very bright… only able to subvert the weakest among a given populace, because the strong recognize the foolishness of the ardent Leftist.

KinleyArdal on January 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM

CONCLUSION

There is nothing wrong with either side using over the top rhetoric

There is nothing wrong with either side spewing misinformation

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

That’s your conclusion from watching this video? Why?

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Pitch-perfect….and you can tell it hit the sweet center by the reaction over at Huffpo. Within 30 minutes, they have over 1500 pending comments and 500 already posted.

It was a welcomed speech. It was soothing and encouraging to America. It really has a woman’s touch, in my opinion.

But aside from that? It was brilliant to precede Obama’s speech.

One up for Sarah here.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM

I did not notice Sarah Palin even coming to her own defense until now.
Terrye on January 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I wasn’t talking about Palin coming to her defense. I was referring to other elected leaders in our party going mute.

They have not even buried those people yet.

That didn’t stop the left from making libelous inferences directed at her with six degrees of separation in causation.

Are we supposed to wait for a burial while they continue an orchestrated flame war? And they aren’t going to bury Giffords anyway so this waiting for burial is meaningless.

I mean come on, it is possible to like and respect Sarah Palin without feeling the need to dislike everyone else.

Everyone? That’s a pretty broad existential qualifier you got there. Who said disliking everyone else. I am talking about the pervasive observation that the collective GOP response was tepid to nil. Some here are just calling them out because they were mostly invisible.

Many have noticed it.

Geochelone on January 12, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Meanwhile!

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Inanemergencydial:HilRod looked like she had a Bosnia
on the tarmac moment!!:)

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM

This just appeared at Ace of Spades, Gabe speaking:

Because even their own definition of “blood libel” includes the manner in which Palin used the term.

Here’s the NYTimes; I have emphasized the key word:

By using the term “blood libel” to describe the criticism about political rhetoric after the shootings, Ms. Palin was inventing a new definition for an emotionally laden phrase. Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term has been used for centuries as the pretext for anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews.

Typically. Typically, but not exclusively, blood libels have been accusations against Jews. But blood libels have also been made historically against Christians — including Catholics and the Knights Templar — witches and pagans, and, more modernly, Satanists.

Broader meaning.

Brian1972 on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM

You are right! Was she in Detroit? I shouldn’t have made levity at that!

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

AMEN!!!!!!!!

capejasmine on January 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

CONCLUSION

There is nothing wrong with either side using over the top rhetoric

There is nothing wrong with either side spewing misinformation

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Just once, I wish you’d use your brain in making a post.

Just once is all I ask. o.o

KinleyArdal on January 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I thought I couldn’t be any more impressed than I already was with this woman. I stand corrected.

miConsevative on January 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

CONCLUSION

There is nothing wrong with either side using over the top rhetoric

There is nothing wrong with either side spewing misinformation

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

You understand about as much as a typical first grader. You don’t even realize that the phrase “over the top rhetoric” is an invention of the media and used to silence opposition. You come here daily and repeat everything the media pumps into your head and not once has it crossed your mind that your thoughts and observations aren’t even your own.

Next time you get ready to comment, ask yourself … is this really my opinion or am I just repeating the media line.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

She has done more than just make lemonade out of the lemons of the political damage done to her in the recent coverage. She has helped America make lemonade out of lemons.

That’s honestly what I truly respect about her. Any real leader should be able to do that consistently. It will benefit them, too, of course; but it’s more important to put the focus on helping others in the country find a perspective that isn’t self-sabotaging.

About the only criticism I have? I wish she hadn’t called the shooter evil. I really think he’s beyond that. He’s just so sick.

I don’t like calling the mentally ill, “evil.” It continues a cultural attitude that seems to work against us all.

But other than that, it was a great speech.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

She also sucked out virtually all of the air from the room in which Obama has to try to make a speech tonight.

BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

yup. she sure has.

ted c on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

YES x 100000000000000

1
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

2
“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.”

————

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I’m not claiming this guy was set off by any politician’s rhetoric. all I’m doing here is questioning Palin’s logic in her statement.

She says: “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

Then she says: “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.”

She defends herself and others by saying we can’t let other’s claims that our words incite violence silence us, then attacks her critics by saying their words incite violence.

To riff of Jeff Foxworthy, you know you may not be very bright when you contradict your own argument in the matter of a couple paragraphs.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Apparently you’ve never heard:
Frances Fox Piven,
Ed Schultz,
Chris Matthews
Julianne Malveaux
Comments on Tony Snow’s death

mizflame98 on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Making the mistake that the American people don’t understand what crass politics is going on, would be a big mistake.

Overreacting to the “blood libel” charges the Democrats and the media are leveling at conservatives, would be an even bigger mistake. The media implosion has begun, as they throw their last bits of worth in the fires of hate.

tarpon on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

But aside from that? It was brilliant to precede Obama’s speech.

One up for Sarah here.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM

I agree. I was thinking earlier this morning that she should go on one of the FoxNews shows tonight right after Obama to distract all of the media into focusing on her, but this is actually better. She steals his thunder, gives a great speech, and forces Barry into taking a conciliatory tone tonight. If he makes any attempt to tie this to heated rhetoric or any prominent figures on the right, he’ll look like an ass.

Doughboy on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Laughner was a troll too.

ted c on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

How sweet.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Then quit trying to use this tragedy to advance your anti-Palin agenda.

The only debate we should be having is what our laws should be about mentally ill people who have exhibited violent tendencies. Do we go back to more robust involuntary commitment laws or not?

But when you and Krugman and NYTimes and MSNBC use this tragedy to smear political opponents, then yes, you are despicable and vile.

rbj on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Yesterday: Why is Sarah Palin in hiding? She needs to come out and say something about this.

Today: Why is she issuing a statement like this? She’s a private citizen, not the President.

Betcha.

Chris of Rights on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

She also sucked out virtually all of the air from the room in which Obama has to try to make a speech tonight.

BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Yes, that and more. Once again, she set the tone and set the bar for Øbama. How sweet it is.

petefrt on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

CONCLUSION

There is nothing wrong with either side using over the top rhetoric

There is nothing wrong with either side spewing misinformation

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

You understand about as much as a typical first grader. You don’t even realize that the phrase “over the top rhetoric” is an invention of the media and used to silence opposition. You come here daily and repeat everything the media pumps into your head and not once has it crossed your mind that your thoughts and observations aren’t even your own.

Next time you get ready to comment, ask yourself … is this really my opinion or am I just repeating the media line.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM
——–

“repeat everything the media pumps into your head” = Hotair talking point

Stop repeating the Hotair media line.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I’m not certain she posts here.

Can you wait awhile for a response?

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Yeah well I never watch o’r and I guess I was thinking of the 2012 contenders mostly.

ohiobabe on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

You mean Huck, Romney, Daniels, and Pawlenty? Who am I leaving out?…..Pawlenty tried, but did so-so. At least he said something.

I don’t watch cable news, only clips online. There was a post the other night with vid from O’Reilly’s show.

You’re right though, Republicans don’t defend their own like the Democrats do.

conservative pilgrim on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

You don’t even realize that the phrase “over the top rhetoric” is an invention of the media and used to silence opposition.

I think there is “over-the-top rhetoric,” and it sort of requires a bit of sensibility to discern what is and isn’t over the top. It requires objectivity.

There’s a good article on RCP about the numerous instances of politicians and other figures referring to Palin as better dead than alive, frankly. That’s direct, and that’s over the top rhetoric. I have certainly seen similar things written about Obama. About Bush. Well, you get the point.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

I can’t believe any one takes this woman seriously.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

I think Tom’s one toke over the line already…

golfmann on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Maybe this should have been released about 30 minutes prior to Obama’s speech. That way he would be stuck attacking people.

I just hope this doesn’t become another Wellstone Memorial today.

jeffn21 on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

the only dialogue I’ve seen that incites violence IS FROM THE LEFT…with their calls to assassinate bush…what do yoku think about all that rhetoric hmmmm davey??? never saw you or any other lib denounce it.

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Can you give me a comprehensive list of behaviours to conform to, so that I too, can be acceptable in thine eye?

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

When the accusers double down on a baseless accusation, it burns people up. That’s freaking human nature. I have said this before, repeatedly, and I say again, you can only call a person a villain, murderer, or Nazi for so long before they genuinely become angry. You cannot beat someone about the head and scream about their violent nature indefinitely without them eventually clenching a fist and punching you in the thrice-damned nose.

OK, so you would agree that when people say the government is after their freedoms, trying to turn this country into a socialist (or worse) state, saying the president is a mulslim who pals around with terrorists, born in Kenya and who wants to create death panels that will decides who lives and who dies in the Dystopian States of America… that when they have all this rhetoric pumped in their head coupled with claims that we need to not retreat, but reload and that their may be “second amendment solutions” for “real Americans” to “take our country back…”

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

That’s direct, and that’s over the top rhetoric. I have certainly seen similar things written about Obama. About Bush. Well, you get the point.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

I haven’t seen anything written like that about Obama, link please.

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Just an observation –

I’m a little surprised that some people here are not complaining that Palin did not get angry enough in her statement and call out her critics by name with withering rhetoric. A lot of you seem to want John Boehner, Michael Steele, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and other national Republican officials to get pissed and angry in defending Palin, and call them “wimps” for toning things down at this time of inflamed passion; yet when Palin herself issues a very mild-toned and measured statement, you fall all over yourselves to say it is pitch perfect.

Double standard? Just asking.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM
=================

You are right! Was she in Detroit? I shouldn’t have made levity at that!

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Inanemergencydial:America is entering the Rhetric Dark Ages,
and so,I’m paranoid about saying anything
related to “sights” *wink-wink*!!!haha:)

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM

HOORAY

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Is the air getting a bit thin up there in Canuckistan, Davey?

Extrafishy on January 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Tim Pawlenty: I wouldn’t have said “blood libel” boo.

RedRedRice on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

That’s why you have Snow White and the dwarfs. I think T-Paw is Bashful. I just hope Sarah hates apples.

bw222 on January 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Leadership! Hey Mitt, Hey Huck and all you other squishy wanna-bes…this is what people want: Someone with a vision that is willing to step up and rally people behind them. Say what you want about the ‘Cuda…but she doesn’t stick her finger in the air and check which way the wind blows. She speaks her peace according to what she believes. That is leadership.

search4truth on January 12, 2011 at 8:51 AM

You just nailed the entire phoney baloney GOP, RINOs, big tent, friends on the other side of the isle, bipartisanship, mentality and the two posturers who are leading the GOP pack of media darlings, who will also be defeated by there Blitzkreig of agenda driven verbal Alinskyite attacks.

Sarah, showing true leadership, has exposed them and their transparent motives,which rational people have all known for years.

Why, GOP, is simple truth -that which alone will set us free from these wannabe tyrants – so difficult to say?

Don L on January 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Kudos to you Rywall for waiting a few days before launching into your obtuse, misguided, and intellectually bankrupt tut tutting.

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM

I am not a Sarah Palin supporter. I do not agree with several of her positions. And, I hope she does not run in 2012, because I think she would be easily beaten by Obama with all of the media lined up against her.
.
But I must say that her statement is easily the most poignant, rational, responsible, measured, compassionate, lucid and germane piece that I have read about the Arizona shootings from any journalist, commentator, blogger, politician, or other. Palin’s words were those of a wise leader, downright presidential. And her piece was brilliant in that it will force Pres. Obama to stay out of the gutter of hasty conclusions where the rest of the media and filthy bloggers like Kos.
.
And I think Palin’s words will resonate far more with normal people than anything I have read from the above.

JeffB. on January 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

hasn’t happened so far, what makes you think it will happen?? the only violence is see is on the LEFT…like this guy who friends describe as a LEFT WINGER.

that when they have all this rhetoric pumped in their head coupled with claims that we need to not retreat, but reload and that their may be “second amendment solutions” for “real Americans” to “take our country back…”

uh how does that compare to OBAMA’S ‘BRING A GUN’ COMMENT??? hmmmmmmm????? lets see you answer that…bet you can’t.

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:07 AM

I think there is “over-the-top rhetoric,” and it sort of requires a bit of sensibility to discern what is and isn’t over the top. It requires objectivity.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

The point is “over the top rhetoric” is only applied to Republicans and conservatives. Hell, some dem Congressman called for Governor Scott of Florida to be put against a wall and shot yet the media ignored it.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:07 AM

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Your level of dialogue incites boredom.

Brian1972 on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

To all the trolls here. It’s telling that you took so many days to get here trying this kind of dialogue in attacking her. Your narrative requires a bit of pretzel logic and you needed some time I imagine. Here are some unrefutable bottom lines though.

1. This man that shot the Congresswoman is more leftist than anything.

2. Most of us here would be satisfied to just understand that he’s insane without trying to make political points like liberals are.

3. Palin has been the target of every conceivable image that is now being decried by the entire liberal world. (Posters of her being punched. Two skits of her being hit a knocked to the ground by Terry Tate. Hung in effigy by West LAers. Sandra Bernhard saying she should be raped in NYC when she visits. Her children attacked by late night hosts and on and on and on.) Your side owns hate.

4. Your DNC and DailyKOS put actual targets on maps and spoke about “targeting” and putting bulls-eyes on the congresswoman specifically.

5. Your president has used rhetoric with references weapons and getting physical with people that disagree with his.

Need we go on? There’s not a rational mind that really believes she could have influenced this nut. But you’re still here trying to associate Palin with a bit of simple topic association, innuendo and outright lying.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Double standard? Just asking.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

There is a difference between “toning things down” and wimping out. Some of us recognize that difference.

Extrafishy on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

the only dialogue I’ve seen that incites violence IS FROM THE LEFT…with their calls to assassinate bush…what do yoku think about all that rhetoric hmmmm davey??? never saw you or any other lib denounce it.

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM
———-
Sorry do disappoint you, jacka*s: I’ll denounce that rhetoric right now. Those calls to assassinate Bush were way way way way out of line. Inappropriate, disrespectful, stupid.

KILL BUSH was the ONLY dialogue you’ve heard that incites violence? That is amazing BULLSH*T.

Keep your party blinders on, fool.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Silent during the Bush regimeget bent leftist.

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

“This isn’t blood libel! It’s only ‘blood libel’ when we lie about the Israelis! This is libel-libel! Man that Sarah Palin is dumb. Sheesh.” – NYT Editorial Board

forest on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Dave, most of us gave up on “I’m rubber, you’re glue” somewhere around fourth grade. Don’t you think it’s time you did as well?

kiltedscotsman5 on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

“repeat everything the media pumps into your head” = Hotair talking point

Stop repeating the Hotair media line.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Stupid.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Congressman called for Governor Scott of Florida to be put against a wall and shot yet the media ignored it.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:07 AM

he gets to write an article for NY times decrying violent rhetoric….

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Good job. She has directly addressed the politically correct hypocrisy that is trying to take advantage of this tragedy, and that is destroying the nation. And frankly, she has done it more effectively than any other viable possible candidate. She seems to know intuitively that silence is the worst response to the Left’s demagoguery. And unlike so many others, she’s got the guts to stand and fight for what’s right. If she keeps doing this she will use adversity to propel her forward, to the utter dismay of her enemies.

The only thing wrong with her speech was that she gave Obama too much moral credit.

paul1149 on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Just an observation –

I’m a little surprised that some people here are not complaining that Palin did not get angry enough in her statement and call out her critics by name with withering rhetoric. A lot of you seem to want John Boehner, Michael Steele, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and other national Republican officials to get pissed and angry in defending Palin, and call them “wimps” for toning things down at this time of inflamed passion; yet when Palin herself issues a very mild-toned and measured statement, you fall all over yourselves to say it is pitch perfect.

Double standard? Just asking.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t necessarily want conservatives and Republicans to get in front of a camera or microphone and just start shouting. What I do want is for them to defend themselves and each other against what is an orchestrated smear campaign by the left. That doesn’t require a 10 minute rant or foul language.

Palin nailed it in her address without even harping on it that much. She used strong words like “blood libel” and emphasized that the blame should be laid at the feet of the killer and the killer only. Huckster did that in an editorial yesterday. Pawlenty’s kind of done that in interviews. But where is everyone else? Where is Mittens? Boehner? Cantor? McConnell? Ryan?

Doughboy on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

OK, so you would agree that when people say the government is after their freedoms, trying to turn this country into a socialist (or worse) state, saying the president is a mulslim who pals around with terrorists, born in Kenya and who wants to create death panels that will decides who lives and who dies in the Dystopian States of America… that when they have all this rhetoric pumped in their head coupled with claims that we need to not retreat, but reload and that their may be “second amendment solutions” for “real Americans” to “take our country back…”

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Perhaps, but of all of those phrases you list, Sarah Palin actually said only the words “death panels” and “reload.”

You are such a stickler for precision in language; perhaps you should be more precise in listing words that Palin actually said before criticizing her. Everything else in your post are phrases either said by someone else or completely manufactured. And to bring up the “death panels” phrase as incendiary at this time is really sophistry, when you are well aware of the context in which she said it.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Double standard? Just asking.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

No, they actually are wimps. What are Mitt’s real core values on anything?

bw222 on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

can’t believe any one takes this woman seriously.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Why would you not take her seriously? 40 of the 63 new GOP reps are linked to their Teaparty. If there was any national voice that gave legitimacy to the Teaparty, it was Sarah Palin. While the GOP was busy debating whether it was “good or bad,” and even Bachman pulled out of the big rally due to problems, it was Palin who simply didn’t cancel and congratulated local activists for their “exciting” entry into being active in politics.

I remember. I agree with her, too. I may not like every Teaparty idea or even agree with some of the rhetoric myself, but I love the involvement of people in their own lives, their own communities and states, and I applaud her for encouraging people.

I’m done with the “too detached” style. Roll up your sleeves. Give it your best. Lose with grace. Win with grace.

I like her message alot.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Intending to turn Palin into a pariah by falsely pinning responsibility on her of the madman’s violent acts last weekend, instead the Leftists have fallen flat on their faces. Instead, they have provided Ms. Palin with the opportunity to exhibit her Presidential Moment. Palin’s response was so classy, so common-sense, and so American, it puts the blame game to shame and shows the Leftist agenda for the un-Americans they really are.

stonemeister on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Stop repeating the Hotair media line.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Mr. Talking-Points himself.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Is someone making plans to make sure their premonition comes true?

mizflame98 on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Sorry do disappoint you, jacka*s: I’ll denounce that rhetoric right now. Those calls to assassinate Bush were way way way way out of line. Inappropriate, disrespectful, stupid.

KILL BUSH was the ONLY dialogue you’ve heard that incites violence? That is amazing BULLSH*T.

Keep your party blinders on, fool.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

I’m surprised, kudos to you dave. no its not the only dialogue….Obama’s BRING A GUN COMMENT does too…

or that former DEMOCRAT congressman’s call to kill the governor of florida…

what dialogue are you talking about hmmmm dave?

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

You are correct..The HuffPo kids are off and running..:(

Dire Straits on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

No. Where were you with all this concern about the discourse in the country between 2001-2008? Nowhere.

Let’s write a screen play about somebody killing the President.

Not a generic, fictional President, but the current President, by name. It is only art, after all. We must understand what the deeper meaning of the artists intent is, by graphically depicting the President being shot at close range and falling to the ground.

Right?

Brian1972 on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Stop repeating the Hotair media line.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Mr. Talking-Points himself.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM
—–
OH NOES STALEMATE LOGGERHEAD

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

So does the level of dialogue incite violence or doesn’t it, Palin?

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Are you angry? Do you want to be violent?

Vince on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

KILL BUSH was the ONLY dialogue you’ve heard that incites violence? That is amazing BULLSH*T.

Keep your party blinders on, fool.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Links?

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Palin nailed it in her address without even harping on it that much. She used strong words like “blood libel” and emphasized that the blame should be laid at the feet of the killer and the killer only. Huckster did that in an editorial yesterday. Pawlenty’s kind of done that in interviews. But where is everyone else? Where is Mittens? Boehner? Cantor? McConnell? Ryan?

Doughboy on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Good grief, man, John Boehner is the Speaker of the House, a body which has a member fighting for her life now as a result of this horrible crime. Thnis is not abstract for him or about politics; he knows the woman personally, and he also knows that could easily have been him lying in that hospital and his aide dead. What in the world do you expect him to be saying right now? Why is is his job to defend Sarah Palin, or the Tea Party, or anyone else? His job is to run the House and be the Speaker of all House members, Republcian and Democratic.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Wow that was a perfect chastisement of the irresponsible people who engaged in the blood libel. It was a calm, dignified and presidential response. God bless Sarah and her family.

I pray for all the victims of Loughner,, Krugman, Matthews, Clyburn, Durbin, Olberman… And those victims include us TEAPartiers…

Sarah is right, the Hatefilled Left does not like us and wants to shut us up. There is no doubt in my mind they had this response prepared and waiting for an event to unleash it. They know who Sarah Palin is and what she will be to this country and have been planning this and more attacks against her. Her supporters will only become more resolved to help her succeed.

CCRWM on January 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

I would say that while some of those example are foolish ( he does pal around with an unrepentant terrorist ) the others are protected by the Constitution whether you like it or not and we all know that you don’t. I would also say that ‘wanting’ to take up arms and doing so are miles apart. I want to drive a ’57 Chevy Nomad.

darwin-t on January 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Typical.

Lefties are the enlightened ones, conservatives need to be spoon-fed an opinion.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Doughboy on January 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I thought Boehner’s initial comments were very good.

AnninCA on January 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM

rbj on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

I’m not using this tragedy to smear political opponents. I’m using Palin’s own words to show that she is not very bright.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

OH NOES STALEMATE LOGGERHEAD

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Well, anytime someone asks you to provide some equivalent proof of GOPers being as over the top as hatful leftists, you never produce anything. So, the dialogue normally does end about there I’m afraid to admit.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

When looking at the paid troll fury here, I can conclude that Sarah hit a home run off Team Soros.
Sucks when people fight back, huh?
Get used to it, scum.

jjshaka on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

No, they actually are wimps. What are Mitt’s real core values on anything?

bw222 on January 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

He did write a book about it, you know. Perhaps you should read some of it.

rockmom on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Ya know,Liberals are acting as if this nutjob had
a letter,mentioning the ‘Cuda,and an alter,that had
a map of Alaska,with a Moose Head under it,and a neck
lace of Grizzly Bear Claws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

F”n UGH!!!

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

To riff of Jeff Foxworthy, you know you may not be very bright when you contradict your own argument in the matter of a couple paragraphs.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Obviously you, and others glean from this, what you want. Most of us read it, for what it is. She was eloquent, and sincere. It’s just a shame that some feel an apology should be given, or an excuse….or worse yet…a submission to the lefts demands of others that don’t agree with them.

Nit pick all you want…but it doesn’t change the fact, that Palin did an excellent job here, and was honest about it. She did it with far more dignity, and grace then Obama would have done, had the tables been turned.

capejasmine on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

She says: “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

Then she says: “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.”

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Well Tom…you can’t be arrested for murder by just “talking” about Murder…..
You can be arrested for murder by actually “committing” murder.
See the difference.
Liberals and their allies in the press are “inciting” a large swath of the American people by blaming them for a crime that they had nothing to do with,not to mention the pathetic hypocrisy they are showing in the process of this.

If a Tea Partier goes out and shoots someone yelling “I’m tired of the lies and slander”…..he should be held accountable for his actions…..not the NY Times,liberal pundits,and other liberals who made these baseless accusations.

The fact that you can’t understand a pretty clear point does not make Palin hypocritical.

The democratic party’s rush to use the blood of innocent people for political purposes is shameful, disgusting and they need to be held accountable for it.

Baxter Greene on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Palin just took New Media to a new level. I suspect even FOX is surprised. Who needs old media at all now when you can put out your own hi-def production straight to the public. Meanwhile I suspect Todd is studying, “Modern Television Lighting Techniques”, because of the reflection on the glasses glitch that was missed. Sarah is AGAIN ahead of the competition.

bigmike on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Many seemed to forget that this is not a case of equal offense. One side is lying and attacking full scale for political gain. The other side is basically recognizing the evil that’s creeping into our society by the left. Saying what it is, is not deception or dangerous (not speaking is what is dangerous) or anything other than speaking,what the left abhors more than anything -the truth.

Why else do they spend all their efforts trying to silence it, either with Hush Rush, bills, internet controls, countless vicious personal attacks upon the messengers that fail to wilt at their polical correctness and hate speech games, or the “crisis is your fault” so let’s pass a freedom killing bill?

Don L on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

OK, so you would agree that when people say the government is after their freedoms, trying to turn this country into a socialist (or worse) state, saying the president is a mulslim who pals around with terrorists, born in Kenya and who wants to create death panels that will decides who lives and who dies in the Dystopian States of America… that when they have all this rhetoric pumped in their head coupled with claims that we need to not retreat, but reload and that their may be “second amendment solutions” for “real Americans” to “take our country back…”

you’d agree that there’s only so much of that stuff people would here before wanted to take up arms against the government?

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Potentially. There are kooks everywhere, but what a madman does with another person’s words is the madman’s responsibility. And, I do believe that if the left would shut the hell up about Bushitler, Cheney leading American troops to kill American citizens in the streets prior to Nov. 2nd 2008, Nazi Tea Partiers, raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacists, and the Palin Fish Massacre of Aught Ten (h/t wrongheaded RINO Jazz), the Right would also quiet down.

Besides… the Left is trying to take over the country, and turn it into a socialist hellhole.

The death panels do exist, or did, ’til they got nuked – again.

I’m sorry, I said nuked. Pardon my violent rhetoric.

Now, as I said a moment ago, what a madman does with these words is their responsibility. With that in mind, you’d best lead by example, and clamp down on your violent rhetoric about how Palin’s and the Tea Party are responsible for the violent massacre in Arizona.

If you don’t, I’m afraid you’ll be guilty of incitement to violence the next time a Lefty goes nuts on someone.

This isn’t difficult, young one. o.o Your mind is simply incapable of grasping the fundamental inconsistencies in your mind, and the truth of what is occuring in the USA. Perhaps one day you’ll realize it.

KinleyArdal on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I can conclude that Sarah hit a home run off Team Soros.
Sucks when people fight back, huh?
Get used to it, scum.

jjshaka on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

absolutely. the dark lord is upset, and has put his minions to work…

right4life on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I’m not using this tragedy to smear political opponents. I’m using trying to use Palin’s own words to show that she is not very bright, and failing rather spectacularly.

Tom_Shipley on January 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

FIFY

kiltedscotsman5 on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I have no doubt “blood libel” was used intentionally to we-wee up the leftist nuts. It’s working. More hate and venom coming from the left directed at Palin. Instead of stopping their insanity they’re getting worse. It shows the world exactly who and what the left is.

darwin on January 12, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 15