The Blamestream Media has spent the past few days attempting to assert culpability on Governor Palin for the tragic shootings perpetrated by an unstable mad man last weekend in Arizona. When Governor Palin sincerely offered her Reaganesque response about the shooting, political rhetoric, and America’s enduring strength, the media’s collective(ist) heads have predictably exploded in response, particularly regarding her use of the phrase “blood libel”. In Sheya’s eloquent response earlier, he included supportive responses from Jews4Sarah and liberal Jewish Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz. Adam Brickley has also added his very pertinent response earlier today.
Here are more of some of the supportive remarks to Governor Palin’s usage of “blood libel” and the speech in general.
The American Spectator: Palin Is Still the Israel of American Politics:
There is a strong segment of the American electorate prepared to believe any negative word about Palin at face value. And as we have seen that includes everything up to and including being responsible for mass murder.
But then again being the Israel of American politics isn’t entirely a bad thing. Given that a majority of Americans support the State of Israel and that a majority of Americans don’t think Palin (or for that matter Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh) bear any responsibility for what happened in Tucson there is every reason to believe that Palin will come away from this only stronger.
Jim Geraghty at the National Review shares numerous examples of the use of the term “blood libel” in American politics, sharing in part:
In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow.
Yid with Lid, a Jewish conservative blogger, says in part:
Every time Israel acts to defend herself, the mainstream media is rich with blood libel invented by Israel’s enemies and accepted as truth by reporters.
When it comes to Governor Palin’s use of the term blood libel, it was totally justified. The progressive media created a lie about Palin causing the death of a child, Christina Taylor Greene. Their charge was blood libel just the same way as the media spreading the al Durah myth, or the way the media spread bogus charges of Israeli massacres during the recent war with Hamas in Gaza (or in the case of Reuters falsified pictures).
Allow me to suggest that the media should not try to push their progressive bias by assuming the role of policing the worldwide use of the term blood libel. They would be much better served trying to ensure that they do not become the conduits for the spread of blood libels, either be it directed toward Israeli soldiers, or conservatives in the United States.
Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review:
Yesterday, it was an outrage that Sarah Palin hadn’t responded to some of this week’s ridiculous commentary. The deafening silence! Someone (was it Chris Matthews?) had her hiding in a cave in Alaska. And now that she has responded, that’s an outrage, too.
My favorite accusation is that Sarah Palin is such a dim bulb that she doesn’t know what “blood libel” most prominently, poisonously, and disgracefully refers to. If you’re making that accusation, you ought to take a look at who some of her advisers are. They’re not new to the world of actual wars and history.
Where was the outrage when the Wall Street Journal published the phrase earlier in the week? This seems to be a whole lot more about reacting to Sarah Palin, and being annoyed at Sarah Palin, than anything else. And it continues to miss the point that Tucson is not about Sarah Palin.
People of good faith, who are conservative and who respect this nation, its founding, and want to revert back to the days where Reaganism and conservatism actually made this nation prosperous and strong, are somehow the kooks, and Palin is representative of all that with which we admire.
The liberal and republican intelligentsia fear Palin’s message, and her ability to connect with people and promote conservatism. That is why they want to destroy her candidacy and her promotion of that message.
Sarah Palin finally gives a classy response, one worth of a leader of the free world, and the media finds two words to attack Palin for: saying “blood libel.” In other words, Palin had an overall effective message.
Ed Morrissey at HotAir:
Earlier this week, I told a reporter that a public response would be tricky for Palin. She needed to defend herself but without being seen as descending to the level of the debate as it stood at that moment. Plenty of others were defending conservatives already, but Palin needed to engage the debate on her own terms at some point in a manner that allowed her to rise above the accusatory morass that the media encouraged almost from the hour in which the shootings took place.
This video message affirms the wisdom of that approach. Palin does an excellent job in making her point without lashing out in anger over the attacks, and underscores the importance of personal responsibility rather than group guilt in a free society, the priority of free speech as an underpinning of democracy, and the determination of Palin and the rest of the conservatives to defend those principles. It’s precisely what Palin needed to say, and precisely the manner and forum in which she needed to say it.
Thomas Lamb at Red County:
To those in the media, you are the ones who have made the battle sexy, and fortunately, the majority in this nation aren’t buying into your rhetoric.
And once again, Sarah Palin is right: It is Blood Libel.
The tragedy is with those who were killed or harmed and with the mental anguish of the parents and beloved ones who were involved.
The Jewish Week says, “Sarah Palin Is Right — We’re Looking At A Blood Libel”:
Sarah Palin is right. She is being slandered. Nothing reflects the vulgarity of the national conversation over the past few years more than the relentless “hating” of Sara (sic) Palin, particularly in the Jewish community, particularly those Jews who flatter themselves as being tolerant, as masters of civility.
Pamela Gellar at Atlas Shrugs:
Today Sarah Palin responded to the vicious blood libel leveled against her by the army of destroyers. The ferocious, relentless attacks on Sarah Palin are a testament to her greatness, proof of how deathly afraid of her they are, like Dracula to the silver cross.
We, on the other hand, cut and run when the lie about whomever is round the world, before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. I cringe when I hear conservatives and Republicans say Sarah Palin is not electable. Why? Because evildoers said so? Who cares? That’s what they want you to think. How wonderful it would be to have a clear thinking, rational, proud patriot for president. Who else could possibly restore America back to her standing and respect in the world? I think Palin would be spectacular, one of the greats.
Dan Riehl at Riehl World View:
However uncomfortable it may make some feel, what Palin has done here is engage the debate candidly and head-on, just as she did during the health care debate when she invoked the term death panels.
Isn’t it possible that we need to be made to feel just a bit uncomfortable with what the Left has been doing in exploiting the Arizona tragedy in a manner which transcends simply being angry? Whatever the reason, I do believe using the term blood libel has a way of doing that, elevating the debate into one of substance, over simply feelings, or anger, as a matter of fact. That, despite its presumed inflammatory nature. Ironic, that.
Seems to me, if we’re going to now run away from that debate because it requires potentially inflammatory rhetoric to define it both precisely – and in terms with which we can win it – then how the hell are we ever to win it, hopefully stopping the Left from repeatedly using repugnant tactics just like the one they are using as regards the Arizona massacre?
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit:
What a wonderful speech. One of her finest.
Good for Sarah for pointing out the “blood libel” of the unhinged left-wing media.
Michelle Malkin in part says:
Today, Sarah Palin issued her own poignant, but fierce rejoinder against the vicious smears of Tucson massacre opportunists and drew on “America’s enduring strength” to pay tribute to the victims.
They criticized her for not saying anything.
Now, they’ll criticizing her for saying something.
Idiocracy: The new normal.
John Hayward at Human Events:
Her condemnation of the leftist media for manufacturing a “blood libel,” within hours of the shootings, is absolutely searing. “We need strength not to let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation… or provide a pretext to stifle debate. America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured, in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger, and more united, in our desire to peacefully engage in the debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in our knowledge that, although our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. Yes, may God bless America.”
Thus does Sarah Palin shame those who tried to put her in the parking lot of that Tucson grocery store, when gunshots rang out. There is no question who they are – we have hours of videotape from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC, plus stacks of rotting paper from liberal newspapers, clearly identifying the people Palin destroyed with this video. You lose, liberals.
Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin’s official statement, in part:
“Blood libel” does not refer exclusively to accusations against Jews. It does not refer only to medieval episodes that resulted in pogroms. It is a term that has been, and continues to be, legitimately used in contemporary American political discourse by all sides. Governor Palin’s use of the term is accurate, reasonable, and squarely within the bounds of accepted political discourse. It is her opponents’ attempts to falsely connect her to the Tucson massacre which is inaccurate, and unreasonable, and beyond the pale of civilized discourse.
H/T to numerous C4P Contributors