Really? I know she makes millions of dollars off of her trademark ignorance, but really? Right at a time when the national mood is tiring of the faux soldier/violence rhetoric, before the bodies are in the ground - she responds with this? PS - it appeasr she actually stole the phraseology from a WSJ blog post on sunday: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html At least be original when you step in a pile of dung, lady.
cleverly disguised attempt at faux outrage and attempting to appear smart for knowing what the term "blood libel" means after some early morning googling.
yeah, not like sam admitted he didn't know what the phrase was like 15 minutes ago or anything. the fact that she does says a lot though.
Despite the origins of the term, I'm pretty sure we all understand the meaning of it in this case, so I'm not really offended. *edit: I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a stupid comparison. But I'm used to that from her by now. I'm just amazed she actually used it in a semi-correct context (and spelled it right, too!).
Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she's one of them. --Josh Marshall
She also used the term "light unto the nations" or something close enough to raise an eyebrow...though neither that nor the term "blood libel" is unfamiliar to people who are daily readers of HaAretz...or Torah. "Blood libel" is a popular term used in op-eds in Israel to mean all sorts of things that it probably shouldn't. Palin has either been reading things of zionist/Jewish/Israeli significance, or probably more likely, her speech/ghostwriter is Jewish. I wouldn't be shocked in either case, since the Hasbara amen corner seems to love her unabashed support for the Likud agenda and she's been rumored to make a visit to Jerusalem some time this year.
I'm not going to retire to the fainting couch and claim I'm ultra-offended, but it just seems that, amid cries to tone it down and stop with the asinine rhetoric, she busts out the Pogrom imagery. Seems poliltically dubious and a ppossible misstep.
If she knew what it meant she is delusional. To compare what's happening to her with blood libel? If she didn't know what it means then she's an idiot, and probably delusional as well. It's amazing that she thinks so highly of herself and feels she's so important.
Not much of a big deal. It sounds cool in a sound-bite, cooler than simple libel or slander. It's an exxageration, which is the politician's expertise. Ignore her and ignore the folks who'd be incensed because they failed to ignore her.
And that's all any of us ever need to say about S. Palin. Period. I understand why the media brought her up, given the crosshairs and Giffords' direct comments warning about irresponsible rhetoric, etc, but ultimately I think it was inappropriate and stupid of the media. I mean, it was in the *first* reports of the incident. My man crush on David Brooks continues. The Politicized Mind "... We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons. I have no love for Sarah Palin, and I like to think I’m committed to civil discourse. But the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible. ..."
Meh, I don't mind what Palin said this time, "blood libel" phrasing aside. She's right -- this guy was apolitical in this case and was basically just a crazy dude. While I think the social environment doesn't help, I don't think it was the cause this time. The problem I have with her, in general, is that she refuses to apply this same logic to other things such as Muslim terrorists.
My man crush on David Brooks would continue too, if reading his columns weren't the equivalent of taking a shower in Eau de Stupide and then talcoming off with a Crushed Lazy He's occasionally got an insight, but more often than not he mails it in making the lazy play, couched with an inconsequential nonsequitur of dim pop sociology. It's really a huge toss-up between him and Thomas Friedman as to who is the laziest hack on the NYT rotation. I'd put Dowd in there too but she's basically just a bad standup comedian who keeps on performing even after the club manager is flashing the red light over and over again.
Whatev. The media brought her up because she increases ratings. She would be quickly forgotten if given the airtime she warranted: zero. Brooks brings some great psych points to the forefront of his column. Makes Krugman's piece on the tragedy look like a "return to sender" junior high special. SRSLY.
