CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 12, 2011 10:15 PM UTC

Palin Responds to Giffords Shooting, Criticism

  • 156 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve been talking about the relationship between bellicose rhetoric in the recent election cycle, frequently typified by statements and campaign materials from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson Arizona this past weekend.

This morning, former Gov. Palin released this response, which you can view for yourself:

Talking Points Memo:

Four days after a gunman attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin responded to criticism over a map she posted before the election that featured gun sights over 20 targeted Democratic districts, including Giffords’s.

“Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions,” Palin wrote in an early morning post on her Facebook account on Wednesday. “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.”

“When we say take up our arms, we are talking about our vote,” Palin says in this video. Does that, if it’s to be accepted as metaphor, apply to Sharron Angle’s talk of “Second Amendment remedies,” or Tom Tancredo’s warning that the President is a greater threat to the country than nuclear war, or any of the other things we’ve discussed in the last week as examples of violent rhetoric employed by highly visible spokespeople on the right?

Or is it only a “metaphor” now that the election is over–and something awful has happened?

There also seems to be controversy building over Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to describe the association of Palin’s rifle target over Rep. Giffords’ district before the election and the shooting. “Blood libel” referred to lurid, false rumors about Jews in medieval Europe told to justify their persecution. The problem with using that term here is this (beyond simply being offensive to Jews–and Giffords herself is Jewish): what Palin faces is presumption, but with a rationally arguable link to her actions.

Bottom line: isn’t it just possible that, even if Palin is right, and nothing she said or did affected the tragic events in Tucson last weekend, that Americans are becoming sick of the violent rhetoric from the right wing? Sick of the crosshairs, the rage, the endless over-the-top accusations and denunciations, the dire warnings of imminent harm to America that have no basis in reality?

If so, we can’t see how celebrating one’s right to behave that way is going to help.

Folks, that’s what we’ve been saying on these pages for days now. This shouldn’t be about whether or not this heated, violent kind of political rhetoric had any direct connection with the Tucson shootings; the point here is that these tragic events should give all politicos pause to think more carefully about what they say and the imagery and metaphors they use. We say it’s well past time for politicians in every political party to stop using phrases like “take up arms” in a political context–because there just might be a couple of people who hear that who don’t understand that this isn’t a statement to be taken literally.  

Nobody here is saying that Sarah Palin or anyone else shouldn’t have the right to say whatever they want. But maybe they just shouldn’t say these things, by their own volition, and their own sense of restraint, simply because it’s the right thing to do.

Tweet
Share

Comments

156 thoughts on “Palin Responds to Giffords Shooting, Criticism”

  2. The Jewish Community is outraged over her remarks

    Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” – which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzoh for Passover – touched off an immediate backlash

    “The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews. The comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi…

    This is a truly stupid women, surrounded by really stupid advisers. The only good i see in all of this is that she can never run for office.  All of this will be used against her and her Tea Party Thugs.

      2. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-…

        The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) President and CEO David A. Harris said in a statement. “Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today.”

        “This [blood libel] is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today”, Harris added.

        http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mi…

        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.

        http://www.democraticundergrou…

        the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Palin’s use of the term:

        Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a “blood libel” against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries – and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.

        All we had asked following this weekend’s tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin’s invocation of a “blood libel” charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…

        A pro-Israel lobby group, J Street, called on Palin to apologise for the reference because her use of it “pains and offends” many Jews.

        “We hope that governor Palin will recognise, when it is brought to her attention, that the term ‘blood libel’ brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds,” the group said.

        1. That was barely my point. What are Jewish groups supposed to do? Say “Oh right, Sarah Palin, you’re just like all the Jews that were murdered because of misinformation during the Inquisition!”? It’s been my experience that the Jewish people will never hesitate to call out someone for being insensitive toward their history, or to remind or instruct people who are ignorant about the persecution we’ve faced for thousands of years. Good for them for calling her out for using it incorrectly.

          There are literally dozens of examples of out-of-context usage of this phrase that got zero attention because the person saying them wasn’t Sarah Palin the week after an incident that many people (wrongly) blamed on her.

          Palin is a dumbass, but she’s not anti-Semitic.

          1. How many hateful comments makes a group hateful and the leaders Anti-Semetic and Racist? Dumbass, yes, hateful, yes!

            For the the New Black Panther Party it was one comment.

            How many times do we excuse this behavior as “well, they just didn’t know better”. For all you know Karl Rove wrote this speech.

            This wasn’t by accident.  I just don’t by it anymore.  And i am not sure why all of you are!

            1. I wanted to vilify Palin as much as the next Democrat, but what good does it serve to label her anti-Semitic or saying she incited Loughner if it’s not true?

              I don’t think Palin hates Jews. I think she needs to go back to college and take as many English and History classes as possible.

                1. even if that was the case, I don’t know why labeling what she sees herself being the victim of as “blood libel” would be red meat for the anti-Semitic portion of the far-right. Unless you’re saying she knew that it would piss off a lot of Jews, which would definitely make them happy, but then that would mean that she was trying to throw her political career under the bus. In which case, why make the speech at all? That was already being done for her.

                    1. What about it is going to make people who hate Jews happy? I’m Jewish and I didn’t even register it right away because it’s been so long since I’ve heard the term used. You think Palin threw it in there because she thought “Hey, anti-Semites will get this reference, but pretty much everyone else is too stupid to know what I’m talking about. Plus, any controversy that’s created by it will be icing on the cake as far as inciting the neo-Nazis and Jewish conspiracy theorists on the right.”? That’s bonkers.

                      Like I said, Palin is so god damn narcissistic that she genuinely believes that she is the victim of a blood libel. People can criticize her all they want, but it shouldn’t be calling her an anti-Semite.

                    2. She does seem to thrive on the negative press from the liberal media.

                      If that’s the case, she got exactly the reaction she wanted.  

                    4. And she has a new speech writer .

                      And a new videographer.

                      And I now know how she’s going to be a viable frontrunning candidate for the nomination.

              3. I have had a few people smile in my face and call me nigger when i walked away.  There is one person in the MMJ movement that doesn’t know i know they have said this about me.  About four people have told me what this person thinks of Scott and I.  The term “Uppity Niggers and Power Monkeys” seem to fit us nicely.

                That is kind of how racism works.  Most racist are cowards.

                She is hateful and all of her actions have shown us that.  Why would she get a pass using a hateful piece of Jewish history on a video about a shooting a Jewish congresswoman.

                How many things can she do that are hateful before we say she is hateful?

      1. But what does that have to do with anything? The connection between anything that she is saying to any heritage of the Congresswoman is irrelevant.

        It’s possible that Palin is digging her own deep, dark hole of a failed political career right now, but this is quickly turning into the Democratic Party’s version of the Birthers.

        1. The phrase “blood libel” brings up a very specific set of events. For Palin to call herself the victim of a blood libel is basically appropriating Jewish history for her own political gain, and trivializing very real attacks on Jews. It’s exactly like comparing your opponents to Hitler and yourself to a Holocaust victim, except for the fact that there’s greater historical distance so it’s not as immediate for most people.

          If you’re going to do that, and try to make yourself a victim in the same way that Giffords is a victim, it’s really low-class to do it this way, because it feels like yet another traumatic experience that’s happened to Jewish people has been appropriated for something trivial.  

          1. But I think it’s a stretch to say that she’s being anti-Semitic or engaging in anything but gleeful self-victimization.

            Personally, I’m not offended by her use of the term. Especially after seeing the amount it’s been used by columnists and pundits. If it’s OK for Andrew Sullivan to use it out of context (admittedly not to describe himself) then it’s probably OK for Sarah too.

            Classless? Probably. Extremely narcissistic? Absolutely. Racist…? I’m not buying it.

            1. 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.

              -Alan Dershowitz

              RSB – What an apt comparison of some Polsters’ rabid, frothing hatred of Palin to the birther movement.  Nice work.

        2. that Gifford’s heritage occurred to Palin  when she chose this phrase because I don’t think she had a clue about the history of the phrase or Gifford’s heritage when she used it.  To me it’s just another illustration of her profound ignorance. It just makes her look stupid, while the refusal to acknowledge the increasingly hateful, vitriolic tone of today’s politics as a problem in and of itself makes her look defensive. If she doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with using rifle site targets in a graphic on her site, why was it immediately taken down?

          Also while general terms like “fight” are accepted as metaphors, GOP pols talking about bullets instead of ballots and  the possible need for second amendment solutions to  challenge a democratically elected government can only be taken to mean exactly what the words say:  If you can’t get it done at the ballot box the next step should be armed insurrection.  

          I’m perfectly willing to say that Sarah Palin is not responsible for what happened in Tucson. But she certainly isn’t demonstrating any presidential or statesmanlike qualities here.  She loves spewing venom and disdain, loves to be applauded and worshipped for being a smart ass and is incapable of any level of thoughtfulness on any subject, in any situation. She’d make GW look like Lincoln by comparison.

          2. I think that’s how dogwhistle politics works these days. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush used to do that kind of stuff all the time: play off the idea that they were too dumb to know better in order to send signals to the extreme right wing to get them mobilized.

            Regardless of whether the three of them actually knew what the signals meant or were just reading speeches, it’s been a very effective technique: the base thinks they actually are really clever and thus sending the messages they’re hearing, and everyone else thinks they’re too slow-witted to know what they’ve actually said.

            I doubt Palin meant this particular phrase as a dogwhistle, but she’s certainly used the technique before.

      2. .

        if the shooter is also Jewish ?

        I’ve read somewhere that his Mom attended the same Temple as the Congresswoman.

        Of course, that was raised in the context of whether he was anti-semitic.  Does it apply here ?

        .

        1. .

          and I can tell you, after exhaustive research, that YES, the shooter is Jewish.

          Also, NO, he definitely is not.  

          More importantly, I just found out while doing that research that there is a news network just for us white folks.  It carries “white news.”  

          .

              1. .

                I was interested in seeing what they post there,

                but if I’m ever arrested for alleged spouse abuse, or whatever,

                I don’t want some computer forensics geek (like most of you posting here) to find that I visited that site, and have that tidbit all over the news tomorrow.

                I was too afraid to check it out.

                .

    3. Are we suprised?

      It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes her to post a tweet defending her use of the expression “blood libel.”  Somehow she’ll find a way to use the criticism to portray herself yet again as a victim of the liberal media.

    4. She should have chosen a different methaphor.

      I’m sensitive lately. In the last few years, I’ve been told in a work environemnt that Jews don’t respect the American flag and holocaust survivors are ungrateful for liberation while a sup stood by and did nothing. I had a lead say that I had to expect anti-semitism anywhere in a team meeting(he was shocked that I said the civil rights act of 1964 says that I don’t), and he referred to Rose Medical Center as “that Jew hospital” repeatedly. I had a manager bring me into his office and ask me why I din’t like Gen Irwin Rommel.  I got laid off for complaiining. The lead got promoted. The manager still has his job.

      That’s Qwest communications.

      It’s good to work now in an environment free of of flagrant anti-semtism. The legal  department at Qwest protects the anti-semites like they protected Joe Nacchio.

      1. .

        I personally never hear that kind of anti-semitism.

        Rather, I hear about the kind where Christians and Christian America should help Israel take over the Middle East, because that will force Jesus to return to Earth, kill all the Jews and put fundamentalist Christians in charge.

        Or something like that.

        Contrast that with the wimpy Jewish response to pushing God’s buttons:

        “Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test.”  

        .

        1. Some fundamentalist Christians want the Dome of the Rock torn down so the Temple can be rebuilt so Jesus can come back and then give my people 1 more opportunity to deny their faith or be sent packing to hell ( which Jews don’t believe in.)

          It all started at Qwest when a particular manager came in. I’m sure that it’s not company wide, but the division sire changed when the man that wonders why a Jew dislikes a Nazi General was hired. He also claims to not know that I was Jewish, even though I wear a Star of David. In repsonse to the flag issue, I brought in 2 smal flags:one American and the other Israeli. I placed the American flag higher than the Israeli flag.  Qwest legal thinks that a 38 year man can’t figure out that I’m Jewish. They also think that a 30 year old man doesn’t know that referring to Rose Medical Center as “that Jew hosptial” didn’t think that it was derogatory.

          The lawyer for Qwest legal is probably doing what he was told.  

  3. I wondered why the Snowbilly posted on Vimeo instead of Youtube. Answer: You can’t emded it without permission.

    And hate speech is free speech unless it’s directed at the former half-governor herself.

  4. I think creating a tangible link between Palin and Tuscon is a stretch–but that doesn’t excuse the disgusting demagoguery she has made her own. But this speech shows that while her handlers can get her to deliver a bunch of “Purple Mountain Majesty” rhetoric when it suits them, they can’t cover up the total lack of personal and historical perspective that a credible national political figure needs to have. Sarah Palin does not have it.  

    After an election cycle where she and her allies frequently adopt seditious militia imagery to fuel political rage and make money for themselves, she dares play victim while the country is mourning this tragedy?

    The use of “blood libel,” which apparently one of her handlers cribbed from a WSJ Glenn Reynolds piece, just once again reaffirms Palin’s total lack of respect for history.

    The best way to answer her critics and show the character of a presidential candidate would be to not answer her critics–and continue to feed the sick, symbiotic relationship between Palin and the mainstream media that feeds on her bullshit.

    Once again Sarah Palin has consolidated behind her the base of support that already support her, and alienated the 71% of Americans who won’t–and now never will.  

    1. is both cribbed and incredibly stupid.  I have never heard the term before today despite my being of advanced age, decent education, fairly well read, interested in history, and not just a little familiar with Christian and Jewish traditions.

      I see “her” facebook posting as more evidence that she is too stupid to even make up her own shit.

      1. in my comment on Palin that anyone who doesn’t know what blood libel means is ignorant. I’m sure most, like me, didn’t know before it was mentioned in the media, that Giffords is Jewish, either.  We can’t all know everything about every pol in every state. But we aren’t public figures with presidential (or at least celebrity candidate) ambitions.  

        She didn’t say anything for days so you’d think she’d use that time to get all the info she could before shooting off her mouth and that she’d be focused on coming up with something dignified and statemanlike.  Of course that would be assuming she is interested in anything beyond being a well paid dumb celebrity flame thrower, the Snookie of the GOP base.  I’m not sure that isn’t as far as her aspirations go, and not a bad plan for someone with her limitations. It does present a bit of a pickle for the grownups in her party.  

        2. My point, beyond my almost aways admitted ignorance, was that it was a term of such genaral unfamiliarity that I can not possibly imagine that it hadn’t been written (scripted) for her by someone else.  That’s all.  You’ll remain one of my favorites.

          1. I’m Jewish and of a generation,grandchild of immigrants from Old Country and child of the WWII generation, where that seems to me like common knowledge.  When I read your post I realized it’s not and thought, boy I hope everybody who has no idea what this means doesn’t think I’m calling them ignorant.

            1. Running for President?

              That was already a foregone conclusion to most.  She’s going to raise a shitload of money, and continue to drive libs to irrational insanity for many years to come.

              1. Sarah Palin’s crazy irrationality isn’t going to drive us libs anywhere.

                She has no power to do that. Unlike crazy irrational people, she has no effect on us.

                I don’t understand why you don’t get this.

                You are deluded, defensive and offensive.

                  1. She’s just very ignorant, small and mean spirited and has lucked into a place on the national stage that will allow her to be a national wacko right celebrity and get rich. Contrast her all about me performance today with President Obama’s as well as Gov. Brewer’s, for that matter, along with that of most DC pols on both sides of the aisle and the difference is stunning.  

                    The contrast between their display of decency, empathy, humanity, dignity and leadership and Palin’s childish, self serving pettiness was pretty jaw dropping.  I don’t believe any serious person could ever again consider Palin for any elected position involving any level of leadership after today. Not that she won’t milk her presidential run celebrity tour for all it’s worth or that she won’t retain enough rabid fans to make the whole thing quite profitable.

        3. Exactly.

          She solidified her base, and did nothing to reach for the middle.

          Those that love her will always be there, but will never be enough to elect her.

          1. and he was, but he got elected anyway.

            As H. L. Mencken said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” Not that I agree with the quote, but it’s certainly true that Americans tend to find politicians who act dumb really appealing. Especially in the middle.

            1. I read Reagan’s biography by Lou Cannon, and read a lot of excerpts of letters he wrote to his children, friends and family – and they really were a window into the way he thought and felt. They demonstrated a ton of depth as a human being, something Palin has none of.

              Ronald Reagan was a very intelligent man, and a very thoughtful one to boot.  Yes, I think the Alzheimers started to take hold before he left office.

              Plus he wasn’t particularly mean spirited, vindictive or nasty towards people – reminds me of Obama now, and again not of Palin, Beck, or their ilk.

              IMHO.  Big IMHO there. And yes 90 % of his policies sucked.

            2. of a Reagan.  He was popular with Rs, Indies and many Democrats. He was also the opposite of a flame thrower. Sunny optimism was his thing, not hating your enemies.  Palin is more in the Rush Limbaugh category.  Very popular with a bitter, bigoted, xenophobic base that will keep her rich. No chance in a nationwide election.

  5. What strikes me about this video is her complete inability to understand the moment here.  This video is all about her, how she feels and how she has been attacked.

    I don’t think she was responsible for The gunman’s actions but It probably never occurred to her how painful it is for the friends and family of the victims (and for the friends and family of other people she included on that list -which includes 2 of Colorado’s former reps) to see that map and that imagery played over and over again.  And like it or not, that was something she created and now has to live with.

    Regardless, today is a day to mourn.  At the very least, she should have chosen another day to make the conversation all about her – again.

    And btw, I think she would have gained herself more sympathy and a little respect if she just said, “you know what, this is not my fault…but we all should take the opportunity to tone down the conversation and I am not going to use anything like that map again in the future.”.  

    1. Go back and look at the thread on Pols announcing that Giffords had been shot.  Note the time, and then note the time the first post with Palin’s name or something having to do with it was posted. This happened all over the blogosphere.

      Within minutes, national news was putting Palin’s picture on while talking about the shootings.

      Yesterday, Polsters were whining about her ‘deafening silence’.

      The libs (incorrectly) made this about Palin, and her response was an ass-kicking.  These murders are only going to be found to be less and less political as every day goes by, and the rest of the country will remember the zeal the left had in blaming this on the right for absolutely no reason.

      1. Palin’s response to this or anything else is the stuff statesmen or presidents are made of…nope…I can’t believe it of you, LB. I think you just like being contrary.

        1. She won’t be President.  But she’s not responsible by any stretch of the imagination for this.

          This whole sad, tragic episode has shown the majority of American’s the left’s crazy red ass, not Palin’s.

          1. And if you go back and look at the thread you mention, you will notice I was not one of the people commenting.

            However, the idea that this response was “ass kicking” from any point of view, is simply wrong.  It looks like what it is…another publicity stunt.

            And LB, I don’t understand why all the defensiveness about having a conversation about political rhetoric.  The election is over for another 2 years, in light of everything, it’s a good time, as a nation, to get together and say, “whether or not political speech had anything to do with Tucson, our government would run better if we did less to demonize the other side.”

            Good people from both parties have said just that in the last few days and I, for one, think that should be the one good thing that comes out of this.

            Putting together a video talking about “blood libel” is not rising above or being a stateswoman…it is cheap and it looks cheap and it shows that she ahs learned nothing at all.

            And btw, Palin has put herself in the middle of this conversation by her own actions.  No one is screaming that Tim Pawlenty is an inciter because, even though I disagree with the guy’s politics, he generally comports himself with class and does not take every opportunity available to be the loudest voice in the room.  Palin should learn that lesson and until she does, BlueCat is right…she is not the stuff that statesmen and presidents are made of.

            1. The 2012 election started in February 2009. The entire midterm election was meant to be a referendum on Obama, and the Republicans’ goal in winning it was to prevent him from winning re-election.

              Everything, even a memorial for shooting victims, is political. It’s all about jockeying for advantage.

              It’s exhausting to participate in it.

          2. I think it shows the right pretty defensive about where they’ve let their crazies take them and their utter cowardice in the face of the Big Fat Idiot and all the Little Idiots, afraid of saying anything that will get their frothing wackos riled even if it’s only “No I certainly don’t agree that Democrats support assassins and terrorists and hate their country” or “Yes, I agree that manufacturing a gun memorializing an insult to our President,’You lie’, is in  pretty poor taste and sends an unfortunate message”. Even something so mild and reasonable and adult as that might cause the BFI and his wannabes to frown on them and they can’t have that.  

            But I’m so happy to hear that you don’t consider Palin presidential material. May I just say… Whew! 🙂

      2. and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug, sayeth Mark Twain.

        There is a difference between saying that violent rhetoric (largely though not uniquely from the Right) may have an encouraging effect on someone like Loughner, and saying that some specific Right-wing personality was responsible for that shooting.

        Loughner, from what little we know, appears to be someone highly influenced by the things he read and heard; he seemingly dwelt on conspiracy theory and on the meaning of words at a level that even most conspiracy buffs wouldn’t consider healthy.

        As I wrote in another diary, words mean things; if you didn’t mean them the way you said them, why did you say those particular words in the way you did, when you did?  The reason most seasoned media professionals and politicians say certain words is because they mean them; they mean to effect a certain reaction from a certain group of listeners.

        Sarah Palin didn’t mean to reach the Jared Lee Loughner’s of the country with her targeted Congressmen and her “don’t retreat, RELOAD!” Tweet – or at least I’ll be charitable and say she didn’t.  But she did mean to reach a certain group of people who would be energized and riled up by her words – who believe that the government is almost always bad, that it’s trying to take away their guns and gun rights, and that it’s being taken over by Nazi-Socialists called Democrats.

        In the process, it’s quite possible she reached out to a broader audience than she had (hopefully) intended, with a different effect than she intended.  And in the aggregate of hate speech and revolutionary rhetoric that permeates the airwaves and Internet, it is more than likely that at least one person’s over-the-top words informed Jared Lee Loughner’s actions.  Democrats are acknowledging this fact and trying to moderate the tone; Republicans such as Palin (and apparently you) are digging in, defending the wisdom of using this kind of heated and meaning-laden verbiage.

        For me, that is sad.

    2. It’s partly her narcissism, but it’s mostly a reflection of the eternal battle for slight advantage. It’s the same way Laughing Boy will not under any circumstances admit that the tone of the debate is too violent, or that anyone should tone anything down, and the same way I haven’t apologized for deciding with little evidence that Loughner was a tea party nut like Jim Adkisson, Richard Poplawski, and Joe Stack.

      It’s very easy for many of us to find a series of justifications, “You did it first” so it doesn’t matter how obnoxious or manipulative of a real tragedy we’re being. Before the bodies are in the ground we’re already seeking a poll that says the public thinks the assassinations make our side look better.

      A lot of people are detached from all this and can come together in the wake of a tragedy. But Palin’s not, and neither are a lot of us. She’s a product of the “internet tough guy” age, where trolling is an art form and all that matters, all we should ever be held accountable for, is what we said in the current thread.

      I guess I’m not really trying to make a point, I just find it depressing.

    3. and correctly so, that there is no evidence that Loughner was motivated by right-wing political ideology and at the same time acknowledge that inflammatory words could incite the unbalanced, so let’s tone it down.

      She chose not to.

  6. I liken this to being the same thing if she said:

    …she had been “lynched” by the liberal media (Black people would be upset)

    …she had been “scalped” by the liberal media (Native Americans would be upset)

    I could go on but you get the point.  At a time when Americans are upset and fearful, why would a LEADER use words they know to be inflammatory against large portions of the public.

    And RSB, you should defending her.  She is not worth you defending her.

      1. She should have said nothing, instead of using the shooting as a cheap attempt to get publicity.

        The speech wasn’t aimed at the nation, it was aimed at her base, and had all the requisite dog-whistle “poor me” rhetoric needed to press their buttons.

        1. She’s being blamed for a horrific act that she has no responsibility for purely out of a political vendetta.

          I’m glad she said what she did, and I’m glad she hammered her accusers so effectively.

      2. an acknowledgement of her own violent rhetoric. That would involve introspection  and empathy, 2 things that I don’t believe Sarah is capable of.  

          1. Has Joe Lieberman (yuck) failed VP candidate put cross-hairs on anyone, has Joe Biden, has Al Gore? When a Democratic political leader does it, then you can claim both sides are doing it, until then it is a lie. The really sad part is I believe that you know it is a lie LB.  

                    6. http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

                      is the original Daily Kos post without the “helpful” graphics. As far as I can see, this is the only thing I would call insensitive in the wake of Tucson:

                      Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.

                      LB is right in pointing out that this had as much effect on Tucson as Palin’s now-infamous deleted map, but it’s a poor example if we’re talking about equitable shares of nasty political discourse.

                    7. has put cross-hairs on anyone??? The leaders of the Tea Party movement have advocated for violence in a way that the left hasn’t. The false equivilances are disheartening. Bible Spice has been pushing violent rhetoric since her VP nomination. Has Joe Biden advocated for the death of his opposition?

            1. Thank you for your invitation the other night.  I would love to sit down for a nice cool one with you.  Err, I’m assuming that “chai” is a west slope code for beer.

              I don’t know what made me think of this, but I would like to share one of my favorite sayings.

              Never try to teach a pig to whistle.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

              I think I got that one from one of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein

              Peace

            2. You could help me find my spiritual way in exchange for lessons in the proper use of contractions!

              BTW, that’s the most arrogant thing you’ve ver said here, and that’s a huge accomplishment.

              To ask someone to repent to their maker because they disagree with you politically?

              You sound like Jerry Falwell.

              1. “asshole motherfucker” was worse than pal, but maybe that’s just in my hood.  Growing up on the mean streets of Lower Buttholio, KS, pop. 3000 may have colored my perception.

      4. Since the Tea Party has done nothing to endear me to them with all of the racial issues over the last two years ( which you would have me believe are just made up in my head) no,  Sarah Palin to me is hateful and the leader of many hateful people.

        Sorry LB, you can’t show me an apple and tell me its a steak.  You take everything the Tea Party has done and explain it away, comment by comment.  How many more racial ugly things has to come from these people for you finally say, OK.  Maybe the Tea Party are some really nasty people.

        Many of you jumped on me when i was pissed about the monkeys that many Teabaggers brought to rallies, or the swastikas.  Now, its Jewish terms after a Jewish member of congress is shot.

        So, let me get this straight….the monkeys weren’t racist, the swastikas weren’t racist, the speech wasn’t hateful, Sharon Angel didn’t mean what she said, Palin didn’t mean what she said, Beck having a rally on MLK day was perfectly fine and now blood libel is perfectly fine…when is enough, enough?

        Sorry LB, maybe I am Black and overly sensitive, but how much do you think I should be ok with?

        It only took one comment from the New Black Panthers for most of you to detemine they were scary and hateful.(I am not defending them, so please do not digress).

      5. Look in the mirror.

        I’d have tons of respect for her if she expressed any regret at the mere possibility that her inflammatory words and images might have incited violence.  I’d have appreciated any insight that she feels at a human level what her political presence means to the country.

        Instead we get a First Amendment defense.  She has the right to say inflammatory and bellicose things.  That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing for her to do.  If Bush ever expressed regret that there were no WMD in Iraq instead of making incredibly offensive jokes about it, I might have some respect for him.  Similarly, any glimpse into Palin’s humanity would have been appreciated.  We got more of the “woe is me, the lamestream liberal media is out to get me.”

        1. .

          maybe tomorrow she comes out and apologizes for using “blood libel.”

          Hard for me to believe that nobody on her staff involved with preparing this broadcast didn’t know the history of that term.

          .

    2. First of all, I don’t think the two terms you mention right here are equitable to “blood libel”. Both of them are widely accepted a being culturally offensive.

      Second of all, as I posted in another thread, plenty of liberals and conservatives have used it out of context without being called anti-Semites.

      Third, we already know that Palin is a no-talent, classless, downright ignorant ass clown who has little respect for us or our party.

      Lastly, I don’t think this is going to lead us anywhere except for assuring that Palin won’t be the nominee in 2012–which is something I WOULD LOVE.

      1. I am just not in a place to believe that ONCE AGAIN…IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.  WE DIDN’T REALLY MEAN WHAT WE SAID.  ALL OF YOU MINORITIES ARE TOO SENSITIVE.

        How much more, RSB?  How many more times am i supposed to buy that?

        Are you saying the Right is just socially ignorant to everything that is not gun toting or redneck?

        1. You simply would take anything Palin might ever say and manage to turn it into something racist, anti-semitic, etc. that you really want her to have said.

          1. It is just me again.  Like it was just me being sensitive to the monkeys and swaistkas?

            I get it now.  You are saying that i am so blinded, I just don’t know how to recognize ugly when it is throw at me time and time again.

            Is there anywhere in you that thinks there is something wrong with your comment, that i am just living in a made up world of pure imagination?  No pot jokes please….

            1. LB probably thinks it’s OK if “Dr. Laura” spews the N-word towards you.  It’s all in your mind, after all.  If you try to oppose racism, you are condemned for being “PC.”

               

              1. Want to be embarrassed?  Shoot me an email on my profile and come to work with me for a day.

                Then you can come back on the board and apologize to me, or you might just want to do it now for inferring I’m a racist or tolerant of those that are.

                2. I did not accuse you of racism.  

                  Did you approve of “Dr. Laura’s” use of the N-word on her radio show?

                  Were you one of the many right-wingers who accused those who criticized her for being “PC.”

                  Nice dodge, but you didn’t address the point.

                  1. I don’t like that word, and I have a hard time imagining an instance when I’d be comfortable around white folks who are using it.

                    I’m not familiar with her show – I know who she is, but I’m not hip to what happened regarding the use of that word. It’s not something I’d do, in private, or public.

              1. He is actually one of the people i respect when it comes to race. He does get it and works to help young people overcome the bad in their life.

                I just think he has a hard on for Sarah that won’t let him think straight

                1. I have a ton of respect for you, too, and I dig you.

                  Is it possible, though,m that you have a ‘reverse-hard on’ for Palin that’s clouding your judgment regarding her?

                  🙂

              2. My point is that right-wingers never concede that any of their dear leaders utter racist or sexist slurs.

                Remember when your buddy Dick Wadhams claimed that Sen. Allen used “macaca” to refer to a haircut rather than admitting it was a racist slur?  Did Limbaugh admit “macaca” was racist?  O’Reilly?  Beck?  Hannity?  Savage?  Gallagher?  Mike Rosen?  John Andrews?  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.

                Do you admit that conservative leaders have made racist statements and, in addition, that it was not simply “PC” for liberals to condemn those assertions?

                Similarly, will you concede that Sharron Angle should never have threatened Harry Reid with a “Second Amendment” solution?

                1. Angle was the third biggest idiot running for national office this cycle.

                  There’s no excuse for saying that, and I’m glad she lost to that shitbag, Harry Reid, because at least he’s not a total moron.

              3. who is pretty well-known as a very conservative advice-giver with a radio show, expressed some really vile racist sentiments on her show, basically telling a black woman that it was OK if her husband’s white friends used the word “nigger.”

                Palin was one of the few who came to her defense in the wake of that controversy. She’s not afraid to call out use of language (she was apparently unhappy when someone used the word “retard,” rightly so I think), so this struck me as really rubbing it in black people’s faces that she just doesn’t think they’re worth as much. It was totally unnecessary, and the kindest thing you can say about it is that maybe she doesn’t personally have contempt for black people because they’re black, but rather because it pisses off liberals.

                  1. was that she was complaining about her husband’s friends. The idea was that when she was in the room, they didn’t consider her really “black” like those other “black” people, so they felt free to use racist language and insults. I think she was complaining about her husband tolerating it.

                    1. .

                      your version sounds more true to life.  They thought of her as part of the furniture.  

                      That’s a far more disturbing image than if her husband, who married her, after all, was just saying it to pull her chain, as I supposed was the case.

                      .

                    2. http://emptysuit.wordpress.com…

                      I don’t know if there’s any context from before the caller started talking. Schlesinger brings up her anti-Obama resentment pretty quickly.

                      By the way, I think you’ve been probably one of the most sensitive people on the board in this whole thing (I found your defense of the parents particularly moving), and I just wanted to say I appreciated that.

                    3. .

                      my kids are mixed-race Korean.  I blame my wife for that.

                      My brothers and cousins have married blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Muslims, one brother even married a Caucasian.  

                      We were raised similarly, with some racism in our mother’s milk.  We all try to be respectful of everyone else, but we slip up some times.  

                      My sons have been horrified by something they’ve heard me say.  

                      I have accidentally insulted people I knew well, and folks I hardly met.

                      As for “sensitivity” for the shooter’s parents, I can recall things I’ve done or nearly done that could have embarrassed my parents so much that they would have to move to another neighborhood, if neighbors found out.  

                      Without that memory, would I be so thoughtful ?  

                      I’ve had several dear friends with serious mental illness.  I even feel some measure of sympatico for this killer.

                      Life is tough, and a lot of us don’t get the minimum amount of love or attention needed to make it through unscathed, and a lot of that just looks like bad luck, rather than evil.  Then there’s the whole thing of being born with mental or emotional defects.  

                      my catholic church teaches me that I deserve eternal damnation for my sinfulness.  That can be a lot to take in, but if I accept that, it has to affect my outlook.

                      .

          2. Do you deny that leaders of the right wing have made racist or anti-semitic statements?  Or does “macaca” indeed mean “mohawk”?

            The problem with people like LB is that their political bedfellows are never wrong.  And, if they are, the liberals’ criticisms are always part of some left-wing plot.

            There is nothing wrong with placing gunsights on a map of Congressional districts, and if you criticize the inflammatory rhetoric of the Tea Party bunch, you are trying to silence your adversaries, bring back the Fairness Doctrine, regulate the Internet, unleash “Big Sis,” etc.  The horror!

            A pretty thin-skinned bunch, those gun-totin’ Grizzlies!  

  7. not just here, but other blogs, is how upset the liberal set is over whatever the hell it is Caribou Barbie said in her little “address.”

    This wasn’t for us.  We’re not supposed to like the message.  

    The little corner of the conservative world that still eats up her BS are who this “woe is me” crap is supposed to reach.  And it’ll probably work.  

    She doesn’t have to show her understanding of this moment.  The (far?) right doesn’t seem to get it…why should she show she get’s it?

    1. .

      “Woe is me” is the core of the movement.

      When there are flashes of racism, I contend, they are individual, not representing the group.  

      But since this group has weak identity and no discipline (it’s not really a party, folks,) there’s a lot of noise (birther, truther, gold standard, Protocols of the Elders, satellite mind control, Palin fans, U name it) mixed in with the core angst over getting old and irrelevant.

      Neither Palin nor Armey nor Gingrich leads all of us, none can claim to represent more than a little corner.  Our strength is in our Diversity (I borrowed that.)

      .

      1. Wow, Barron. That’s some “us” to claim association with. Where do you fit in? I didn’t realize you were old enough to qualify for the old and irrelevant or weird enough to qualify for any of the other categories. For your sake, I’m hoping you left something out and that something is where you fit in!  

  8. The uproar over Palin’s self-serving statements is a distraction from the real issue — why won’t politicians speak out against members of their own party who threaten opponents with bodily harm.

    Why didn’t the Republicans criticize Sharron Angle for this exchange in 2010:

    Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

    Interviewer: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

    Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

    Whatever your ideology, Angle should have been roundly condemned for hinting that a sitting Senator should be shot if not voted out of office.

    Where were the conservatives when “patriots” spouted threats about “watering the tree of liberty” with the blood of “tyrants”?    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…

    Let’s stop debating whether Sarah Palin misused “blood libel” and focus on whether we, as a society, should condemn threats of violence against elected officials.

      1. if the right to elect our own government was usurped. If a President and his party announced they were taking over for life and that there will be no more elections, we’re in charge now, that’s tyranny and armed insurrection is a legitimate response.  If you think the legitimately elected government is lousy, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles, better luck next time, take them to court where you think their policies or legislation are unconstitutional, investigate what you think is criminal but armed insurrection is treason. Pretty simple. We don’t do bullets when we don’t like the outcome of ballots in our system. Period. The Angles are crackpots.  

  9. Was incredibly stupid and insensitive.

    Ditto the mention in the first few lines of her missive about how touched she was by a Catholic mass for the victims.  There were non-denominational services, and plenty of news reports of prayer services at Giffords’ Synagogue.

    The target of this rampage was Jewish.  Blood libel has been used to justify pogroms and the Holocaust.  For Palin to appropriate this imagery to promote her own victimhood (however justified by the rush to judgement) is offensively ignorant.

    But she really doesn’t give a rat’s ass what Jews think of her.  We’re not her audience.  She appeals to the angry old Tea Party base.  I hope she is stupid enough to think their adoration is enough to propel her to the Republican nomination.  She’s narcissistic enough.

    1. I saw her mention the part about the Catholic services – and they were non-denominational ?

      I really wonder WHO TF VETTED HER SPEECH !  It was absoulte ass clownery.

  10. comment on Palin’s comments.  (That way I wouldn’t have to suffer through watching her video.)

    But, coming across this quote while reading another article,

    “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.”

    (I’ve already confessed my heretofore ignorance of the term “blood libel.” Although I was aware of the historical circumstances that gave rise to this term, until today I never knew that particular term existed.)

    I have to wonder in what twisted logic Ms. Palin can believe that her brand of rhetoric is always benign first-amendment protected patriotism, but the words of “journalists and pundits” are capable of inciting hatred and violence?

    Palin probably doesn’t know what “reprehensible” means, but she personifies it.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

204 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!