Sarah Palin thinks criticism of violent rhetoric is “blood libel”
I’m sure you’re all aware Sarah Palin finally issued a statement regarding the attempted murder of Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic Congresswoman who was shot a few days ago in the head. Giffords had appeared on Palin’s list of “targets” during the 2010 election, and critics have pointed out the violent rhetoric of the right is partially to blame for the shooting. Being the self absorbed narcissist she is, her video statement says exactly what you’d expect it to: “I’m not to blame here, and anyone who thinks differently is committing great harm to this country”:
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?
Yeah, I can’t tell you how many times Jimmy Carter would yank out his old school one shooter and threatened his political rivals with a good old fashioned pistol duel. Is this woman for real?
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.
I have an idea: how about avoiding the use of obviously incendiary and gun-obsessed rhetoric when talking about political candidates? Telling people they need to “reload” or “take up arms” is completely irresponsible and isn’t the mark of good political debate. Rather than apologize (which would have at least made her seem somewhat human), she decided to put all the blame on the media for criticizing her use of language in her political dealings. It’s always someone else’s fault, right? Perhaps the worst blunder is her use of the world “blood libel” to describe pundits who called her out on her shit:
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.
Does she even know what the hell blood libel means? The Catholic Church used to accuse Jews of using Christian blood for all kinds of dark ceremonies, and this would often entice citizens to – wait for it – take matters into their own hands. Who knew political rhetoric could have such a strong impact, eh?