Democratic Congresswoman Among 12 Shot in Arizona

It was totally unfair when they reported that her daughter was pregnant.

After she sent out a press release announcing it.

Equally unfair were the accurate transcriptions of her word salad responses to Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson.

 

This went out on Twitter last night, hours before Palin posted her statement there:

AndrewBreitbart
And to the gutless GOP establishment who watches in silence the blood libel against @SarahPalinUSA. We will remember. #TeaParty
13 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

 

Well you know what media she reads, don't you? All of 'em.

 

Breitbart credibility rating: zero.

 

I'm

Ironic that in the wake of the shooting some of these folks seem to be bent on proving that words don't mean anything.

 

I think you've nailed it. First, Palin waits to put out any statement whatsoever. Then when she does, it unnecessarily puts the spotlight on herself and her conduct -- which presumably is what she was so upset about in the first place. And to use the term "blood libel" -- my god, does she or anyone on her staff have access to Google or Wikipedia?

I remain convinced that she wasn't going to run in 2012, because I think she likes the idea of being president more than the actual work involved. But I'm sure she planned on playing a major part in who the Republicans select. That possibility is dimming fast. Tim Pawlenty has already given her the stiff-arm, and I'm sure other potential candidates will do the same if there is more blowback against Palin.

 

At some point, they'll figure out, if they haven't already, that the people she appeals to will, in the end, grit their teeth and vote for whoever the GOP tells them to. What other choice will they have? Anything except a vote for the GOP nominee is effectively a vote for Obama.

 

This is friendly view of Palin's statement by Dave Wiegel of Slate, but I think he's tone-deaf, too:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/state-of-the-the-palin.aspx

More Palin:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government.



Palin was never going to say "sorry, I was over the top when I talked about retreating and reloading," but that's how I read this -- she's no angel, this is not an ideal world. I'd be very surprised if we hear "don't retreat, reload" on the campaign trail again (whether Palin runs or whether she merely campaigns for people).



The problem is, no one wants to hear that political rhetoric has always been heated, true or not. Also, if Palin was going to say something, she had to confront "retreat and reload" and the target map. She didn't even have to apologize. All she had to say was, "I used these as metaphors, and I think all reasonable people can agree with me when I say that it was never an invitation to violence." Instead, by trying to argue that words don't matter, she argues that words matter. Huh?

What Palin forgot is that the true believers, or anyone who still insists she had something to do with Giffords' shooting, was not the sweet spot for her statement. The target, ahem, was everyone outside those fringes. And she didn't hit the broad side of that barn.

 

He must have never listened to Stairway to Heaven growing up:

There's a sign on the wall
But she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have
Two meanings

In a tree by the brook
There's a songbird who sings
Sometimes all of our thoughts are
Misgiven

More convinced by the day that when Jimmy Page wrote this song he had Sarah Palin in mind.

 

Yeah, it looks like several folks have used the term "blood libel" in the last couple of days.

Palin, or someone she's working with must have liked how it sounded and thrown it in her speech. But, if she even wants to be a political kingmaker, let alone a candidate, she needs to be smarter than that.

Azrael's post was the first reference I saw to her comments. Then I saw it on MSNBC and twitter, where the coverage focused on her use of the term.

Then, I saw posts on places like NRO that went up earlier that suggested it was a good response, without mentioning her use of the term.

Maybe it was a good statement overall. I don't know. I'm not going to go back and watch or read it now. By using that one term, she's allowed all of the focus regarding her statement to focus on that one aspect (and how its use reflects on her).

It's just so stupid. a completely unforced error.

The idea in politics is to control the message. With that one term, she lost complete control of the message and the coverage.

And now, other Republicans are being forced to react to it, further compounding her error.

 

While we are seeking apologies I would like Bill Ayers to apologize for his roll in "Kent State".

 

Apropos of nothing...

I can't help but think how lucky Pat Buchanan is that no one murdered someone with a pitchfork back in '88.

The pitchfork and his "Pitchfork Brigade" was at the center of his campaign.

All of his allusions were to revolutionary themes.

And, actually, I don't think those kind of illusions are so terrible as long as it's clear that you're suggesting that the revolution will take place at the ballot box -- where it belongs.