http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 08104.html

Can you really recover from such an ignorant comment?

freeman wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/blood-libel-sarah-palin_n_808104.html

Can you really recover from such an ignorant comment?

Yeah, it's hopeless. She would need some liberal attorney, like Dershowitz, to defend her. That just isn't going to happen.

Oh wait. It did:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

My recommendation: wait until the news has gone beyond liberal blogs to land on one side or another. Sometimes even liberals are wrong in their initial assessments. You know, the whole "I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly" thing.

freeman wrote:Can you really recover from such an ignorant comment?

Yeah, she can say she didn't know what it meant, like most people. Sarah's an "aw shucks" girl, not only is it completely believable, it's probably true, and that's part of her "charm"

yet another poor choice of words by Palin. In her attempt to sound smart, she picked a bad example. I doubt it will matter much, "Will she ever recover" She wasn't going anywhere to start with but ammunition that only the rabid left will even care about ....no difference. She was wrongly made to look stupid long ago (though she IS rather stupid) and she never recovered, never will, another nail aint gonna hurt her any further.

Why is it a poor choice of words? Historically blood libel was a smear against a whole group of people based on imagined wrongdoings. Today, hyperventilating lefties are attempting to smear conservatives in general and Palin specifically with the fanciful proposition that their use of rather tame metaphors foreseeably incited a lunatic in Arizona to shoot a bunch of people. The phrase seems at least as apt as it was when Democratic Congressman Peter Deutsch said of criticisms of Al Gore that they were "the worst statements I have ever heard probably in my life about anything. I mean, almost a blood libel by the Republicans towards Al Gore, saying that he was trying to stop men and women in uniform that are serving this country from voting. That is the most absurd thing and absolutely has no basis in fact at all." But, of course, not a single lefty batted an eye then. Indeed, the only ones who seem to be "ignorant" here are the hysterical lefties who are unfamiliar with the (after all, a relatively common) idiom.

Your ginned-up righteous indignation is deeply unconvincing, my lefty friends. You've cried "wolf" over your infinitely tender sensibilities once too often. No-one buys it any more.

Cut her a break. I think her flirting with violent imagery as a rhethoric tool is disgusting, but being publicly accused of inciting a loony to shoot up a political gathering i assume is no fun either.
And let's be honest that she's not blessed with what i would consider good judgment in her public statements or speeches is hardly surprising news, neither to her opponents nor her supporters.

Well, I don't recall seeing the term in a context that didn't relate to its historical use. When Dershowitz says he used it, it had a particular resonance - he was talking about Israel, the Jewish State of Israel, which has a clear connection to the original meaning.

He is right that Palin didn't mean anti-Semitism. That doesn't mean she should have used the term. Will it damage her? Not with all those who think the sun shines out of her butt.

danivon wrote:Well, I don't recall seeing the term in a context that didn't relate to its historical use. When Dershowitz says he used it, it had a particular resonance - he was talking about Israel, the Jewish State of Israel, which has a clear connection to the original meaning.

He is right that Palin didn't mean anti-Semitism. That doesn't mean she should have used the term. Will it damage her? Not with all those who think the sun shines out of her butt.

From a strategy point of view i really don't understand why anyone would attack her for saying stupid things. The truth is that everyone already has a strong opinion about Palin. I think she's stupid and the idea that she could again get a job with any political power makes me shudder. Lots of other people like her and can't imagine anything better than for Palin returning to office.
Neither side will change their opinion, just because Palin is bashed everytime she says something stupid. Time to move on really, it's neither surprising nor funny anymore, kinda boring really.

It was indeed a poor choice of words because of this sayings historical ties with anti-semitism. I have to believe she was hopping mad about this foolish accusation, we went over that in another thread, the liberals are attempting to tie her to the shooting when their is absolutely zero evidence of that. She remained quiet as she wrote a retort. Yes it's a bit of assumption but c'mon, it's kind of obvious? She came up with a saying that might apply but for the negative connotations and that is what made it a poor choice.

I happen to like her, I think she was unfairly made to look stupid, I am not saying she meant anything anti-semetic, But she never recovered and continues to say these dumb things and she's toast as far as any higher public office goes.

I'm fairly sensitive to Judeophobia and rather familiar with the European history of scapegoating and accusing Jews of kidnapping Christian children so their blood can be used to make the Passover matzos, et cetera. Yet I did not blink when I first read what Palin had said. It was in a neutral context, so I wasn't being "cued" to feel outrage. I certainly noticed the use of "blood libel"; I thought it was well within accepted usage. The "blood" comes from the deaths, the "libel" from the false and malicious assignment of responsibility. I was not offended at all. Having read more since then, including why some people were offended, I'm still not offended. I've seen the phrase used in a variety of non-historical contexts and have come to see it as a generic description of a certain type of shifting of blame. That the magnitude of the alleged crime falls far short of what the Jews bore is not a critical factor.

Just my opinion. Maybe this is the one and only area where I have a blind spot about antisemitism, but I don't think so.

I wonder, given what Dershowitz and Min X have said...

How many actual examples of 'blood libel' as an expression do you guys see over there? And how many which are not referencing lies told about Jews in order to demonise them.

You say, Min X, that you've seen it a lot in other contexts, and I would be interested to see some examples. It is not something I've noticed much of. But then again, perhaps we Europeans are more sensitive to such things than Americans are.

Agreed MX, as I said, I don't think she meant ANY ill will towards Jews, none. However, with her silence followed by a written speech that was clearly prepared (complete with flag behind her) she did some research on what to say, if this were off the cuff, maybe I would give even more benefit of doubt and even say the words were somewhat wisely chosen as she did not have time to immediately draw any such references. But it was a planned speech and she should have known the connotation of that particular saying. For that she used poor judgment though I do not for a moment think she meant any ill will in the least.

GMTom wrote:Agreed MX, as I said, I don't think she meant ANY ill will towards Jews, none. However, with her silence followed by a written speech that was clearly prepared (complete with flag behind her) she did some research on what to say, if this were off the cuff, maybe I would give even more benefit of doubt and even say the words were somewhat wisely chosen as she did not have time to immediately draw any such references. But it was a planned speech and she should have known the connotation of that particular saying. For that she used poor judgment though I do not for a moment think she meant any ill will in the least.

I disagree. She was trying to say some have blamed her words for the shooting. In that sense, it is "blood libel." That's how Dershowitz interpreted it and how she framed it. Furthermore, that's what some liberals did--tied her rhetoric and chart to the murderer. It was and is preposterous.

I agree with Tom. Palin almost certainly didn't mean to imply that criticising her rather crass political rhetoric equates to persucution of the Jews, but it was still very poor judgment from somebody with an ambition to be elected President. She had plenty of time to formulate a much better speech than that, and the fact that she decided to wade in and play the victim card doesn't reflect well on her, even if she has been subject to some unfair criticism of late.

I should add btw that I do think she's been guilty of some extraordinarily crass and ill-judged politics, but it's ridiculous to blame her for the killings. She's fair game for criticism, but perhaps not to the extent that she's been copping it.

Steve, I was unfamiliar with the term myself. I did a google search on it and every single hit I saw referenced anti-semetic connotations. As I said, if she said this off the cuff, it might fit real well and I would not blame her for not recalling those connotations. But it was a prepared speech, no freaking way did she ever use that phrase before. She did not follow through on the use of an unfamiliar phrase. Again, i do like her, I do think she meant zero ill will, I know she had nothing to do with this killing, I also don't blame her for being upset by those who are trying to make this something it is not ...but the phrase was simply a poor choice not "wrong" mind you but "poor".