Is Sarah Palin Retreating Or Reloading?

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Many pundits have rightfully observed the normally loquacious Sarah Palin has been inexplicably silent following the tragic shootings in Tucson last week. Here is an article that discusses her strange silence. Regardless of whether you loathe Palin (as I do) or want her to be the next President (Gray? OMG?), the article is thought provoking.

In the days following the massacre in Tucson, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has become a focal point in the media conversation about the shootings. The confluence of her March posting of an electoral map that featured crosshairs over shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords‘ Congressional district, Giffords’ own denunciation of the image at the time, and Giffords’ current struggle to survive that shooting has linked Palin to the shooting, despite a lack of any evidence of a causal link. Aside from some ludicrous backstopping by an aide and a partial email to Glenn Beck, however, the normally loquacious media supernova has been uncharacteristically silent on this issue. What’s her  next move?

Keith Olbermann noted Palin’s absence, and the mounting pressure on her to respond, on Tuesday night’s Countdown. In teasing the segment, Olbermann repeatedly hypes a clip of Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Mn) “calling Palin out,” which looks like a comical overstatement when you see the clip: (from MSNBC)

As Olbermann notes, it is a testament to Palin’s power in the conservative movement that such a mild statement by Pawlenty could be considered “calling out,” but that’s the position Palin currently holds, a conservative Olympian among mortals.

However, that position could be in jeopardy. As Chris Matthews noted earlier on Hardball, Palin’s “crosshair map” has become inextricably linked to this shooting, like a 21st century Google version of Poe’s Telltale Heart. As responsible media figures point out time and again, there is absolutely no evidence of a causal link, nor is anyone in the mainstream media suggesting one, but the juxtaposition will continue to dog Palin unless she does something to mitigate it.

It is unquestionably true that attempts by figures like Markos Moulitsas to blame Palin for the massacre even as it unfolded (and get in a quick book plug, to boot) were utterly reprehensible, an assault on decency that should have been rejected by any who saw it. Ditto attempts to hang the tragedy on “the left,” or to Rush to weave conspiracy theories about it.

But anyone who thinks that Palin’s current situation is simply the result of political opponents pressing an advantage is not living in the real world, and doing Palin no favors. Had Kos and company never uttered a peep about Palin’s “crosshair map,” it would have held off the spotlight for a matter of hours, until someone found the interview of Giffords denouncing the crosshair image over her district. Any news editor who failed to note that interview would have to be fired for journalistic malpractice.

So far, though, the best thing anyone can say about Palin is that she didn’t cause the shooting. Everyone but her most ardent fans (or fearful rivals) sees that the crosshair image crossed a line that even the more common (but in hindsight, ill-advised) bullseye graphic doesn’t approach. Even at the time, conservative darling Elisabeth Hasselbeck recognized this, and said so. For everyone but existing Palin loyalists, this argument is over.

Palin’s response, then, is crucial to how she will be seen by those she hopes to woo, either as a candidate or a media figure. She could have remained silent, and rode the thing out. Such a strategy had a decent shot at success, especially given her brief, but appropriate, initial statement on the shooting.

Unfortunately, that ship sailed when SarahPAC aide Rebecca Mansour floated a ridiculous trial balloon, trying to recast the map’s imagery as “surveyor’s symbols,” despite Palin’s own proud acknowledgement of their meaning. Whether sanctioned by Palin or not, Mansour’s attempt showed a defensiveness that could be interpreted as consciousness of guilt.

Glenn Beck tried to pitch in on his radio show, reading part of an email from Palin which said “I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence.”

The problem is, no serious person is accusing Palin of inciting this incident. The imagery was widely condemned at the time, and as Olbermann pointed out, reinforced by Palin time and again, and this tragedy has sickeningly, indelibly illustrated that point.

Since silence is no longer a real option for Palin, she ought to come out and say something, and perhaps she is preparing to do just that. One option would be to double-down, to defend her choice on the same free speech grounds that she deployed in defense of Dr. Laura. This would surely please her fans, plus a lot of other conservatives who feel besieged by the “violent rhetoric” meme that has emerged. It would also have the illusion of consistency going for it.

But to many who haven’t made their minds up about Palin, that course would seem cold and stubborn.

An apology would certainly be leapt upon by Palin’s critics, who would use it as an admission that she’s unfit to hold office, and who would slam her for waiting so long to issue it. The thing is, they’re doing that anyway.

The advantage of an apology, though, is that it gives Palin the chance to place the issue in its proper context, to say “I shouldn’t have used that image, I’m sorry I did, but it did not cause this tragedy. Focusing attention on a poor decision that I made does a disservice to the lives that were shattered on Saturday, which should be occupying all of our hearts and minds.”

Such an apology would have the added advantage of being the right thing to do. Sarah Palin is not the victim in this story, but neither is she its villain. Her part of this conversation should end, and she should be the one to end it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-sarah-palin-retreating-or-reloading/

[LTC]

Caribou barbie, scarah palin blames everyone but herself and defends the dangerous rhetoric:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-accuses-journalists-of-blood-libel-calls-loughner-apolitical-video.php

What a scum sucking pig she is!

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Caribou barbie, scarah palin blames everyone but herself and defends the dangerous rhetoric:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-accuses-journalists-of-blood-libel-calls-loughner-apolitical-video.php

What a scum sucking pig she is!

1. Oh dear Buddha. She is actually portraying herself as a victim here, along with defending her aiming the cross-hairs of a rifle at Gabrielle Giffords' district on a map. Given that Giffords is literally fighting for her life after being shot in the head, to say Palin's "victim" defense is reprehensible is an understatement.

Can those of you on the right actually defend this woman?   At no point does she admit that the cross-hairs map aimed at Giffords' district was in poor taste in retrospect. It's everyone else's fault.

2. Palin refers to Jared Loughner as "apolitical."   This is the same killer who specifically targeted his Congresswoman to murder; left a note on a letter he received from Giffords which said, "Die bitch"; and left numerous writings condemning the government for thought control. Loughner is "apolitical"???   Does Palin even understand what the word means? Loughner may be an Independent, but he is far from apolitical.

Apolitical (from Merriam-Webster)

: having no interest or involvement in political affairs; also : having an aversion to politics or political affairs

3. Also, Palin uses the phrase "blood libel" in this quote: "But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

Again, Palin (along with her ghost writer) has no clue what the term means.

Blood Libel (from Wikipedia): Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

So, Palin uses a term that refers to Jews killing children to use their blood in religious rituals to describe what journalists have rightfully said about her incendiary, cross-hair map, which, in the irony of ironies, was aimed at a JEWISH Congresswoman.  Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish.

Is it possible for a human being to be any dumber than Sarah Palin?  

4. Finally, just for OMG, you can see the reflection of the teleprompter from which Palin is reading if you look at her glasses. Irony is laughing at you ... again. The next time you post some childish, sarcastic invective whenever Obama uses a teleprompter, I will post this video of Palin reading from a teleprompter.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

"We must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure."

"We know violence isn't the answer."

The above quotes coming from the same woman who gave us this:

[Sasquatch]

I do wish Sarah Palin would step aside. But some people, herself included, want to try to keep her in the news. 

[Flummoxed Lummox]

I do wish Sarah Palin would step aside. But some people, herself included, want to try to keep her in the news.  

I agree. But when she uses a preconceived, highly emotional phrase like "blood libel" to refer to how she has been treated, when the target of her cross-hair map was aimed at a JEWISH Congresswoman who was shot in the head, you can bet she will stay in the news. That phrase was not an accident.

The Anti-Defamation League has responded.

(CNN) – The Anti-Defamation League, the organization that combats anti-Semitism, says Sarah Palin should have used a different phrase than "blood libel" to characterize attempts to link her discourse to the Arizona shootings, the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at the former Alaska governor Wednesday over her use of the controversial term.

"We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman in a statement. "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."

In her video statement posted on Facebook earlier Monday, Palin lashed out at Democrats and other commentators who have charged Palin and others on the right with creating an atmosphere that encourages events like that which occurred in Tucson.

"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," she said in her eight-minute video.

The term was initially used in the context of the Arizona shootings by conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds, who in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Monday characterized efforts to link the attacks to rhetoric on the right as a "blood libel."

But the phrase itself invokes controversial connotations, referring to a long-standing anti-Semitic myth that Jews murder children for religious rituals. In present times, the term has come to be understood by some as any false accusation of murder and has recently been invoked by supporters of Israel in defense of charges the government was responsible for killing Palestinian civilians.

Palin's use of the term has opened up the former vice presidential candidate to a new round of criticism, mostly from Democrats who say Palin and her aides did not understand the negative connotations the word conjures. The usage has also touched off a fierce debate on Twitter, where "blood libel" has become a trending topic all morning.

"She seems not to understand what is going on here," House Minority Whip James Clyburn told radio host Bill Press earlier Wednesday.

"The use of this particular term in this context isn't ideal," said Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, a conservative publication. "Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood – usually from children – in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have."

Foxman, in the ADL statement, also supports Palin's larger point – that commentators have wrongly linked her and other's rhetoric to the attacks.

"It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder," he said. "Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences."

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization also "denounced" Palin's use of the term Wednesday.

"It is simply inappropriate to compare current American politics with (a) term that was used by Christians to persecute Jews," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center. "She has every right to criticize journalists without going over the top."

A Palin adviser had no further comment on the former vice presidential candidate's Facebook post.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/palin-criticized-for-using-blood-libel/

The fact that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish makes her choice of words all the more bizarre. But if publicity is what Palin wants, she certainly knows how to get it.

[GRAY]

chris christie is and has been my pick. pay attention.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

chris christie is and has been my pick. pay attention.

 

Were you drunk or stoned when you posted that? Because it makes absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion.