Washington Post is on it already: Sarah Palin's use of 'blood libel' sparks new controversy

[Turborama]

By Karen Tumulty
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 12, 2011; 11:23 AM

=cut=

Palin's statement contained an instance of provocative religious imagery that might be missed by more secular voters who read her statement, but which likely will be recognized by the religious conservatives who constitute such an important part of her following.

"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," she wrote. "That is reprehensible."

"Blood libel" is a phrase that refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander - the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals - that has been used as an excuse for persecution. The phrase was first used in connection with response to the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal and has been picked up by others on the right.

Palin's defensiveness was apparent in the indirect reference to criticism of a map on Palin's Web site during the midterm elections that showed districts of congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat marked with crosshairs. Giffords, whose district was one of those 20, had publicly complained that this was an invitation to violence.

Full piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011202145.html?hpid=topnews

[Happyhippychick]

1. Quitterella has jumped the shark. Her Willy Norton moment is here.

I've been waiting for this since '2008.

[robdogbucky]

7. You mean Willie Horton?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

[Exultant Democracy]

10. Either way I object to the comparison. Horton wasn't self inflicted, it was right wing race baiting.

Also known as the Lee Atwater special.

[Happyhippychick]

25. I'm referring to it's use when Mike Dukakis took a photo of himself in the tank

[Happyhippychick]

24. Oops

[Raschel]

2. Isn't the assertion of 'blood libel' comparable to 'death panels'?

Who would believe that Jews would use children's blood in their matzo?

Who would believe that the President would want to kill the elderly?

[deminks]

3. She is using religious hate speech to denounce hate speech.

Go figure.

[spanone]

4. she is toxic to the bone

[Crankie Avalon]

8. Even now, instead of calming things, she can only spew more of the same overheated, loaded rhetoric.

[bemildred]

5. The usual lack of clue is what it is.

Words are used as clubs, meanings are understood poorly or not at all. Even a minimal understanding of the phrase and its history would forbid using it in the way it was used.

[Maru Kitteh]

6. Looks like she went even cheaper with her PR staff than she did with her illegal home construction

And I was so looking forward to the (R) debate featuring Sarah the Plain vx. The Donald. What a riot that would have been.

[OregonBlue]

9. NYT has over 800 responses to it already and 790 of them are anti-Palin

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

[scarletwoman]

11. Important to note, she didn't come up with this herself, a WSJ opinion piece used it first.

The phrase was first used in connection with response to the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal and has been picked up by others on the right.

I'd like to see that WSJ piece, I don't recall seeing it posted here.

And it certainly is par for the course that Palin would pick up on someone else's over the top phraseology.

[CJCRANE]

12. WSJ is owned by her employer Rupert Murdoch.

Her ghost-writer might even be the same journalist.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. She did not come up with the whole paragraph herself, either.

Her puppet master wrote it, she cannot think or talk like that, as we all know.

[tammywammy]

17. Here's a link to the WSJ article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html

[Supersedeas]

23. thank you for the link

[suffragette]

18. This looks like the WSJ piece

Referenced here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/why_sarah_palins_blood_libel_w.html

Searched and found it:
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html


Absolutely agree with your sentence about this being "par for the course" for Palin.

[jwirr]

13. It is insulting to compare what the Jews have gone through historically

to what the hate mongerers are going through right now. Sarah and the others are only being asked to stop it from now on. They are not being asked to change their issue related ideas. Only how they present them to the public.

[One Voice]

15. Washington Post just changed their headline -

that's weird.

[Thunderstruck]

16. I'm late. They changed the headline from what? n/t

[Turborama]

19. They've changed it from the title in the OP to...

Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' comment overshadows a calibrated message

And the text has been changed to this which has a couple of caveats....

She went on to say: "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."

It is not at all clear that Palin intended to use the term "blood libel" in its full historical context. The phrase refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander - the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals - that has been used as an excuse for persecution. The phrase was first used in connection with response to the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal and has been picked up by others on the right.

While Palin did not explain her decision to use such historically fraught imagery, it would be recognized by religious voters, including the social conservatives who constitute such an important part of her following.

Palin has come under criticism because a map on her Web site during the midterm elections showed districts of congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat marked with crosshairs. Giffords, whose district was one of those 20, had publicly complained that this was an invitation to violence.

[One Voice]

20. It first said;

"Sarah Palin's use of 'blood libel' sparks new controversy"


now it says;
"Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' comment overshadows a calibrated message"

[Thunderstruck]

21. Thanks to you and Turborama for clarifying. n/t

[randr]

22. This is no new controversy

The majority of Americans have know her to be intellectually challenged and rather heartless from the get go.

[Turborama]

26. Reuters: Sarah Palin's "blood libel" charge ignites U.S. firestorm

By John Whitesides
WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 12

Prominent U.S. Republican Sarah Palin defended her fiery rhetoric on Wednesday but ignited a fresh controversy by accusing critics of "blood libel" in linking her to a deadly Arizona shooting spree.

A defiant Palin, leaping into a roaring debate on the consequences of overheated political rhetoric, said her critics had been irresponsible in rushing to blame Saturday's gun rampage on vitriolic campaign speech. "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," Palin, a potential 2012 White House contender, said in a video posted to her Facebook page.

Palin's reference to "blood libel," a false, centuries-old allegation that Jews were killing children to use their blood in religious rituals, launched a new round of criticism of Palin's rhetoric.

"We wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

More: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70B7CH20110112

Just like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x182206">The Wshington Post article on this, they refer to the WSJ article too. Seems like a memo went out instructing the reich wing to use BLOOD LIBEL in defense of their violent imagery and rhetoric. That means either Palin must have known what it meant or is demonstrably too stupid to understand what it means. The question is, who sent the memo out?

[DainBramaged]

27. Evil incarnate, grifter supreme, snowbilly magnum, giant asshole