Free Markets, Free People

Daily Caller


Palin, "blood libel", Krauthammer and the left–have we “completely lost our minds?”

What a mess. Watching the political world in the light of the Tucson tragedy has been disheartening and disgusting.

While the President’s speech last night was fine, the venue was awful. And T-shirts? Really? It wasn’t a pep rally, but it seemed like one (I’m primarily talking about crowd reaction). What a more somber Oval Office speech wasn’t proper enough?

And this Sarah Palin thing. Am I ever tired of Sarah Palin. That said, I’m even more tired of the left’s obsession with Sarah Palin. Now she’s in hot water in some oversensitive and uninformed quarters of the left for the use of the term “blood libel”, which apparently has been claimed as a “Jews only” term.

Nonsense. That’s like saying “holocaust” can’t be used except in reference to the horrific Nazi pogrom of WWII.  When you have fools on the left, like Jane Fonda, accusing Palin of having “blood on her hands” (talk about irony), then “blood libel” seems more than an appropriate term for the accusations.

I think Charles Krauthammer said it best (via Daily Caller):

“[T]he fact is that even the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League in expressing a mild rebuke to Palin for using this admitted itself in its statement that the term ‘blood libel’ has become part of English parlance to refer to someone falsely accused,” Krauthammer said. “Let’s step back for a second. Here we have a brilliant, intelligent, articulate, beautiful, wife, mother and congresswoman fighting for her life, in a hospital in Tucson, and we’re having a national debate over whether the term ‘blood libel’ can be used appropriately in a non-Jewish context? Have we completely lost our minds?”

Apparently some of us have.  Krauthammer also notes that given the unfounded and obvious political attacks by the left on Sarah Palin, she had every right to defend herself.  However, when she finally issued her defense, the left had already been soundly “refudiated”:

“I found her speech unobjectionable, unremarkable but unnecessary,” he said.  “Of course, anybody who is attacked as she was has the right to defend herself in public. However, it wasn’t as if others hadn’t counteracted the calumny about her and others being responsible in some way for the massacre in Tucson. By the time she had the video on her website, the debate was over. The left, which had launched the accusation, had been completely defeated, ‘refudiated’ if you like, and disgraced over this. There wasn’t a shred of evidence and the battle was over. I mean, it was a rout to make the Pickett’s Charge look like a draw.”

Palin is the left’s favorite target (there I go with that violent rhetoric again) and sometimes it’s just best – especially when it has been convincingly done – to let others fight the fight.  That said, it most likely wouldn’t matter a whole bunch.  She could just sigh loudly and someone on the left would object to her using more air than others.

I think what Krauthammer is trying to get across is if we’re serious about mourning those lost in Tucson and paying tribute to them, political attacks on others shouldn’t be occurring to begin with.

That said, the “politicization” horse left the gate long ago on this one.  In fact, almost immediately after the shooting in Tucson, some on the left were already accusing Palin of being responsible.  Then after stirring it all up, they had the temerity to accuse her of “it’s always all about Sarah”.

~McQ