Did it help anything, michecon? Really? A productive launching pad for good conversation, was it? No, it was hyper-partisan, inflammatory trash. I don't think Palin deserves any time in this story. I don't think her mega-stupid "map" (like she could name half the states on it) had any influence on this shooting rampage. But why spend any time defending something mega-stupid? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Going back to the original topic - the reviews are in for her speech and they're pretty bad: I wouldn't be surprised to see her favorability ratings take yet another nosedive - I think this might really be the end.
Nobody should expect anything different. As I mentioned earlier every single speech she gives only talks to her base. She never rises above anything, never does anything that would make her more mainstream. She's just a fringe politician with a relatively small but rabidly loyal base.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/01/12/sarah_palin_president/index.html Sarah Palin will never be president The stunning narcissism and inability to even fake empathy show why she'll never lead the nation I don't know what's worse: That Sarah Palin knew the term "blood libel" has historically been a cornerstone of anti-Semitism (it specifically refers to the gruesome lie that Jews murdered Christian babies to use their blood in matzoh) or that she's so ignorant she didn't know what "blood libel" meant. I am honestly not sure which is true, but I know one thing, having watched her atrocious, tone-deaf, all-about-me video: Sarah Palin will never be president of the United States. The narcissism required, on a day the nation is commemorating the Arizona shooting victims, to put her own sense of victimhood front and center, is stunning. The "blood libel" idiocy may be the worst of it, especially given that Giffords herself is Jewish. But that's not the only thing wrong with her performance. Hilariously, after all the times she's mocked President Obama for using a teleprompter, you can see a teleprompter screen reflected in her eyeglasses throughout much of her Facebook chat. Seeing the flickering teleprompter in her eyes is eerie; it's where some flicker of her soul should be, but you don't see any. Looking into Palin's eyes, you see a blazing, self-pitying anger that's shocking, even for the self-described "pit bull in lipstick." Palin delights in shocking us; this rant is worse than most of what she's done, but it's all of a piece. She'll rally her friends to her side and further alienate those who already hate her, but she may add new people to the latter group. Her friends are already circling the wagons: On Twitter this morning, the National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez defended Palin and said "'blood libel in purest sense of the phrase' is how one political insider approvingly spoke of palin's use of the phrase to me this morning." In the purest sense of the phrase? Really? "Blood libel" in the purest sense can't possibly have anything to do with the criticism Palin has experienced since the Tucson shooting. National Review founder William F. Buckley must be in despair over the folks who've inherited his project. Buckley kept John Birch anti-Semites out of his magazine, and in 1999, Buckley devoted a whole issue to his 40,000 word essay (which became a book) "In Search of Anti-Semitism," examining examples of right-wing animus against Jews in modern-day conservatism. Buckley sadly concluded that his friend Pat Buchanan's attacks on Jewish neocons (while ignoring the movement's non-Jews) amounted to more than "mischievous generalizations"; they were anti-Semitic. Predictably, Pat Buchanan defended Palin on MSNBC today. "Frankly, I thought it was an excellent statement with regard to the phrase 'blood libel'," Buchanan said. "That, of course, refers to the libel that was used in the Middle Ages, charges against Jews that were utterly unsupportable slanders and I think she's using it in that context." That statement makes absolutely no sense, of course. Buchanan went on to say that Palin "is not a dispenser of hate, she's a victim of hate." Buchanan's seal of approval isn't likely to reassure Jewish voters. But at least one Jew has defended Palin: Alan Dershowitz, who's already proven he's happy to flout Jewish social teaching by defending torture, said he's fine with her use of the term. But many Jewish groups, from the liberal J Street to the often conservative Anti-Defamation League, have criticized Palin's use of the hateful term. I'm not making the case here that Palin is anti-Semitic (although it's interesting that one of her first advisors was Fred Malek, the guy who counted the number of Jews in the Nixon administration for Buchanan's old boss). More than any other American president, Palin reminds me of Richard Nixon, who rode a coalition of resentment and grievance to the presidency. Nixon had his own deep well of self-pity, immortalized in his famous "last" speech in 1962, where he promised, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." But Nixon also learned from his loss to John F. Kennedy and the reaction to his "last" speech to project more leadership and less anger and bitterness. Palin hasn't learned anything since she lost her campaign for the vice presidency in 2008, except how to "reload" on her enemies after criticism. Tuesday's speech isn't really surprising, but it did make it plain to me: Palin can't be president. She's a divider, not a uniter, and she can't even pretend to be anything else. Americans won't forget that while Giffords and other shooting victims were still hospitalized, Palin was tending to her own psychic wounds. So very petty, so hugely unpresidential.
With how the things going now, I won't mind if other teams target Yao Ming as their big man acquisition.
bad stuff . . .For one, Obamas Presidential legacy will be noted for a time period of great and tremendous division...The tea party was started during his reign as a counter to his ununited policies ... Another thing is the term Palin stated received barely a register of complaint from the Anti-Defammation League...The head of the ADL stated: "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" - criticism?, yes,..but you couldn't get it much milder than that... http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theti...h-groups-respond-to-palins-use-of-blood-libel Personally, if she had a do-over,...yea...next time she will know better, no matter,...I mean even Obama (a better orator, no doubt) has made speech mistakes galore...especially if his teleprompter goes out. . . What is interesting to me is those not so affected, such as those in political opposition ARE the ones most vocal and making sure criticism IS maximized...It is quite transparent to me.
I would have an iota of respect (which isn't much) for Sarah Palin if at least she didn't try to spin the target map of congressmen and women as "surveyor" whatever. So weak and sad that I just feel pity for her.
Interestingly, Palin's video is probably hurting her more than any of the accusations from the left that the Palin/Tea Party politics lead to or at least influenced Loughner. These accusations are, frankly, kind of a stretch and in any case rather premature before we know more about the shooter's story. Nobody who didn't carry partisan feeling from the left would likely really have been moved by this argument. On the other hand, her video, which seems to send a "poor me" message just seem tone-deaf, mis-timed and un-presidential in light of the loss suffered by those who died or were seriously injured. (Look, Sarah, I don't care if the leftists are wrongly accursing you, this ain't time to air your grievances and settle your scores.) This was made worse by the fact that Obama largely had the good sense to not "go there" (i.e. go where, say, Bill Maher and Kieth Olberman would have liked him to go) at the memorial service. Palin is, honestly, doing Obama a favor by showing the citizenry that, whatever his faults, at least Obama ain't a petty b****.
Can't you tell when he makes statements like this that he isn't trying to have logical debate but just piss people off because he's unhappy that Bush got pounded and that Obama might have any success. Bitterness runs deep. Let him be the old man on the street corner yelling at the sky.
In a thread where people talk about making things more civil and respectful, I'm glad you could contribute to the cause. Way to go champ!
is bushs presidential legacy noted for a time period of great and tremendous division too? the teaparty was started while bush was president. mainly by ron paul supporters who were opposed to his liberal spending policies and big government initiatives. the teaparty was co-opted by disgruntled republicans who were upset that 'their guy' didnt win the election. the same people who supported a (republican) president who spent more than all previous presidents combined in the first 3.5 years of his presidency and expanded the federal government beyond anything previously seen...not only did they defend this, but they attacked anyone who dared to criticize. and all of a sudden when a (black) democrat got elected they became 'fiscal conservatives' and champions of 'limited government'. its the epitome of hypocrisy.
