The criticism had to do with wanting to restrict the term to its specific original context, a longstanding vicious lie about the Jewish people. The result of the criticism is that now when someone searches the term "blood libel," they see Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin. If the intent of the criticism was to preserve the purity of the reference, it's had the opposite effect. (If the intent of the criticism was to take advantage of a perceived opportunity to take another shot at Sarah Palin, the hypocrisy is too nauseating to describe.)
Meanwhile, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach says "Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०२ टिप्पण्या:
202 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Sweat and tears libel are still open.
Bears repeating:
Glenn Reynolds on the left's twitching, frothing obsession with Sarah Palin:
"But here’s what’s going on in the dance between Palin and what she calls the 'lamestream' media: Every time they attack her, they wind up doing something that hurts them worse than it hurts her. She may not become President, and she may not even want to be President — though, regardless, it’s in her interest to keep everyone guessing as long as possible — but with little more than an Internet connection and Facebook she’s done more lasting harm to their position than anybody else. Last night Barack Obama threw them under the bus over the whole 'rhetoric' question, just hours after she had managed to work them into a snarling frenzy with an Internet video. Even though it’s hurting them, they can’t — and I mean, literally, psychologically can’t — leave her alone. And she’s getting rich the whole time.
"So I don’t know about 'Presidential,' but who’s dumb, here?"
QFT.
It seems the educated class have never heard of the concept of a dead metaphor.
"Jackknife" is a dead metaphor.
So is "blood libel".
Palin is right. They libeled her when the implication by the left is that the bloodshed of the AZ victims was her fault and of other conservatives. A blood libel.
Glenn Reynolds on the left's twitching, frothing obsession with Sarah Palin:
It really does beg the question, what IS it about this woman? I mean ok, they don't like her politics, they think she's an idiot but the absolute hyperventilating over a former partially term served Governor of a tiny populated state speaks volumes about the mental state of her critics.
"If the intent of the criticism was to take advantage of a perceived opportunity to take another shot at Sarah Palin, the hypocrisy is too nauseating to describe."
Do you doubt for one second that this was in fact their intent?
With every one of these incidents, it becomes clearer that Palin is a landmark figure in American politics.
Althouse, what you have here is the first serious female presidential candidate.
As a feminist, I think you would have some comment on why this first serious female presidential candidate has been marked by the left for assassination.
Alan Dershowitz also defended Palin's use of "blood libel".
It really does beg the question, what IS it about this woman
I think it is more about the values and ideas that she represents. Ideas and values that the left has been trying to stamp out for several generations of control of the schools and the media.
When they see that they have been unsuccessful and that the core values of America still survive and are making a public resurection in the form of the Tea Party, it has driven them into desparate and insane territory.
They MUST latch onto a figure head and have a target (and I do mean that in the most violent context) to demonize and eliminate.
They think if they can cut off the head of the snake, so to speak, that they can kill the message, kill the values and retain the control and power that they see slipping out of their hands.
If it weren't Sarah Palin, it would be someone else. She is just the most visible and effective embodiment of all that they detest. In their eyes, she must be destroyed.
(I pray for the Palins and for their safety)
What a stupid trick to be used by the "intellectuals". Don't they think before they speak? Sarah Palin was the target of a classic Blood Libel , and now she Should Be Ashamed of Herself for using a label from Anti-Semite's classic tactic used to incite hate of their opponents...a false accusation of murder. The shame factor among intellectuals must be rather high from this.
"As a feminist, I think you would have some comment on why this first serious female presidential candidate has been marked by the left for assassination."
That's easy, the left hates women. Even leftist women hate women. It's weird, but true.
I think that there are very good reasons why this woman scares the left so badly. I think that she may have the best political instincts of any major politician since Slick Willie. She has remarkable timing and is almost prescient some times about when and how to respond.
This time, she was almost boxed in by the President, flying into Tucson later that day for the memorial. And, if she had waited, she really couldn't have responded.
So, in the end, we are going to have the picture in our heads of all the destruction and heroism of Saturday, a lot of much diminished figures on the left for trying to utilize this for their own political advantage, Palin for successfully calling them out for it, and the President rising to his job, for the first time in a long time.
And, it isn't just timing on her part. She also seems to be innately able to pick the right term that will resonate with the public in different circumstances. This woman who was supposedly so dumb (and so white) that she couldn't get into Harvard, but instead had to go to various state schools for her degree. And, yet, she managed to introduce "death panels" and "blood liable" into the public discourse.
If it weren't Sarah Palin, it would be someone else. She is just the most visible and effective embodiment of all that they detest. In their eyes, she must be destroyed.
Sorry, I don't agree. It is Palin.
This is one mighty formidable lady. I'm not a political supporter.
Her enemies see her for what she is... a powerful opponent who refuses to back down in the face of this assassination hysteria.
I don't know why God has point the finger at Palin and invested in her this opportunity and this horrible danger. But He has.
She is, indeed, what they fear... and apparently for good reason.
We don't yet know, entirely, what that reason might be.
I wonder how much overlap there is between the people who are zealous about preserving the original meaning of "blood libel" and the people who say "I'm not against Israel, only Zionism"-- even though that statement is gibberish if you limit Zionism to its original meaning.
Sarah Palin used the term because it has been bandied about too loosely by others, especially Jewish and Israeli writers who use it in response to any criticism of Israeli policies or unfortunate events that may have occurred in Israel. I still think it ought to be reserved for things on the lvel of Holocaust deniers and such.
In Palin's post it was just it was just a wrong choice of word; it "clanged," but no more than that.
Wv: dicinout - sushi bar date?
Once again we're confronted by the two faces of Leftism, stupidity and evil. The stupid ones were baffled by the term "blood libel" while the evil ones lied about it's definition.
Shitbags, all of them.
She was using the term as a very valid metaphor, as cubanbob stated.
The Lefties are now in the process of grabbing at straws to try to salvage the situation and every time they try, they make it worse.
Of course, what's fun is the the woman is supposed to be so stupid and they all see themselves as so smart, but she keeps outfoxing them. Mel Blanc and Chuck Jones would understand.
PS Ditto on DBQ's last statement. There is a lot of overtly violent imagery and rhetoric directed at them - now they're even going after her daughters.
WV "didship" What UPS always says.
So they admit that the accusation that blood is on her hands is a libel but only object to her use of term "Blood Libel"? How stupid of the Palin haters.
So if I say Prez Obama is an empty suit, we may get harangued by the MSM for defaming Joseph A. Bank?
wv = faile [what Hdhouse or Dtl will do here shortly]
The shame factor among intellectuals must be rather high from this.
It doesn't matter. Progressives have actively campaigned (gasp...vitriol) to eradicate shame in our culture for nigh upon 30 years.
Further, admission of guilt isn't something they are good at, if capable of at all. I present to you the Duke 88 as an excellent example.
Thankfully Palin spoke up, by calling out the blood libel media--aka BLM aka LSM.
This was an excellent opportunity for her to (again) strongly and aggressively point out how she's persecuted by the mainstream media who called her a murder and/or accessory to murder.
She knows how to score points and draw attention to, amplify, and exaggerate her own suffering, relative to folks who are really suffering, e.g. the victims in Tucson. Never waste a good crisis.
Another thing about Palin that drives the Left insane is that they can't cow her, make her back down with the usual tactics. She even uses some of their own tactics back against them, successfuly. Waaaah. NO Fair!!
Palin is a courageous woman who firmly believes in herself and her values and stands her ground against all of the assaults that they have launched against her and her family.
She makes them nuts because.....she is rubber and they are glue.
:-D
There is a lot of overtly violent imagery and rhetoric directed at them
Yep. And yep. And yep.
The self-anointed "guardians of civility," folks.
Ha...Posted before I saw shoutingthomas and we just made the same point.
Love this by DBQ:
She makes them nuts because.....she is rubber and they are glue.
The use of the libel did not originally have Jews as the target.
The Romans made similar allegations against the Carthaginians and Christians.
It is also used, in a modified format, against rich Westerners who allegedly have third world children murdered so that their organs can be harvested for transplantation.
The argument on this issue really seems to be: "To whom does the phrase belong?" Similar to "Who owns 'Holocaust'."
It really does beg the question, what IS it about this woman
What it is is that she stepped out of her box. Women belong to liberalism; Republicans must be considered the party of anti-woman sexists. Before Sarah Palin, yes, there were conservative women, but they were mostly stay at home churchy moms; they didn't get involved, they weren't sexy, and no one really paid attention to them outside their families. "Real" women shunned them.
Sarah Palin proves that it is possible to be a woman (and a womanly woman at that), a mother, a wife, a career woman, and a strong, proud conservative who didn't need or want liberalism or its crutches. If women catch on that they can be conservatives, loudly and proudly, the liberal hold on them is broken.
They desparately must stop that from happening.
- Lyssa
(PS: They do the same to blacks.)
"We don't yet know, entirely, what that reason might be."
It's true, there are many theories, but we just can't pinpoint why they hate her so much. Maybe it's a combo.
Woman
Attractive woman
Smart woman
Strong woman
Woman/mom who does it all (family, work, evidently has a good marriage with an actual Alpha male)
Pro-life woman and lived it
Normal woman (not elitist)
Courageous woman
Conservative woman
The left hates all those things, but I'm still going with the "hate women" theory.
@TWM
It's true, there are many theories, but we just can't pinpoint why they hate her so much. Maybe it's a combo.
Woman
Attractive woman
Smart woman
Strong woman
Woman/mom who does it all (family, work, evidently has a good marriage with an actual Alpha male)
Pro-life woman and lived it
Normal woman (not elitist)
Courageous woman
Conservative woman
You left out "Adult", that's something a lot of the left can't lay claim to being.
That's what scares them the most, she's a grown up, she means business.
And since that didn't work they have now moved on to the meme that Palin is unqualified to lead because she had the nerve to defend herself in her statement. Of course we're not supposed to notice that this criticism comes from the same people who spent days accusing her of being an accessory to murder.
I can't figure out if the lefty media pundits are really this dumb or if they just assume everyone else is.
She could have chosen a better phrase AND her critics are just irresponsible by continuing to harass her over it. The two ideas, it seems to me, work together. After all, this is the history of the woman.
Palins is the most amazing political phenonmenon I've seen in my 45 years.
Her critics blast her, she over-reacts to that criticism, and then her critics have to over-react to her over-reaction.
And off we go.
FWIW, I wouldn't vote for Palin if she were running against me. And I'm completely unqualified to serve in office.
That, and that she seems to be such a happy woman. They really can't take that.
With every one of these incidents, it becomes clearer that Palin is a landmark figure in American politics.
?
She sure is. 92% know of her. 22% approve.
The thing is -- only political junkies and ardent Palin supporters/foes care about this.
The voting public? Not so much.
The Lefties are now in the process of grabbing at straws to try to salvage the situation and every time they try, they make it worse.
Even as we speak: Poll: More think left is to blame for heated political rhetoric than right
Some of the people attacking her have actually used the term in the past. This is one more attempt at harming her but they pointing the gun(pardon the metaphor) the wrong way. I don't know if she will ever be president but this is the way to elect her.
Her critics blast her, she over-reacts to that criticism, and then her critics have to over-react to her over-reaction.
I don't think that she over-reacts. What she does appears almost surgical. One jab, and the fight is over. She makes one statement, and the debate pivots. Time and time again.
She sure is. 92% know of her. 22% approve.
Number of people transfixed by Palin's every word: 100%.
Thumbs up in the Wisconsin State Journal
As Wisconsin goes so goes.....um...or is that some other state.....
"I think it is more about the values and ideas that she represents. Ideas and values that the left has been trying to stamp out for several generations of control of the schools and the media."
I disagree. There are plenty of men with the same values. If she were a homely woman, I don't think she would draw as much hostility but she is the very image of the liberated woman who runs marathons, etc, etc. She cannot be ridiculed, not for lack of trying, so she has to be hated.
I don't think that she over-reacts. What she does appears almost surgical. One jab, and the fight is over.
I'm not at all convinced that she's electable as a president, but I do agree with what Bruce said here. Short of having the ability unquestionably beat your opponent, the next best thing is to keep them on the defensive.
What continues to astound me is that left in general, and previously the White House specifically, were kept on the defensive nationally by Facebook posts and tweets from this seemingly very capable woman. That in and of itself is remarkable, regardless of your political stripes.
The longer the state controlled media keeps beating this dead horse, the more they will show who they truly are - bunch of incompetent nincompoops. They think they have the world by the tail and they have found out that they can't let go of the tail. Be interesting in the next few days, weeks, months and years to see how this plays out.
Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh live rent free in their pea brained minds and the obsession about these two people will be their undoing. Hopefully it will be soon.
I don't think that she over-reacts.
Sorry, time after time when the smartest course (in my view) would be for her to ignore a broadside or use humor to deflect it, she has to up things with an in-your-face response.
Sometimes the smart decision is so say nothing and let your opponent foul himself up.
Her attitude - and I understand how it could be attractive - is to be in your face and to "reload" against her opponents. Yes, that's good to a point.
She doesn't seem to know when not to respond.
"Even though it’s hurting them, they can’t — and I mean, literally, psychologically can’t — leave her alone."
She sure is. 92% [SNIP]
Ladies and gentlemen: Exhibit "A."
How does one "over-react" to a false charge of murder?
I think the source of the resentment is pretty clear: social class. The leftest movement is now largely focused on obtaining political power for a particular set of elite social classes (government, academia, law). This has largely been a war with other elite classes (business, military) in the multidimensional US class system. The idea that working class whites can achieve political power on their own is horrifying to the left, not least of all because many of them have done everything in their power to leave that class and "move up" on some status axis. They must do everything in their power to delegitimize her and dehumanize her (cf. e.g. Sullivan, Andrew, scumbag).
I'm far too conservative to agree with Alan Dershowitz on policy, but I admire his willingness to publicly take principled stands even if they go against his liberal allies.
She doesn't seem to know when not to respond.
She chose precisely the correct time to respond.
Her opponents accused her of complicity in a mass murder.
Maybe, just maybe, she forced Obama's hand. That statement from Obama that nobody was responsible for an atrocity committed by a madman may have been forced by Palin's statement.
Now, you would remain silent in the face of an invented accusation of your complicity in a mass murder?
You're bullshitting is you say yes.
This is not normal politics. This woman is pleading for her life in the face of an assassination hysteria.
Stop talking nonsense.
Yea that message from her Pretend Alaska Oval Office went over awesome! America just LOVES her!
/Fantasy Bubble World
Sorry, time after time when the smartest course (in my view) would be for her to ignore a broadside or use humor to deflect it, she has to up things with an in-your-face response.
But that is what those on the right have been doing for a long time now. It doesn't work. Not long term. Palin changes the debate, and she wouldn't do that by following in the footsteps of all those who go-along to get-along.
The longer the state controlled media keeps beating this dead horse, the more they will show who they truly are - bunch of incompetent nincompoops.
Speaking of this OT, can anyone please tell me the difference between Tom Brokaw's "I wouldn't go into a bar in AZ" comment and Juan Willaims "uneasy about Muslim garb on an airplane"?
How does one "over-react" to a false charge of murder?
By killing the one who made the false charge?
"By killing the one who made the false charge?"
OK, I guess it is possible.
Some people seem to be unable to distinguish between responding to false charges - which she had every right to do - and responding in a way that exacerbates the matter.
The use of the "blood libel" phrase is not especially problematic for me. But I can certainly see how it would be to others including those who are not Palin haters.
A wiser, less loaded phrase could have been used and she could have made the same justified point.
Again, if you see nothing wrong with the phrase, my complaint doesn't make sense. If you do - as I do - it makes a great deal of sense.
When Palin is responding to her enemies - and her enemies have been outrageous to her - she has to remember that her non-enemies are also listening in.
She wants to be a national leader and not just the leader of the conservative right. Her responses have to take both audiences into consideration.
@garage:
Be interesting when the first polling on Palin comes out covering the aftermath of the blood libel against her.
Already, polls are showing that you guys fucked up royally trying to pin it on her. Americans take a rather dim view of raping women and then blaming them for the rape. Which is what happened here.
Metaphorically, of course.
Yea that message from her Pretend Alaska Oval Office went over awesome! America just LOVES her!
garage, do you have any idea how serious this assassination frenzy the left has cook up against Palin is?
Stop what you are doing and consider the basic humanity of Sarah Palin, her children and her family.
It should give you considerable reason to pause. In fact, even if you hate this woman, you should be praying for her.
1jpb said...
Thankfully Palin spoke up, by calling out the blood libel media--aka BLM aka LSM.
This was an excellent opportunity for her to (again) strongly and aggressively point out how she's persecuted by the mainstream media who called her a murder and/or accessory to murder.
She knows how to score points and draw attention to, amplify, and exaggerate her own suffering, relative to folks who are really suffering, e.g. the victims in Tucson. Never waste a good crisis.
As always, PB&J takes the truth and tries to turn it inside out.
The Lefties, of course, were the ones who tried to deflect attention from the victims and their relatives and shine it on their pet hates. All Miss Sarah did was defend herself. How dare she?
As the Lefties always say, "Never waste a good crisis".
SMGalbraith said...
I don't think that she over-reacts.
Sorry, time after time when the smartest course (in my view) would be for her to ignore a broadside or use humor to deflect it, she has to up things with an in-your-face response.
Sometimes the smart decision is so say nothing and let your opponent foul himself up.
My God, what drivel.
If one is defamed and says nothing in defense or rebuttal, the defamation stands (something we've seen in American politics for 80 years). The only way the Lefties "fouled themselves up" was when people on (and in) the Right answered their lies with the truth.
garage mahal said...
With every one of these incidents, it becomes clearer that Palin is a landmark figure in American politics.
?
She sure is. 92% know of her. 22% approve.
According to whom?
She wants to be a national leader and not just the leader of the conservative right. Her responses have to take both audiences into consideration.
At the moment, I think she's more worried about somebody shooting her and her family down.
What would you do in the face of that?
Speaking of this OT, can anyone please tell me the difference between Tom Brokaw's "I wouldn't go into a bar in AZ" comment and Juan Willaims "uneasy about Muslim garb on an airplane"?
From a practical point of view, I have been in a lot of bars in AZ, but still get a little uneasy when I see overtly Muslim garb on planes.
Bars in AZ are little different than elsewhere, except that the women may be more scantily dressed there in the summer.
I do have a memory from awhile back of two maybe 40 year old women telling me one Friday night how one of them taught the other how to wear a thong, and the other reciprocated by teaching the first one how to just not wear underwear under their dresses in the summer. And, yes, afterwards, keeping an eye out for women doing that.
Sorry, time after time when the smartest course (in my view) would be for her to ignore a broadside or use humor to deflect it, she has to up things with an in-your-face response.
Sorry, if someone accuses me of being an accessory to murder, you can bet that I would not find it in the least funny or use humor to deflect slanderous or libelous charges.
I would be on you and up in your face immediately.
Palin waited until the time was right to get into "their faces" and with the choosing of the right term....Blood Libel....she has effectively put them on the defensive.
Being a namby pamby (love this term) wussy compliant victim is what the Left wants us to do. That is NOT the smartest choice when you are attacked
Screw being a victim and turning the other cheek. Charge!!!!
Almost everyone here is hitting around the bulls-eye (Ops!) but one additional reason I might suggest is that the left simply cannot stand the fact that she so obviously DOESN'T CARE or ASPIRE to either (a) BE like them or, (b) to be LIKED by them. (To be socially, intellectually ignored being the worst of all possible fates and an unforgivable slight of one's social and intellectual "bettors") Worse, that she is an unrepentant, unapologetic, advocate of her beliefs and refuses to be cowed into submission is ABSOLUTELY unforgivable. CARTHAGE MUST BE DESTROYED!
"How does one "over-react" to a false charge of murder?"
Exactly.
If she had remained silent the debate would already be over, and she would have been convicted in the minds of millions. The fact that she reacted at all is considered an over-reaction, as evidenced by the fact that the only complaint anyone has come up with regarding her statement is completely fallacious. She ripped the cudgel out of the Left's hand and now they're whining that they want it back.
From a practical point of view, I have been in a lot of bars in AZ, but still get a little uneasy when I see overtly Muslim garb on planes.
My point being that Brokaw made a comment prejudiced, unrealistically, against an entire group of people and nobody notices. Juan Williams does it against a different group of people and gets canned.
Please forgive my re-posting this, but it belongs in this thread.)
Some commentators, notably Jennifer Rubin with whom I often agree, have taken Sarah Palin (of whom I am not a fan) to task for using the term "blood libel."
Rubin's claim seems to be that this term may only properly be used to refer to a specific libelous myth about Jews. Even Jonah Goldberg, on Fox, thought Palin should not use the term. (Krauthammer, who was his usual smart and decent self, did not see a problem with Palin's use of the term.)
Rubin also seems to want to claim that the word "holocaust" can only be used to refer to the Nazi program to eliminate Jews in Europe during WWII.
In my view, these are absurd and overreaching claims on the part of Rubin and others.
The term "blood libel" is ordinary language and was used for the libelous myth about Jews because it was a libel that involved spilling blood--not because the term was a proper noun or the name of a person or place. Blood libel, as Alan Dershowitz (no fading chutzpah-nik) has pointed out, is certainly now common language and has been used in multiple contexts for years.
Because Rubin is most familiar with their use in a particular context, that does not turn the words into a proper noun. Nor does she have control over how they are used.
Similarly with the term "holocaust," (unless it is capitalized as "The Holocaust.") The word "holocaust" does not mean only the attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII. It is a common noun, a good word with a variety of meanings, and belongs to the community in general.
Similarly, Rubin finds inappropriate the making of comparisons to the Jewish Holocaust in WWII. But while this Holocaust is a horrible, horrible phenomenon, it is hardly incomparable to other genocides in history, even in very recent history.
These words are not Rubin's to control or to ascribe sole meaning to. Nor does she have a right to limit their use and application.
No particular interest group should get to claim common language as their own. In this case, it is the practice of victimhood and an attempt to privilege the suffering and the moral authority of one's own group. 14 million people died in the Nazi concentration camps--not solely 6 million Jews.
In general, the efforts of a particular political or interest group to control what language others may use is a totalitarian impulse that seeks to take something away from others.
Language is the possession of those who speak it, not of those who want to control what others may say.
I find Rubin's claims offensive.
My God, what drivel.
Need to read the entire post and not just a part of it.
Nowhere did I say she shouldn't have responded to these attacks.
Look, if you want her to get those damned liberals and be the leader of the conservative/Tea Party right, fine.
If she wants to be more, her actions aren't the way to do it. Whether you like it or not, the majority of Americans think she is just not ready to be president.
She has to change those views.
The fact that she drives garage and other lefties crazy is all the evidence one needs to see she is in their heads 24/7. They fear her and hate her and secretly wish they had someone . . . anyone like her on their side.
I don't know if she will ever be president - probably not - but she's doing a hell of a job just being who she is.
A wiser, less loaded phrase could have been used and she could have made the same justified point
Why blather on and use a lot of 'big' words or less effective rhetoric when you can encapsule the point in just two words?
Blood Libel
Death Panels
Economy of words that resonate with people. Obama and the liberals spew words ...blah blah blah.
Palin uses just a few words like a rapier. (violent military word alert!!)
I don't know if she will ever be president - probably not - but she's doing a hell of a job just being who she is.
Co-signed.
The other day I overheard two anti palin colleagues talking about the incident,and after going through the usual litany of how she's responsible because of her overheated rhetoric, one of them said that Palin was now getting excessive death threats. And the other one replied "Good!She deserves it".
They literally are incapable of seeing how their speaking truth to power is inflammatory. They literally cannot get the irony that they accuse her of inflammatory rhetoric that targets opponents for death (even though, as described she did no such thing) yet have no problem with twitters that actively call for her death. Because she deserves it.
I would say judge not lest ye be judged, but since they are incapable of judging their own actions it's a moot point. I would say Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? but even if the plank were pushing thorugh their brain and out the back of their head, it's not as if they would actually notice, so again the point is moot.
And I bet you that half the people on twitter calling for her death were outraged that she "targeted" Gillford and used inflammatory rhetoric that lead to her being shot. I'd bet real money on it.
They are literally that stupid.
The left goes after Palin because she won't acquiesce to their insistence that she shut up.
At the moment, I think she's more worried about somebody shooting her and her family down.
What would you do in the face of that?
Hire extra security.
I'll say it again: her critics have been outrageous and unfair. Krugman and Sullivan are despicable.
That doesn't mean whatever she says in response is smart.
She doesn't have high negatives just because the press has been unfair. They have been; but it's not the entire explanation.
Lincolntf wrote:
If she had remained silent the debate would already be over, and she would have been convicted in the minds of millions. The fact that she reacted at all is considered an over-reaction, as evidenced by the fact that the only complaint anyone has come up with regarding her statement is completely fallacious. She ripped the cudgel out of the Left's hand and now they're whining that they want it back.
Not only that she is accused of lowering the debate and not rising to the high ground, while Obama rose to the high ground in his speech. of course Obama didn't have to resort to accusatory language since noone accused him of anything (though he did resort to his standard pablum that didn't actually mean anything). But if you note, the only negative thing that Palin said was that people should engage in blood libels. Her speech was in fact conciliatory. Yet to the liberals, merely repeating the charges against her was an example of her not taking the high ground.
How dare she!
That doesn't mean whatever she says in response is smart.
Not at all and I believe each incident is case by case. But you have to admit that she's been able to keep the left's punditry and politicians back on their heels.
I'm all for Palin-As-Lightning-Rod rather than president.
On Monday, I thought (and wrote), they really may have damaged her. They might have permanently knocked her out of contention for the presidency. Whether that's a wise decision is another topic entirely. I think it's better for the Left if she runs because she can be defeated more easily than a Mitch Daniels.
On Friday, I'm thinking that she just became more powerful, due to the backlash and her video defense, than she was last week.
And the other one replied "Good!She deserves it".
Did you ask them why they thought it was good? It would be interesting hearing the justification. I can't think of one, offhand.
Sorry, I don't agree. It is Palin.
It is and it isn't just Palin. It is just Palin for all the reasons you and others say, all of those attributes unique to her. But we've been down this road before. Bush, Cheney, Clarence Thomas, Dan Quayle, Reagan, and probably others I can't remember right now off the top of my head, also got and sometimes still get the left whipped up into an irrational mouth-frothing frenzy. Palin is just the latest entry into the field.
I fear for Palin's safety. I fear for an America where Palin may be physically harmed.
With all due respects, SMGalbraith, your negatives have been going up. That doesn't mean whatever you say in response is smart.
Not at all and I believe each incident is case by case. But you have to admit that she's been able to keep the left's punditry and politicians back on their heels.
Yes. That's what I said in my first post.
But if she wants to be more - and her supporters want her to be more - that just a prodder of the left, I just don't think she's going about it smartly.
Look at her poll numbers. Her supporters can blame a liberal press (rightly so for the most part); but it's still something she has to change.
How is she going to change those negatives? More of the same, I don't think, won't work.
Again, she has to appeal to more than just the right and have a greater mission than just going after the left.
For me, I like when she takes on the left. They deserve it.
But taking on the left won't get her elected.
And you know, warming to the subject, the use of Carthage is a good historical analogy/metaphor. Rome, like the statist left, was imperialist in nature, while Carthage was mercantilist/capitalist in nature no less than Palin represents the capitalist, libertarian polar opposite to a State directed top-down command economy and regulatory civic society so beloved by the Stalinist left.
In terms of explanatory power it's a simple matter of oil & water--or matter/anti-matter if you will.
With all due respects, SMGalbraith, your negatives have been going up. That doesn't mean whatever you say in response is smart.
When I consider running for President of the Althouse Blog, I'll worry about it.
Until then, c'est la vie.
Speaking of this OT, can anyone please tell me the difference between Tom Brokaw's "I wouldn't go into a bar in AZ" comment and Juan Willaims "uneasy about Muslim garb on an airplane"?
For starters; Brokejaw's comment is just so much bullshit! I live in Phoenix full-time and there are a lot of bars around here I'd think twice about going into.
Has Palin announced that she was running for president?
can anyone please tell me the difference between Tom Brokaw's "I wouldn't go into a bar in AZ" comment and Juan Willaims "uneasy about Muslim garb on an airplane"
Do you see anything about race or religion in Tom Brokaw's statement?
I'm all for Palin-As-Lightning-Rod rather than president.
Yeah, I agree.
But to repeat myself (to the joy of her supporters here), if she wants to be more, she has to change course.
That's her poll numbers talking as much as it is me.
OTOH, if her supporters just want her to get back at the left, fine. But don't be surprised if that's all she'll wind up being.
it's still something she has to change
One thing I think she needs is a voice coach. That could help.
And here I thought that Palin would be pilloried for plagiarism, because Glenn Reynolds used "blood libel" in his Wall Street Journal piece the day before. No one squeaked about his usage.
SMGalbraith said...
My God, what drivel.
Need to read the entire post and not just a part of it.
Nowhere did I say she shouldn't have responded to these attacks.
Look, if you want her to get those damned liberals and be the leader of the conservative/Tea Party right, fine.
If she wants to be more, her actions aren't the way to do it. Whether you like it or not, the majority of Americans think she is just not ready to be president.
She has to change those views.
I did read the entire post. I still disagree. And, essentially, you do say she shouldn't have responded. You also don't elaborate on what she should have said/done. Frankly, I have yet to see anyone rebut the Lefties more effectively than she.
As for her suitability in the eyes of the electorate, she is viewed as not ready in large part because of the media propaganda leveled at her during the '08 campaign. Her resume at the time was better than The Zero's (and probably still is).
What would change that, I have said here several times, is that she needs more time in an executive position before she can run for the top job. Republicans would be leery of anyone with an incomplete resume after The Zero's bait-and-switch. How and where she comes by it is another matter (if, in fact, she wants to be POTUS at all).
As for her views, she comes off as Conservative/mildly Libertarian, which doesn't seem to offend anyone, except on the Left. If all else were equal, I don't believe her views, voice, accent, or anything else, except executive experience, would be an impediment to being POTUS. This "her views must change" thing is a blind.
Garbage Mahal,
Apparantly BO's handler saw the polls the public realizes that the attacks on the Right have failed, so he refudiates the left wing attackers in his speech. Refudiate that if you can.
Re Ms Palin's ability to fuck up liberal minds: lots of good points raised--I would add a couple of more: she does firearms, she hunts, she dresses game, and she didnt go to Ivy League college on an affirmative action admission--she had to cobble together several different colleges to get a degree--something that a hell of a lot of working class people who do move have to do.
Add to that she's hot, conservative, christian, home-schools (I think), seems to be happily married, and in general fucks over every stereotype liberals hold dear--
And as other have noted, she has a very good sense of timing--she pushed Obama to the center given the timing of her presser (of course, others may not agree, but then others are stupid :)
Will she president? who knows? 2012 is a long away away, but I should note the Iowa caucuses are a bit more than a year away.
"But taking on the left won't get her elected."
Not taking them on will guarantee that she won't get elected.
Again, if you see nothing wrong with the phrase, my complaint doesn't make sense. If you do - as I do - it makes a great deal of sense.
Well more than a few prominent Jews have spoken out in her defense of using the term so it becomes a matter of personal preference, which we all know is subjective. When the MSM is basically calling her an accessory to mass murder I'm rather at a loss for the 'appropriate term' for such a false accusation.
If Palin said 'rainbows are pretty', the left would be howling with some manufactured rage over it.
Whatever Palin's present economic circumstance the vibe she gives off is Daughter of The People, which is to say lower middle class. That, more than anything else, is what sets upper middle class teeth (and especially upper middle class womens' teeth) on edge. That's what's behind all the chatter that Sarah can't be smart. She doesn't emit the smart, i.e. upper middle class, vibe.
, one of them said that Palin was now getting excessive death threats. And the other one replied "Good!She deserves it".
They literally are incapable of seeing how their speaking truth to power is inflammatory.
I got into a facebook discussion on this with a friend of a friend, who, upon my disagreeing with her, eventually 1) called me a bitch, 2) called me the dumbest girl she had ever encountered, 3) said that she would knock my teeth out if she met me in person, 4) said that I look like a tiny little thing and that she would take me out, 5) that someday my mouth would write a check that my ass can't cash (people actually use that phrase?).
I made no threats, of course, and called no names. Yet, violence is my way, and I deserve her threats.
These people have no awareness whatsoever. It's like some kind of weird performance art.
Be interesting when the first polling on Palin comes out covering the aftermath of the blood libel against her
Such a good little Palinbot, Chef. Got the exact words right and everything!
Leftards are nauseating aren't they. Their idiocy on display is nauseating. Their incessant need to vilify this woman is nauseating. The left is who we as conservatives have to fight and defeat. They are wrong on nearly, if not every issue. Leftards have no moral compass, they have no ethical compass. Their attempts at trying to destroy this country from the inside out must be stopped. Their ideas are wrong, their ideology is poisonous to the American pubic, the American body politic, and to America in general. They and their ideas must be defeated and crushed and dissolved in the dust bin of history never to return again.
"I got into a facebook discussion on this with a friend of a friend, who, upon my disagreeing with her, eventually 1) called me a bitch, 2) called me the dumbest girl she had ever encountered, 3) said that she would knock my teeth out if she met me in person, 4) said that I look like a tiny little thing and that she would take me out, 5) that someday my mouth would write a check that my ass can't cash (people actually use that phrase?)."
I've had some interesting conversations with former real-world friends who becamse FB friends but then couldn't take even the tiniest objection to liberalism (evidently they were unaware I was conservative all these years). And on each occasion they resorted to name-calling - first to conservatives in general, and then to me specifically when I called them on it. Ultimately I just de-friended them. Life's too short to hang with stupid people.
garage mahal said...
Such a good little Palinbot, Chef. Got the exact words right and everything!
Really leftard, that all you got? What happened, run out of things to say from your script? Your geriatric girlfriend HD come by to help you write that out? Fucking idiot.
Such a good little Palinbot, Chef. Got the exact words right and everything!
It was a blood libel, garage.
I'm going to ask you once again to put your partisan hatred of Palin aside an consider the assassination hysteria of the left.
The left has marked Palin for assassination.
This goes beyond whether you want to see her elected president.
Address this as a human being. Quit trying to score points.
And, no, I am not campaigning for Palin for president.
This is the first time in my life (and I'm 61 years) old that I've lived through a deliberately contrived assassination hysteria against a political candidate.
To carry my Carthage point further, just as the mere existence of Carthage was seen by Rome not only as a rival but as a severe rebuke to its entire world-view/way of life and social system, so did/does Communism and Islam feel the need to destroy any alternative to their world-view as their continued existence stands as a living reproof to the validity of their existence and way of life. Co-existence thus being seen as UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE. And, exactly in the same way those on the left--politically, intellectually--cannot stand the very existence of Palin. She stands in visible rebuke to everything they represent. She MUST be destroyed!
If she wants to be more, her actions aren't the way to do it. Whether you like it or not, the majority of Americans think she is just not ready to be president.
I wonder if many Americans thought the same thing after the BP disaster when the best remark Obama could come up with was 'looking for someone's ass to kick'.
I understand what you're saying SMG and I do appreciate it. I'm not entirely sure she wants to be President at this point. I think the issue is she's damned if she does or doesn't so may as well be herself.
I was surprised at her use of the phrase. When I first heard it I thought where did I hear that recently? and then I recalled seeing it in the WSJ editorial. That same day I noted Jonah Goldberg's soft hesitation about her use of the phrase.
In terms of meaning and its fitting within the overall context of the video; sure it fit. But...
I'm still left with one of two conclusions (ok maybe three)
1) She didn't appreciate the "special meaning" of the term for Jews and that its use would lead to a diverting argument
2) She did appreciate the "special meaning" and was purposely using it to "push a button". And in doing so, knowing many would respond to complaints with the responses we've seen. In other words, the Limbaugh approach
3) She'd read Glenn Reynolds editorial, thought it encapsulated the episode well and felt it was a useful phrase to repeat in her presentation.
Regardless, it focuses on one of my core complaints with Ms. Palin. She enjoys generating "the heat" whether it furthers any purpose or not.
PS: I particularly liked Nick Gillespie's take on the speech and Ms. Palin
PaulV said...
Garbage Mahal,
Apparantly BO's handler saw the polls the public realizes that the attacks on the Right have failed, so he refudiates the left wing attackers in his speech. Refudiate that if you can.
LOL!!! You are asking the Althouse fat boy to think? You mean before or after putting down his fifth big mac to actually wax smart to refudiate the aberrant lies he regurgitates from his script? Lumpy can't even separate his Pillsbury dough-boy fingers to even count to 10 much less cogently put two sentences together that mean much of anything. Tubby, just drifts off thinking about where his next donut is going to come from. Asking him to refudiate anything is the equivalent of putting a plate of vegetables in front of him and watching him make the ewww!!! face.
Oh, and ricpic is dead on also. The blogger WHISKEY@ "Whiskey's Place" has been all over this social phenomenon.
I'm thinking that perhaps Palin should have responded to the libels from left separately.
That is, give two speeches. One to the American people and another one to her critics.
Trying to cover all that ground in one speech was bound to be too much. She had to mix responding to the smears with a "higher speech" about free spech and her opposition to political violence.
"If it weren't Sarah Palin, it would be someone else. She is just the most visible and effective embodiment of all that they detest. In their eyes, she must be destroyed.
Sorry, I don't agree. It is Palin.
This is one mighty formidable lady. I'm not a political supporter."
I think it's both. Before her we had Bush, and a lot of the same things could be said about the Left's reaction to and opinions about and behavior toward him. They hated he was from Texas and hated he didn't give a crap about joing their club. They hated his accent. It has very similar parallels to their Palin-hatred. And since he's no longer in the picture they needed a fresher boogey man to glom onto. But I also agree, and this part I can't completely explain, is that whatever they had against Bush they've turned up to a Spinal Tap-level of 11 against Palin. There's something unique about her that just frappes their brains. As Instapundit said, they CAN'T stop, even when they might see it's in their interest (at least short term) to do so. Who was the liberal commentator who compared her to The Blob (we just keep shooting at her and she just keeps getting stronger)?
The Anti-Palin bedfellows are agreed on seeing Sarah Palin as slightly less than a normal human, which incidentally is the start of all anti-semities stories about Jews. The Dems just ridicule her and accuse her of playing a victim when she is ridiculed ( Catch 22 ); and then the GOP Brahmins say she is just not a normal strong person able to handle a Presidency. Catch 22 again because when she shows her consdderable political talent in a brilliant handling of the Enemedia, then they accuse her of being too weak to face the media. Meanwhile the 7 Dwarves sail along with no media attacks, but with many puff pieces on how much they are respected by all people. The media fears no GOP Obama opponent except Palin.
Regardless, it focuses on one of my core complaints with Ms. Palin. She enjoys generating "the heat" whether it furthers any purpose or not.
Mine too.
To her supporters, though, she's just fighting back. That's a fair point but it only gets her so far.
At some point, it has to be about more than just getting back at your enemies. She has to realize that her responses are going to be heard by more than the Sullivans et al.
lyssalovelyredhead said...
I got into a facebook discussion on this with a friend of a friend, who, upon my disagreeing with her, eventually 5) that someday my mouth would write a check that my ass can't cash (people actually use that phrase?).
They're re-running Hot Shots on cable again.
Address this as a human being.
Oh, great. He's going to do impressions, now...?
If only the people who actually hold elected offices were held to the same exacting standards as Sarah Palin we wouldn't have so many gibbering idiots and simpering cowards running the show in DC.
Well more than a few prominent Jews have spoken out in her defense of using the term so it becomes a matter of personal preference,
Right, and a few other like Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz have argued otherwise.
It's not - for me - a "big" deal but it's just, to borrow a tennis phrase, an unforced error that she doesn't need.
I think if she had used the phrase in a separate speech - one solely devoted to responding to her critics - it would have been fine.
But to use it in a speech that tried to both respond to her critics and also talk about higher principles like free speech, et cetera, was too much.
@everyone:
There have been times when garage mahal made substantive comments that were worth engaging, but this week he is doing nothing but trolling. Stop feeding him.
Seriously, it's all one liners with nothing substantive. All he wants is a reaction.
It's not - for me - a "big" deal but it's just, to borrow a tennis phrase, an unforced error that she doesn't need.
Bullshit. Every time Palin speaks, someone doesn't like it. You apparently think that she shouldn't speak at all.
LOL, still sucking up to Palin and the GOP, Ann? You're so pathetic. Just like most conservatives these days, you're too much of a gutless weasel to be open about your political point of view and like to pretend to be objective or independent.
Sarah Palin is an utterly stupid human being, and she'll lose to Obama in a landslide when she runs. Then you can cry all day long on your little right-wing blog about how America is so sexist.
The behavior on the left can be summed up in two words: Psychological projection
Quinnipiac Poll: More Americans Say Left Contributes to Heated Rhetoric Than Right.
Mote in your neighbors eye and all that ;)
SMG, you "borrowed" a phrase? Isn't that verboten? The term "unforced errors" was poorly chosen because you didn't use it in it's original etymological sense. Tsk, tsk, tswk...
Or haven't you been reading your own posts?
"Who was the liberal commentator who compared her to The Blob (we just keep shooting at her and she just keeps getting stronger)?"
That was the despicable Charles Blow from the NYT.
Bullshit. Every time Palin speaks, someone doesn't like it. You apparently think that she shouldn't speak at all.
Sorry, you're confusing someone else's posts with mine.
In every post I have said it was legitimate for her to respond.
Can't make it clearer than that.
Right, and a few other like Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz have argued otherwise.
I know, that's why I said it boiled down to personal preference.
It's not - for me - a "big" deal but it's just, to borrow a tennis phrase, an unforced error that she doesn't need.
Honestly, outside the Jewish community and media punditry do you think anyone really knows the origins of the term? Blood libel has been in the lexicon long enough that it shouldn't be limited to identification one particular group.
But to use it in a speech that tried to both respond to her critics and also talk about higher principles like free speech, et cetera, was too much.
Was it? Is it too much to ask that her opponents not accuse her of being an accessory to murder? Even days later and no evidence that Loughner was influenced by anything other than the voices in his head they're still yammering on that it was her 'rifle scope' map that did it all.
[...]sucking up [...] so pathetic [...] gutless weasel [...] utterly stupid [...]"
RE: the "twitching" and "frothing" cited previously, @ 10:29.
Any questions...?
There have been times when garage mahal made substantive comments that were worth engaging,
You're right. I recall he had some good ideas how to slow cook pork ribs.
"What IS it about this woman?"
That is a fascinating question. I don't think it's really her. There are other conservative thorns like Ann Coulter, that should piss them off at least as much. I mean how many best sellers has Coulter written directly attacking them. Palin is actually less in their face. She is less on the offense than a lot of other pundits and politicians.
No, she is in the celebrity zone, where nothing makes sense. It's caricature, misinformation, media saturation, mostly just fame, all multiplying her political force into something nobody on the left can stop and think about before reacting. It's like a dog seeing a cat. No thought involved - pure instinct and animus. Only one reaction is possible regardless of the issue or the facts. It is the exact opposite thoughtfulness or analysis.
This even happens with many in the middle who also react to her as a caricature and mythical creature rather than a real person who you might actually agree with sometimes, or who might live according to your own values if you you stopped and thought it over.
It's amazing to watch - mass hysteria in slow motion.
Akeitay wrote:
Sarah Palin is an utterly stupid human being, and she'll lose to Obama in a landslide when she runs. Then you can cry all day long on your little right-wing blog about how America is so sexist.
Wait, amerikkka isn't a sexist place? ALl those feminists are going to be severly disappointed.
And no, it's not that America is sexist, it's that the dems and libs talk about how sexist repubs are, but when push comes to shove are just as sexist.
Something else that's amazing is how Palin and Obama are always compared to a degree like nobody else, including the people who actually ran against Obama. She never ran for President, but if you didn't know better you'd think it was a long running rivalry since 1776. When one speaks, it's immediately asked what the other will do now. Strange, powerful creature this Palin. It's the roadrunner and the coyote. Without both, there is no cartoon, and Palin is definitely playing the roadrunner.
The most powerful woman in the world is unelected!
I'm thinking that perhaps Palin should have responded to the libels from left separately.
That is, give two speeches. One to the American people and another one to her critics.
Oh...complete and utter bullshit.
If she gave TWO speeches, you would be whining about her trying to get more exposure.
There is nothing whatsoever that Palin could do that you would approve of or that would satisfy you. You would find fault no matter what.
Defamations, inc libel and false accusations based on the same mechanism are as old as history. They are by definition not true, and intended as likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, even violence.
From tribes onwards, there were societies that dealt with this. The worst accusations, of course were treason and claiming that the target had hands dripping with the blood of innocent others. So the response to those guilty of such defamation was equally serious. Death.
Blood libel is just a phrase that describes not just the Jewish situation, but method that started lynchings of others, genocides (the Armenians were killed from blood libel), the liquidation of classes of people in Revolution. (Marie Antoinette had peasant blood on her hands, as did the Kulaks and Russian Orthodox priests - according to the Jacobites and Bolsheviks). The Cuban firing squads Castro worked up were frequently based on class warfare blood libels. Certain wars in Asia and Europe started on blood libel, the US did one itself when it declared war on a Spain "dripping with the blood of the sailors of the USS Maine."
and then the GOP Brahmins say she is just not a normal strong person able to handle a Presidency
I would consider Nick Gillespie neither Brahmin nor Republican.
And certainly not liberal.
Leftists/liberals hate Palin because she undercuts their victimology philosophy. She doesn't need the government to do everything for her because she can do those things herself. Besides being strong, articulate and apparently fearless, if she had to survive in the north woods on moose stew she could do it, including that big initial step--first obtain the moose.
Also the left has never forgiven her for having the courage of her convictions--she didn't abort Trig.
That should say:
"And no, it's not that America is sexist, it's that the dems and libs talk about how sexist repubs are, but when push comes to shove are just as sexist as the straw man conservative they present as represntational of conservatives."
Classic projection.
She knows how to score points and draw attention to, amplify, and exaggerate her own suffering, relative to folks who are really suffering, e.g. the victims in Tucson. Never waste a good crisis.
The solution is to simply lie back and think of England.
Marie Antoinette had peasant blood on her hands
Cite?
At some point, it has to be about more than just getting back at your enemies. She has to realize that her responses are going to be heard by more than the Sullivans et al.
The people that she is speaking to want her to fight back and not be another punching bag for the Leftists and the Left controlled State Media.
Who gives a flying eff if the enemies of Palin hear her speak. They aren't going to be persuaded anyway. Might as well rile them up while speaking to the entire crowd.
And btw: It IS all about getting back at your enemies. That is the entire point.
Pro-Palin posts refer only to the left. Palin is equally disdained by talking-heads on the right. Krauthammer and Bill Bennet felt that the incident had been "handled" by the time of Palin video, so she should not have made a statement. This infuriated me. Are they her big brothers, little girl, we handled this stay in your room. These same heads are constantly suggesting what she should do in lieu of running for President, these suggestions are never made when discussing other presidential candidates.
Ricpic suggest lower middle class vibe. Perhaps. I just know that the sneering disdain, unjustified to my mind, makes me want to defend her. If the media could bring themselves to treat her normally she would probably be much less powerful.
I figured Palin was done when she resigned as Governor. Her staying power has changed my opinion. If gas is $5+ a gallon with high unemployment and bad economy anyone the Republicans run will win. If the picture is much rosier Obama will be very hard to beat no matter the Republican candidate.
Seriously, it's all one liners with nothing substantive.
How do you debate people that live in a complete dream world? Fictitious events are real. Real events are fictitious. Even math can be different in Conservative Dream World. Years ago conservatives could debate actually issues. Now, it's just out to fucking lunch. All the time.
Exactly so, bagoh20. Palin has that undefinable, but all-important in our TV age, recognition/excitement "Q" factor which is the ne plus ultra--the Ultima Thule--of all public figures of whatever stripe. Like obscenity, hard to define but one knows it when one sees it. And it pretty much can't be taught--involving, as it does, matters strictly genetic--of physical appearance, voice, personality, etc. Unabashedly conservative Palin has it and it drives the left bat-shit crazy.
SARAH PALIN -- Because the left always, always needs another good Emmanuel Goldstein.
shoutingthomas said...
With every one of these incidents, it becomes clearer that Palin is a landmark figure in American politics.
Althouse, what you have here is the first serious female presidential candidate.
=========================
I would beware of the logic that says that the Left's hatred of Sarah Palin just shows again and again how qualified she is and ready to enter her 1st Presidential Primary as a "serious female candidate".
Because those on the Left could make an equal claim in the past that the Right's hatred of Jane Fonda, Rev Jesse, Rev Al, and now Al Franken. That all 4 must be superb possible nominees because "they drive the Right crazy".
Was Jane Fonda, driving the opposition crazy, really the 1st serious female presidential candidate, if she had only been asked to run?
"If she wants to be more, her actions aren't the way to do it. Whether you like it or not, the majority of Americans think she is just not ready to be president."
The "majority of Americans" do not vote in GOP primaries. McCain was supported by barely a third of GOP voters, yet he won easily.
She has to be the nominee before she "loses in a landslide".
The attacks by the left and the "concern trolling" by Beltway conservatives help her get nominated:
1. There was a rally around the flag effect in support of her--for example, in the blogosphere even non-fans as Ace of Spades and Allahpundit supported her.
2. Mrs. Huckabee does not seem to want Huck to run. This incident will re-enforce that, everyone who was willing to look saw Palin's strained face on that video and felt the hate from the left. Mrs. Huck doesn't want him to go through that, I believe
Huck is the main hurdle to Palin's nomination, he is less controversial and appeals to much of the same type of GOP voter. If Huck does not run, Palin wins Iowa, probably easily. Then Mitt wins NH and it is Palin v. Mitt in South Carolina for all the marbles. Who likes Mitt in that match up?
Get the nomination and the election will take care of itself. You can't win the SuperBowl if you don't get in it.
If the economy does not improve, even a potted plant will beat him. If it does improve, a Lincoln/Reagan ticket will not.
I just came to think of another thing. This brouhaha may be somewhat because it is so rare to catch Ms. Sarah using a phrase that "clangs." For an ignorant moose huntress from the backwoods of Alaska, she sure does use the English language well; in fact I cannot think of any other contemporary public figure or media maven that even comes close!
The Left: You have blood on your hands, Sarah Palin! You incited this horrible massacre with your crazed, vicious, divisive Tea Party rhetoric! You must apologize immediately!
Palin: I didn't cause these murders, they were the work of one crazy guy. Furthermore, free speech is very important.
The Left: Oh, it's always about you, isn't it? *Rolls eyes*
How do you debate people that live in a complete dream world?
It can be difficult, granted. Between the constant, robotic chantings of "HOPE AND CHANGE!" and "YES WE CAN!" and the evidently inborn need to demonize anyone who even so much as glances at them the wrong way, the built-in frustration factor is a distressingly high one.
How do you debate people that live in a complete dream world? Fictitious events are real. Real events are fictitious. Even math can be different in Conservative Dream World. Years ago conservatives could debate actually issues. Now, it's just out to fucking lunch. All the time.
Garage,
You do realize that you just insulted every single regular on this blog, right? Now, we're out to fucking lunch. All the time.
In other words, nobody here has any opinions of any merit. Nobody here is a serious, mature thinker. Nobody here is grounded by reality and experience.
What you've done in one comment is dismiss everyone that habitually habitates (a word?) here and, thus, you no longer have to take a word we write seriously. We're all delusional, apparently. No info to back up what you said, ie fictitious events are real/visa versa, nor any admitting that there's a healthy amount of people wearing anti-reality ideological blinders on the side you seem to hail from.
Well done, Garage. In the annals of elegant insults, yours should surely get honorable mention.
If she gave TWO speeches, you would be whining about her trying to get more exposure.
Sorry, as I said about 6 times and in just about every post, she had every right to respond and was fully justified to do so.
I simply cannot be more explicit than that.
The fact that I suggested giving two speeches is hardly evidence that I wanted her to be quiet or that I would not be happy with her talking.
@Scott M:
In the annals of elegant insults, yours should surely get honorable mention.
It wasn't elegant. It was tiresome and verbose. And trolling.
The Left: You have blood on your hands, Sarah Palin! You incited this horrible massacre with your crazed, vicious, divisive Tea Party rhetoric! You must apologize immediately!
This was the preemptive strawman whine fest that started seconds of the news of Giffords getting shot. "They're accusing us ALL of MURDER!"
See also - "We're all RACISTS!" when an obvious racist sign is pointed out. Or "They all want to see Palin's CUNT!" when ANdrew Sullivan writes something. Or "They are trying to SILENCE us!" when a video clip of Rush Limbaugh saying some outrageous asinine thing.
And speaking of censorship, I see Althouse cannot bear the letting the link I put up stand, that was to a major news site, and on topic to the post. Keep living in that bubble, yo.
It didn't backfire. The term simply didn't mean much to most people. By saying it backfired you are implying that Palin somehow scored points because some media figures criticized her. Not the case. She is loved by the far right hated by the left and pretty much ignored by everyone else who view her [correctly] as far right.
What is offensive though is a Washington Times editorial saying that the criticism of Palin is a "latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers."
That's just stupid.
@lyssa
The left/MSM did the same thing to Condoleezza Rice. Remember when Rice appeared in the long black coat and "ho" boots?
They were so frightened of her that they stooped to demeaning racial terms, Trudeau slurring Rice as "Brown Sugar", Danziger scrubbed this embarrassment from his site, Oliphant's racially exaggerated features...last but not least; a new low from the despicable Ted Rall...and we're the one's projecting racism and hate speech?
[note: as usual the left has disappeared much of their racist rhetoric down the memory hole]
and another misuse of a phrase that "clangs."
bagoh20 said...
"What IS it about this woman?"
That is a fascinating question. I don't think it's really her. There are other conservative thorns like Ann Coulter, that should piss them off at least as much. I mean how many best sellers has Coulter written directly attacking them. Palin is actually less in their face. She is less on the offense than a lot of other pundits and politicians.
bag, never forget Ann Coulter was editor of the Law Review at Cornell, which she, apparently, earned - unlike someone else. She has the Ivy League imprimatur - which was much on display during the Harriet Miers thing.
Miss Sarah, OTOH, went to Idaho State, or whatever. The Lefties tell themselves - and each other - "She's a nothing, a nobody, she's against us so she's got to be stupid". They think they can beat up on her.
Problem is, she's the sort of woman that went West in a Conestoga wagon 150 years ago and kept the family going after Pa was killed. And probably did in more than a few of the Indians that killed Pa.
This was the preemptive strawman whine fest that started seconds of the news of Giffords getting shot.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
Nothing sadder than an inept liar, yo.
garage mahal said...
Seriously, it's all one liners with nothing substantive.
How do you debate people that live in a complete dream world? Fictitious events are real. Real events are fictitious. Even math can be different in Conservative Dream World. Years ago conservatives could debate actually issues. Now, it's just out to fucking lunch. All the time.
Oh yeah, the "I know you are, but what am I?" argument. Figures, coming from someone like you that only thinks about always eating lunch. I wonder what part of the dream state fabric your ilk went through to make the guilt-by-associations they have in this unwasted crisis? You are no better and you are no different. This isn't a discussion about your primal fantasies of what you think conservatives are simply because you aren't one. Just don't forget to feed your pet unicorn okay? Even he has to eat.
Nothing sadder than an inept liar, yo.
Bad snark is a close second.
Maguro said...
The Left: You have blood on your hands, Sarah Palin! You incited this horrible massacre with your crazed, vicious, divisive Tea Party rhetoric! You must apologize immediately!
Palin: I didn't cause these murders, they were the work of one crazy guy. Furthermore, free speech is very important.
The Left: Oh, it's always about you, isn't it? *Rolls eyes*
That would make an awesome family guy bit.
Nothing sadder than an inept liar, yo.
Bad snark is a close second.
Leave Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews out of this.
Garage Mahal wrote:
started seconds of the news of Giffords getting shot. "They're accusing us ALL of MURDER!"
See also - "We're all RACISTS!" when an obvious racist sign is pointed out. Or "They all want to see Palin's CUNT!" when ANdrew Sullivan writes something. Or "They are trying to SILENCE us!" when a video clip of Rush Limbaugh saying some outrageous asinine thing.
This is clearly disproven if you just go ahead one post ahead where Althouse quotes Eric Fuller who says:
January 14, 2011
"How many other demented people are out there? It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target."
"Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled—senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even nine-year-old girls."
Technically they got their first 5 targets. But I digress. Anyway, notice the collective guilt ascribed to the right winger. Beck is to blame, Boehner is to blame. They're out for vengeance even on nine year old girls. They're accessories to child murder. Why not throw Backmann in there to boot? And how about Sean Hannity? No Rush?
Blood libels seem to come really easy to you liberals. NOw, I suppose we should cut old Erick a bit of slack considering he was just shot by a crazy person. But considering his penchance to scapegoat his enemies for crimes they didn't commit, let's not.
The Pilsbury Douchboy said...
Keep living in that bubble, yo.
Sure, unlike the donut hole you live in while you try to eat your way out.
wv = comers = something fatty mcfuckface can't do because his gut can't let him see it happening.
kent
Meanwhile, back in reality...
The problem I see with your views -other than your political leanings #:^) - is that you give way too much credit to the left blogosphere. Most Americans do not read Think Progress or other such blogs. Most Americans see this tragedy for what it was; a lone psychotic gunman committing a terrible crime.
Your criticisms are in an echo chamber that includes both left and right blogs but no one else.
We're all navel gazing really. Including me. I talk to my conservative and liberal relatives and they have no idea what blogs are saying. They don't care really.
Garage sets himself up for enough effective rebuttal without resorting to insults about appearance. Buckley it up.
Most Americans do not read Think Progress or other such blogs
... and this has what, specifically, to do with garage's failed, spastic attempt at setting up a false timeline of events, at @ 1:43...?
Palin's got game.
"Palin's got game", in her freezer.
kent
... and this has what, specifically, to do with garage's...
Nothing to do actually. I'm saying it doesn't matter what you or garage [or I] say about all of this. It's a silly argument. We are talking only to each other. The rest of America is not part of the conversation. So it is rather meaningless.
I'm saying look at the bigger picture. If you do then maybe you will understand it is not important if someone's timeline is wrong or not. It doesn't matter if the left blogs hate Palin or the right blogs hate Obama. It's expected that they do.
Marie Antoinette had peasant blood on her hands
Robespierre, the Jacobins and Marat did not? (See the war of Vendée)
Another blood libel, although you have inadvertently backed into the truth. Marie Antoinette had done to her by an aggressive tabloid press, lead by Marat, what is being done to Palin.
Marie was not privy to nor had any responsibility for Louis' failed policies. The revolution had many root causes; over taxation and poor harvests/grain shortages following the disastrous Seven Year's War, financial support for our revolution, the 1792 declaration of war against the Holy Roman Empire of Leopold II (Marie's brother), but the Brunswick Manifesto was the final straw that condemned Louis, not Marie Antoinette...she was a populist scapegoat.
:) @ Lincoln.
then maybe you will understand it is not important if someone's timeline is wrong or not.
Bit presumptuous to ask me to shrug nonchalantly after being lied to, either online or in meatspace. Pass.
We're all navel gazing really.
Yes, but ratings are up!
The rest of America is not part of the conversation. So it is rather meaningless.
Hardly meaningless. The MSM coverage that "the rest of America" gets its news from has been pretty much in sync with the liberal blogs, just a few days late. It's the Oklahoma City strategy all over again.
Surely you understand this, you're just being disingenuous.
I wonder how many people watch the MSM TV on a daily basis, vs say bi-weekly or 3-4 times a week. How many read political blogs and how big of an intersection is there between light/heavy MSM TV watchers and political blog readers. That would be an interesting study!
Alex
Not as many people watch MSM news as you may think. They are more interested in Reality TV and Talent shows and such.
But since you mention it I know many people watch CNN and they have actually been pretty fair about this story. A good many more people also watch FOX and they obviously are not in synch with the left. So that leaves MSNBC which very few watch. And then ABC, CBS, NBC which have a 30 min news program each night, which is usually not left or even liberal [in my view]. So I guess I'm saying the leftist message is not really getting much traction.
People care about jobs right now. Not about partisan bickering. In fact most Americans are tired of the bickering. As am I.
@1jpb
She knows how to score points and draw attention to, amplify, and exaggerate her own suffering, relative to folks who are really suffering, e.g. the victims in Tucson. Never waste a good crisis.
I think you've illustrated our collective point.
What the left doesn't seem to get is that Americans hate piling on, that is what saved Clinton's presidency. Once the line of unfairness is seen to be crossed we rise to defend the beleaguered.
E Pluribus Unum is not just a motto printed on our currency.
Garage sets himself up for enough effective rebuttal without resorting to insults about appearance. Buckley it up.
In Angry Baby's fevered brain he thinks he knows how much I weigh. Classic.
Matt - thanks for the info! It's good to know there is some sanity out there. When one spends all their time in blogger comments, one gets a totally distorted picture.
Matt said...
kent
... and this has what, specifically, to do with garage's...
Nothing to do actually. I'm saying it doesn't matter what you or garage [or I] say about all of this.
Then why are you here if for nothing but verbal masturbation. Shut the fuck up, we don't want to see what your hands on a keyboard produce otherwise.
garage mahal said...
In Angry Baby's fevered brain he thinks he knows how much I weigh. Classic.
If for nothing else, I know how much weight the meaning of the words you utter here are, nothing. Classic.
Big 3 Newscasts drew 24.6M viewers combined in first week of the year. Big three Cable News networks average 3M in Prime Time.
Didn't like the use of the term, although I think you can argue that the term has been divorced from its original meaning. I still think the primary definition is the Jewish one. Ultimately comparing four days of criticism from your political opponents to a lie that has justified 900 years of Anti-Semitic violence is a little over the top. I think it cheapens that history, but others feel differently.
The Washington Times dropping "pogrom" today is indefensible to me.
I would be carefull using Rabbi Shmuley in defense of Sarah Palin. He has a radio show on WABC in New York on Sunday nights and I know for a fact he loves a Shiksa with a nice touchas.
Just like ripic. Just sayn'
Is Garage a moby or is he more like a Loughter?
PaulV said...
Is Garage a moby or is he more like a Loughter?
He's a moron. He knows it and proves it to everyone here every time he posts. I shove his bullshit back his face. He follows the ideology of stupid people and in turn says stupid things for all of us to read.
Is Garage a moby or is he more like a Loughter?
False binary. Assumes answer is an "either/or." ;)
Is Garage a moby or is he more like a Loughter?
He's a fan of Pat Buchanan who complains about racism and right-wingers.
Considering that the heated criticism of Sarah Palin for her alleged "inflammatory rhetoric" was every bit as bogus as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," I think she had a valid point.
Sarah Palin is like an english teacher trying to educate the leftist about the use of metaphors
Death Panel
Cackle of Rads
Blue Bood
Blood Libel
I'd like to make a comparison:
Compare the Right's treatment of Nancy Pelosi v the Left's treatment of Sarah Palin.
The Right didn't call for her to be gang-raped. Shot. Killed. They wanted to hand her her ass politically. She was the focus of the House electoral campaign and it was focused not on her being a low-level functional retard, but on the horrid policies she pushed through and the epic deficits she ran up.
Why didn't they want death? Why weren't there tweets and FB pages dedicated to harming Nancy Pelosi?
Because conservatives REALLY have no respect for Pelosi. We recognize her as being a bit dim and a beneficiary of an easy district. If you don't respect somebody, you don't expend a lot of energy denouncing them. You ignore them because you know you can't beat them in an argument because they'll just drag you down to their intellectual level and kill you with their experience. You just smile and nod and ask yourself "How can anybody take this person seriously?" but you don't write dozens of columns a week about how darned stupid Pelosi is.
Therefore, when she makes an asinine comment, we don't go into "KILL HER!" mode. It's more like "Yeah, she's an idiot. What more can you expect?" It's like when my 17 month old headbutts the floor during a tantrum --- I love him, but I'm not going to freak out when he does it because he will soon learn to stop doing that.
The level of vitriol by the Right for an imbecile who was 3rd in line for President and ran the House was DWARFED by the vitriol by the Left towards a failed VP nominee who has no actual political power presently.
The Left is scared to death of Palin. They keep saying "Man, I hope she runs because she is so easily beatable" --- but they don't buy it. They know she'd be a handful and that she also doesn't want to run.
Do you hear conservatives longing for Pelosi to run? Not because we think she's competent --- she clearly, again, is a fucking moron --- but because we know that outside of her district, she is one of the least electable people on the planet. We don't wish for her to run for President because, like Rev Wright, it just won't happen, so why waste the energy writing about the possibility ad infinitum?
He's a fan of Pat Buchanan who complains about racism and right-wingers.
Ooooh! Ooooh! That reminds me! garage's hero made fun of him today!
Pat Buchanan Tells Chris Matthews: "You Guys [Linking Palin to Loughner] Are The Birthers of the Left"
SNAP!
Hmmmmm.... a transparently false, malicious accusation of being an accomplice to murder sounds sufficiently like a "blood libel" to me.
If Palin said 'rainbows are pretty', the left would be howling with some manufactured rage over it.
How dare she talk about rainbows! Everyone knows that rainbows belong to the gays. Or to Jesse Jackson.
"She could have chosen a better phrase"
What phrase other then "blood libel" most accurately and with rhetorical punch describes being falsely accused of complicity with murder?
SMGalbraith, please make a good case as to why anyone on the right should care if Palin has negatives of as much as 49.5%, if an electorally well distributed 50.5% get her into the Oval Office.
It won't matter if her negatives are high, because even if they are low the left will be invidious and utterly invested in opposing her.
"If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
If I were the Left, I'd watch the movie again.
Wow... Garbage Mahal is indeed living up to his reputation of coming up with garbage trolling..keep it up and people will only come to realize how much of a partisan Democrat hack you are.Obama's speech was meant for maroons like you and it seems to have gone right over your head.
Do every one a favor and at least lose the "Mahal" from your stupid handle - every time i see it, i am reminded that you are a person who does not know the true meaning of this word or even which language it is from or how absurd it is.
It's a good thing Sarah didn't use the term "witchhunt"....the left would still be complaining of Palins' "anti-wiccan rhetoric". This whole episode backfired on The Left/MSM (BIRM).
"She doesn't seem to know when not to respond. "
SHE doesn't know when to respond? It took Barack Obama FOUR FREAKING DAYS to man up and say the right had nothing to do with it.
And if the blood libel had caught on, he still wouldn't have to this day.
tree-hugging sister -- in the original trilogy, the ONLY character who never lied to Luke was Darth Vader.
Somewhere Dick Cheney is smiling. Evilly. But smiling.
It really does beg the question, what IS it about this woman?
One, she's smart, but didn't attend the "right" schools.
Two, she's successful - as a businessperson, as a wife and mother, as a woman, and as a politician.
Three, she believes in God, and acknowledges that she depends upon Him in her daily life (she's 'religious')
Four, she's conservative, and as yet not bought by any power group.
Five, she does all the 'pioneer things' - she hunts, fishes, probably gardens, and helps sustain herself and her family.
Six, she has more than two children, which to the far left is anathema.
Seven, she works with and beside her husband whenever possible.
Those are all hated no-nos to the left, where everyone is supposed to be a victim.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा