Keeping Score

One of the difficult aspects for the Media regarding the Tucson tragedy was that it was largely taken out of its it political score keeping comfort zone. To do so would of course have been "injecting politics" into a tragedy. Yesterday, the keeping score approach was unavoidable, as it started with Sarah Palin and ended with the President of the United States. The President and his party scored big yesterday. Which makes this post from Jennifer Rubin rather bizarre:

Why were the last four days a mini-disaster for the swampland of the left? It boils down to: facts, response and time. [. . .] So, for my friends on the left: facts count. You can't spin a narrative and not be expected to be called on the underlying, flawed premise.

I'm not sure what Rubin is talking about. "The Left" lost? I did not know "the Left" was playing. My appreciation of the week is that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party "lost" and President Obama and Beltway Dems "won." Put it this way, a few more "wins" like this and we won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore.

Speaking for me only

< The Media's Continuing War On Wikileaks | Will Defeating Sarah Palin Be A Victory For "The Left?" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That is a huge column of Elephant $hit (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    sprinkled with peculiar remote viewing abilities :)  What is this?

    And then there is time. The reason I believe that Obama entirely avoided politics, indeed rebuked the Krugman-Daily Kos narrative, is because he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left. Conversely, because the left couldn't restrain themselves, they pounced immediately and left a trail of inanity on twitter and websites.

    Yes....the king of the beer summit couldn't have avoided politics simply because nine year olds were dead and that trumps politics among decent human beings.  Can these pundits and wingers even hear themselves?

    No, apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    they can't hear themselves.  When they are spouting such self-righteous twaddle, their ears (and eyes, and brain) stop functioning.  What I want to know is, who the he!! is Jennifer Rubin and why should I pay any attention to her?

    The Weekly Standard puts her up (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:46:46 AM EST
    so she is a Conservative blabbermouth of note I guess.

    She also (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    writes for WaPo

    Everybody finds her credible (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    and brilliant.....but me :)  And you maybe, and Zorba :)

    Prolific creator of agitprop (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    Just likes sticking it to "liberals."

    No real original ideas or insightful analysis...just propaganda....

    She obviously didn't get the memo about not turning on one another during political debate....


    The funny thing is (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    okay, the GOP doesn't want us to talk about gays, drugs, etc. in the media for fear of getting ideas into our children's minds.  God knows those gay penguins are ruining our children.  And yet OHMIGOD, the idea that our violent political culture could effect someone is unfathomable.  "I can't believe that the central metaphor of the re-invigorated conservative movement, the US revolution against the government, was actually taken seriously by someone!"

    When I listened to Obama's speech I heard clearly the call to civility...and that call, if answered, is going to be answered more by leaders of one party (hint:  the one that talks about RELOADING) than the leaders of the other.  If right-wingers had the most minute ability to consider that they should tone down their rhetoric, that they should make it their goal to do so, they would've heard that too.  Instead (and I was watching this on FOX"NEWS" in real-time), they decided to sh*t all over the "peculiar" Native American blessing.  Amazing!  I'm not shocked that Sarah Palin and others can't be contrite over their violent rhetoric, but maybe others will be.  Esp. if they continue their violent rhetoric.  


    You are wicked right on (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    about how finding out that someone has two dads married to each other is going to destroy our culture and our society, but somehow magically calling for second amendment solutions will give nobody any kind of motivation they didn't already have.

    Heheh (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    thanks...of course the only issue is that some Tea Partiers probably are just purely violent like this guy who blames Giffords for getting shot (thanks TL sidebar).  I mean WTF?

    So I guess we should surround each member of Congress with their own stormtroopers to protect them from our insane citizens?  Thereby driving our citizens more insane as this is exactly what they fear and what Glenn Beck told them would happen?

    Or perhaps we should have our Congress members hide out in secret underground bunkers, which I'm guessing Glenn Beck has also told his viewers would happen?

    Anyway, here's what Bill O'Reilly said about the shootings in one of his heated blather fests, and here are a number of his comments about gay indoctrination.

    It's crazy.  I'm going to the bar for a drink...want to come?  Don't forget to grab your gun!


    It's hard for them to hear themselves... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    ...over the studio orchestra that plays in their heads as they write, a stirring soundtrack to the greatness of their insight and passion. It just starts up whenever they tap on the keyboard, they can't stop it, their burden is great.  

    Must hinder their reading, too.


    Oh, Sarah's not going anywhere (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    Attempt to imagine, if you can stomach it, the unprecedented lunacy that the 2012 election most assuredly holds for this nation.  

    We'll be lucky to survive it, and I'm only partially jesting.

    Sarah Palin's Alaska got cancelled (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    She had better start standing down and wait for an opportunity to reinvent herself or she's about to go down the Anne Coulter road.

    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    Coulter never had the fan base "ParaSailin' with Sarah Palin" did.

    And I read a few things that seemed to indicate she might have chosen not to do a second season, in order to keep open the possibility of running for office again -- and what office would she run for if not prez? Everything else is beneath her at this point, to her anyway.

    But I could be wrong, hope she does slip away into the woods, but I'll believe it when I see it -- and don't see her.


    I read it was ratings (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    after the first show, that was pretty much it. Can't remember the numbers though . . . .

    Seems to me, that show would have some good footage her opponents could use . . .  :)


    They've sneaking into Iowa already (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    and with our new right-to-carry law in place, I can't wait to see Palin and Huckabee strutting down the street in Des Moines like it's Dodge City and they're the Earps.

    Seriously, I fully expect at least one of the hopefuls to casually pull back their jacket to reveal a holster. The base - and the media - will eat it up with a spoon.


    OMG won't they? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    I almost can't wait

    Scoring (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    Well, any week where the Democrats can control the topic of discourse and get Republicans back on their heels reacting is a win. Clearly, Republicans were running scared this week.  Add on top of that an occasion that lets President Obama look, well, presidential, and it's an even bigger win.

    I also feel very callous having made those observations given the event that occasioned all of this but such is politics.

    I'm not sure of the long term effects of any of this since I thought early polling indicated that the majority of Americans don't think the political discourse was a contributing factor.  However, since I believe the political culture has gotten way too heated, I'll be very happy to be misinformed on that.

    In terms of Palin, I just don't see this week as a disaster for her unless the public believes that her behaviors contributed to the shooting.  

    I dismiss the general pearl clutching in various commenting on lefty blogs (not in BTD's post) about Palin's gall to post that video.  It sounds too much like the typical stuff said about women trying to break through the glass ceiling.  If Palin is to run for the presidency, she has institutional disadvantages that she's going to have to overcome as a woman.  Putting message aside and focusing just on method, this may be part of her strategy to gain access.  Just like her TV show.

    In terms of her message and whether that damaged her...again, I'm not convinced yet that the blood libel stuff will offend anyone other than people who never would have voted for her anyway.    She's not the first person to use that term wrongly or in a political context.  And if the public dismisses the perpetrator as someone mentally ill and not influenced by political discourse...again, no damage.

    I'm actually more interested in what's up with Speaker Boehner but since we're in another one of those phases where the Left has lost their mind over Palin...

    As far as Palin (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    goes, in the larger picture it probably changes nothing for her. She already is disliked by the majority of Americans and probably nothing to change the viewpoint of her fans either.

    The big unknown is if the media fascination will continue or she'll end up being yesterday's news.


    "Pearl-clutching" is right (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    If you don't already hate Sarah Palin, her video I think came across very, very well.  It was well written and if you don't share our point of view here, probably sounded entirely reasonble, even righteous.  She gains hugely when she can look like a victim of the untrustworthy establishment.  And all the pearl-clutching from the more-or-less left and the punditocracy probably impresses you not at all.

    I don't think it's been at all disastrous for her, actually.

    I would like to be a fly on the wall when the GOP party leaders have another one of what I'm sure must have been dozens of very frustrated conversations by now about how to stop her.


    Liberal Colored Glasses (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    "Put it this way, a few more "wins" like this and we won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore." -BTD

    Huh ?  No offense, but his has to be one of the better example of viewing Palin through liberal-colored glasses.

    It's hard for me to imagine what her fans are thinking, but I have a feeling many view of her performance yesterday as something to add to her greatest hits repertoire.

    She insulted Jews and liberals while playing victim all in the shadow of a Jewish/liberal's assassination whom she had targeted, literally. For the nitwit hate group, aka Palin fans, that has to be a trifecta.

    Palin is slowly working her way out of any office, but in doing so she is changing the political discourse.  Liberals have never kicked her around, we may have made her look foolish and petty to us, but to her fans, it only makes her stronger.

    AYFKM? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by DaveCal on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    She insulted Jews?  She insulted Liberals?  She played victim?  Wow, you must really Hate her.

    For days she's excoriated by those that hate her: liberals in politics, punditry and the media, who say she caused, or contributed to the massacre.  All of which is done at first without any evidence, and later despite evidence to the contrary.

    She's attacked for "staying silent" and then when she makes a statement she's attacked for "inserting herself into a story" or "playing victim" or "insulting Jews" because she used the term blood libel?  

    Read this:  http://tinyurl.com/4ghuvka

    The most relevent reference is this:

    "Color me limited (and Jewish), but it seems to me that she used the perfect phrase.  You see, a blood libel, such as the one aimed for centuries at Jews (still aimed, by the way) is a statement that, without any proof whatsoever, accuses someone of having  . . . yes, innocent blood on his or her hands.

    . . .

    I thought language in America was a vehicle for communicating ideas, not for isolating (or slicing and dicing) races, classes, and victims."

    I truly hope you can pull back enough to get some perspective here, and stop all the hating.    


    So you liked her video? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    I didn't think it was an appropriate response to the murder of a 9 year old girl and others.... let alone on the day of their memorial.

    Obama's wish that American be what she dreamed it was?...... that was moving.


    It was fine (none / 0) (#24)
    by DaveCal on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    I thought her video was fine.  

    She said her heart was broken over the tragedy.  She mourned the victims. She hoped for healing.  She celebrated the exchange of ideas and the strength of American values.  She chastised irresponsible statements.  She talked of individual responsibility.  

    What did she say that you found inappropriate?  


    It's what she didn't say... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by magster on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    as in "I'm sorry if I used gunsights over Giffords district, said we had to "reload" in our fight against Dems, etc.  While it may not have been a cause for this particular shooting, there has been an escalation of political based threats and other incidents where politics has been a motivation. I resolve to engage in spirited debate that does not contain the violent rhetoric that has been highlighted these last few days in honor of Rep. Giffords and hope this incident becomes a turning point towards a kinder gentler moose-burger eating nation. <wink>"

    It didn't seem sincere (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    She was spitting nails....very angry....and just waiting to blast her opposition.

    Palin is mean, ignorant, narcissistic and savvy.

    She just loves venom and ridicule....It is always only about Palin....


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    Couldn't you say that about any politician?

    It is always only about Palin.

    I mean, it takes a kind of self esteem to run for office, to think that you have the answers, and a special kind of self esteem (or arrogance) to be on the national stage, don't you think?


    Not exactly (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    Every successful politician will have a huge ego....but they also have the ability to make it about something bigger than themselves....

    Palin doesn't do that.


    The "blood libel" charge (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by magster on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    when a Jewish congresswoman is fighting for her life with a gunshot wound to the head is insensitive at best.

    Yes, but then again (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:54:01 PM EST
    How many people really knew what that meant?  I admitted yesterday that I had never heard that term before, and I think oculus did too.  Do I think it was deliberately chosen?  Yes, but I also think it wasn't as bad a day for her as many seem to think, since I bet most people in the country only learned yesterday what it meant. At which point, you hear it and say, "Wow, that was a bad choice of words and could be pretty offensive."  But if you don't care about Palin, or you like her, I don't see that changing one person's opinion of her.

    And I very much doubt that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    more than 1 in 100 Americans, if that, know that Giffords is Jewish. I sure didn't.  I'm willing to bet Palin didn't, either, and wouldn't care one way or another anyway.

    Isn't it pathetic (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    that we really expect that Palin will know less than the posters on this website?

    No, actually (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:04:27 AM EST
    I see no reason whatsoever why she would have any reason to know or care what Giffords's ethnic background is.  What possible relevance does it have to anything?

    Why, in fact, does it matter to you?

    She made no issue of it.  She's just a person who happens to be Jewish by heritage, and for all we know, not at all by practice.  Do you imagine Obama knew until somebody told him?



    You really seem to defend Palin here (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    I am quite frankly surprised.

    Yes, she rejects science and does not "emphatically" embrace it--where would you get such an idea.....Just because her father was a teacher?  She clearly ran away from that....

    She is a grade A reactionary who bashes everyone not like her....

    You say elsewhere in this thread that she is not lazy because she did run for Governor.....She quit that position halfway through when it got icky....She also quit her position on the oil and gas commission....

    It is not a matter of blaming her for the Giffords shooting.  It is that she completely makes everything about her.....And her crosshairs ad, coupled with her comments about "reloading" and "bullseyes", are disgusting....


    What has she said or done (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 12:52:32 AM EST
    please note-- not what somebody says, what she says or has done herself-- that "rejects science"?

    I assume you're referring to the idea widely promoted by lefty groups when she was nominated, that she believed "creation science" should be taught in public schools instead of evolution.

    That is flatly false and has been thoroughly debunked long ago.

    Same with the idea that she's opposed to sex education and birth control.  Both are false.

    I spent some time researching all that when it first showed up and I know where it came from and that it's all false and contradictory to the direct words out of her own mouth.


    I defend Palin (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 12:56:55 AM EST
    whom I would never in a thousand years vote for for anything, from patent falsehoods because I have an intense dislike of falsehood and demonization, whether it's done by the right or the left.

    The frantic need of some folks on the left to turn Palin into a far worse monster than she actually is never ceases to amaze and depress me.


    I think David Frum talking about Palin (none / 0) (#86)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    said it best:

    Lawrence O'Donnell's Last Word dedicated a segment to understanding Sarah Palin and her "blood libel" claims in light of President Obama's comments, and needless to say that O'Donnell and his panel- David Frum and Mother Jones' David Corn- took a bit of an issue with it. But for Frum, her comments weren't offensive- they were proof Palin was eroding- like a "big melting iceberg."

    So much for abandoning the "usual plane of politics." While Frum and Corn both agreed that the "blood libel" quote, which O'Donnell harped on repeatedly, was not the most offensive part of the speech for them, and Corn's problem with it was that, especially in light of President Obama's speech, was that it was "petty, narcissistic, and ignorant," Frum merely viewed it as a failed attempt to prove her presidential mettle. "When you apply for a job, you should dress for the job you want," Frum noted, "She dressed for the job she has."

    Besides, gyrfalcon, you're not one of those Real Americans Palin talked about during the 2008 campaign, so you don't get to have an opinion on the subject.  :-)


    Yes, by practice--it is easily found out (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 03:29:09 PM EST

    If you are going to give a State of the Union type response about the shooting of a Congresswoman, and you want to use a term that offends and wounds many Jews, I think you would at least research whether that could offend the victim and her family....

    Obama didn't use the "blood libel" term....


    That doesn't even make any sense (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 12:54:21 AM EST
    If you have no reason to think the congresswoman is Jewish or that the phrase has any sacred meaning, why would you?

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by DaveCal on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    The phrase was accurately applied to what was being done to Palin.  

    It had nothing to do with the Congresswoman.  She didn't use the phrase in reference to the Congresswoman.  

    Maybe you can put out a list of words that we're forbidden to use, and the people or groups we're forbidden to use them around.  


    Palin the perennial victim (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    What a crybaby.  

    Palin brought this on herself.

    If she hadn't run such a despicable ad in the first place (and she was lucky the shooter was not a Palin fan), she would not find herself in this mess.  By publishing that ad, she ran the risk that something like Tucson would happen and that she would be blammed for it.

    Palin just could not resist the cheap shot....

    Hoisted by her own petard....Live by the nasty rhetorical sword, die by the same sword....


    Palin is an evil person (none / 0) (#63)
    by magster on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 09:12:01 PM EST
    She is not the victim of blood-libel. She is not the victim of ordinary libel. She is not the victim of anything. Her words drip with hate and stupidity in equal measure and thank heaven that she did not become our Vice President.

    What a fantasy image of her you have (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:09:35 AM EST
    "Her words drip with hate."

    She was grinding her teeth (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    during her big speech.

    She loves ridiculing her opposition.  

    Palin is just like Nixon.....except without the brains....


    Ugh! (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:07:09 AM EST
    The phrase in its historical meaning DOES NOT apply to what was "being done to" Palin.  Give me a big, fat break.

    All the cheering (none / 0) (#38)
    by star on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:29:43 PM EST
    But what was the deal with all the clapping and cheering? I did not hear the speech, but saw in ABC this morning that Obama was interrupted 53 times for applause? I thought that happens in state of the union not at a sad and poignant event like a memorial.
    I chose to read the speech and i think it was well written and for once there was some emotion and connection in the words.

    It did seem somewhat jarring (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    but it was okay in the end....It was not a funeral in a Church.....

    And there were many college kids there....clapping is just the norm....The Frozen Chosen is more my style....But they clap alot in Evangelical Churches too....


    There's a HUGE (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:14:15 AM EST
    difference between a memorial service, which is to celebrate the live of the dead, and a funeral service, which is to mourn their deaths.  You probably haven't noticed that there have been ongoing actual individual funerals for the people who died, as well.

    The memorial was. (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:34:00 PM EST

    And how sad that is.

    Particularly since Obama made some points we might all listen to.


    How dare those people (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    not follow YOUR standards of behavior at a memorial service for THEIR friends and loved ones. Shame on them.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    This is a criticism that only a few on the Right are trying....

    There was clapping as at the Wellstone service....But the comparison ends there....

    There was no, as in none, nada, zip, zero, partisanship.....

    Evangelical Church services have much clapping and electric guitars etc.  African American Church services can be boisterous affairs too.....

    You are showing a cultural bias here....The event was not a funeral in a old line Protestant Church.....


    It was supposed to be a (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    memorial service for the victims and to supposedly bring all Americans together.

    Some of those Americans... are you ready for this?... are actually members of old line Protestant churches...

    If you want common ground you must first be willing to give some ground. Without that the civility that Obama spoke of will never be reached.


    It worked (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    Obama has been given universally good marks by almost everyone--and especially high ones by conservatives....

    Oh, (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by sj on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:42:58 PM EST
    Is that the latest talking point?

    Oh, pleasue (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:11:11 AM EST
    They were the identical points he's been making since the campaign-- kumbaya.

    Huh ? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    So her choices were stay silent or attack liberals, there's no in between ?

    Great, you found a pro-Palin Jew, who's interpretation, while plausible, isn't the generally accepted interpretation.  But congrats on that find, now Google the other 99.99% she actual insulted.

    I honestly don't know what you point is, which in humorous in it's self considering the off topic comment about language and communication.  What was the point, that I was wrong, or that I should not hate so much, or to defend the indefensible ?

    And last, but not least, this non-practicing Jew is thankful to you for finding the one unknown voice amongst many that totally agrees with you, and ignores the rest of the population.  Good job.

    As far as Palin and the shooting, does she really feel no responsibility, maybe not for the actual shooting, but her references to gun and targets and cross-hairs and reloading, all of it had to trickle down as some level.  

    Why can't she just say say sorry, I'll tone it down a bite, and quit referring to people as game to be hunted ?  If it's hate that you really hate, why not start with someone who actually does have influence instead of bothering me.


    Oh please... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by DaveCal on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    I wanted you to read the article to get a different perspective.  If you disagree with it that's fine.  But it's a different perspective.

    My point was (and your reply confirmed it) that you have a lack of perspective.  Maybe your lack of perspective is fueling your hatred of Palin, or maybe your hatred of Palin is fueling your lack of perspective.  I don't know.  But I hope you take some time, take a few breaths and acquire some perspective.    

    You said she insulted Jews, insulted liberals and played the victim.  How?  By using the term "blood libel"?

    The quote, I thought, made it pretty clear (and more succinctly than I could have) that the term was accurate in this context.  Or do you disagree that it's an apt description of what was happening to her?    

    Or are you saying the phrase itself is insulting to Jews?  Or that only Jews can use the phrase?  The link and quote (about language and communication) spoke right to that point.  Groups don't own phrases.  They convey ideas.  She was saying (accurately in my opinion) that what was happening to her was "blood libel".  

    Its a phrase; it accurately described what was being done to her.  She wasn't playing victim, she was defending herself.  

    Some may have been offended, some have feigned offense.  Certainly plenty didn't find it offensive.  

    Feel free to take your own advice and use Google to find out how wrong you are ... not everyone was offended.  Far from it.    

    But I suspect you won't.  That might actually get you some perspective. You seem content holding tight to your hatred.  I hope I'm wrong.  


    Liberals don't hate Palin, they fear her (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    Dave, you make the "hater" argument--that so-and- so is a "hater"....that liberals just irrationally hate Palin....

    It is not hate but fear.....

    Palin represents a Liberal's worst fears: ignorance, mindless slogans, religious extremism guiding all decisions, a rejection of reason, rejection of education and science, endless venom and just plain ol' meanness, lack of compassion....

    Or i short--just mean, petty, vindictive, ambitious, ignorant, bigotted.

    Palin is as if there were no Enlightenment....

    And she was so close to being V.P. and perhaps even President....That thought scares liberals....


    well (none / 0) (#49)
    by DaveCal on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    I was just referring to the one poster, based upon his or her posts.    



    Palin represents (none / 0) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 02:26:47 AM EST
    what liberals fear most but only in their imaginations.  In fact, religious extremism doesn't even guide very many, if any, of her decisions, never mind all of them, she does not reject reason, she simply disagrees with you, she most emphatically does not reject either education or science, she does not at all lack compassion, etc, etc., etc.

    You (and many others) have made of her a horrific monster out of your own imaginations, one that does not at all resemble who she actually is.  And you marvel that she's defensive in the extreme and feels herself a victim?

    Good grief.


    She rejects science,ergo reason. (none / 0) (#70)
    by observed on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 05:21:52 AM EST
    But, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    When she was governor, she had an Israeli flag in her office.  Why would Jews hate her?



    Sorry (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    But the idea that yesterday was not an unmitigated disaster for Palin defies belief.

    Disaster for her among whom? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    Seriously.  We already thought she was a disaster.  The media by and large already thought she was a disaster.  The Republican establishment already thinks she's a disaster.

    Her base adores her and is cheering her little speech.  The folks who remain to be convinced one way or another aren't aware enough to recognize the logical fallacies and outright distortions in her speech and in my opinion are more likely to react to her overall demeanor and delivery, which was sober and gave the appearance of being thoughtful.

    Barring some really strange occurrences, she's not going to get the GOP nomination.  And even if she did, she absolutely will not beat Obama (I'm tempted to say "even Obama," but never mind), but that was true before the shooting anyway.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    But how many times has that been said about her or other toxic republicans, too many to believe that it hurt her in any meaningful way.

    If there is a metric, maybe news coverage in hours, to judge her popularity, I would put up a months wages on it not decreasing from now until Nov 2012.

    For fun, let's count TL posts of her using the same range.  I know, there's only been like a million posts so far, but I expect that number to increase.

    Good news for me, your post at noon is makes number one.

    Note.  Just because she is sliding into in-electability doesn't mean she isn't effecting the directing of political discourse.  I don't suspect she is going to run in 2012, but she will be all over the TV and Twitter doing the work most people can't stomach, for the actual candidate.


    I am not so sure (none / 0) (#37)
    by star on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    I live in florida and had a long drive today so happened to listen to a local radio talk show fellow (dont know his name for sure since i heard him for the 1st time today). Luckily he did not talk too much but was only taking calls specifically on the 2 "Speeches" from yesterday. Caller after caller was in praise for Palin sounding most presidential in her rebuttal to the unfair accusitions. I heard in total disbelief caller after caller repeating this same mantra.
    Obama's speech was also well appreciated, but I dont think  Palin's was a disaster for anyone who is not a Palin hater already.

    A question (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    Glen Reynolds, a UT law professor and blogger (Instapundit) wrote an article for the WSJ titled The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

    Now that was published on Monday. Yet I have not heard or seen a single objection by TalkLeft commentators  to the term "blood libel" used by Reynolds prior to Palin's speech and furor the Left has raised. And a a scan of the comments within the WSJ show no objections to the term until about 21 hours ago.

    Do we have an agenda being played put here?

    Why is that? Could it be that the term offends only because it was used by Palin? I mean the WSJ is not some shadow media outlet. Surely one of the talking heads read it long before Palin spoke.

    In any event, Reynolds wrote this. I think it is well said.

    The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors--"lock and load"--and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this--or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"--it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.


    To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

    To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

    Reynolds is not that big a deal (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    Palin is a much bigger deal.....and her words simply get more attention because of that.

    But since we are at it, yeah, Reynolds is a jerk for making the comparison too:  Palin has not been persecuted as have the Jewish people of the Middle Ages....

    Palin is not a victim--the victims are in Tucson.....


    I never said Reynolds is anything (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    beyond what he has done. But the WSJ is certainly a well known and favored media outlet.

    And my point was that no one attacked him in the TL or in the WSJ comment section until after the lynching (can I say that?) of Palin started.

    That tells me that it wash't the message she gave. It was the fact that she said it.


    Lynched? Palin has been lynched?? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    Poor, poor pitiful Sister Sarah.

    When will she be loved?

    You're no good....for critizing her

    She just ....travels to the beat of a different drum.

    Palin is not a victim.  She has become a millionaire by using her fame...
    What a strange culture of victimhood that inhabits the conservative mind.   Is it just insecurity in the face of a rapidly chaning world?

    First Palin compares herself to the travails of the Jews of the Middle Ages.  Now, you, jim, compare Palin to the African Americans who were literally lynched....What vain, self-absorbed absurdities....  


    Well, I guess I can't say (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:21:56 AM EST

    And thanks for proving my point.

    BTW - The lynching of blacks was a terrible thing. But so was the lynching of whites, Jews, Orientals.... anyone for that matter.

    And I close my comments on this subject with a reminder that my point was that Reynolds used "Blood Libel" in his WSJ article about 48 fours before Palin and yet there was not a hackle raised or an complaint yelled.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#75)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    Johan Goldberg:

    I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn't ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.

    Click or ignore Me


    Always late (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    with your excuses...

    You can have the last word. You would anyway.



    Thanks as always for the feedback :-) (none / 0) (#78)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    Pundits Keeping Score (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by star on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    Over who got the most mileage out of this tragedy is insensitive and politicizing a tragic crime. Had a repub done it, we all would have been rightly horrified and calling them all kinds of names.
    Guess we all need to heed President for once and stop being partisan about everything. Not everything is about an R or D. debate on policy, but this hatred of anyone we disagree with is prevalent on both sides of the isle.
    I think President was totally presidential and the Obama of 08 is starting to surface. Hope he sticks around for good.

    The big mistake of the media and both (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by esmense on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    both sides of the political spectrum is framing the entire world and every event in it in terms of "Right" and "Left." As if this is in anyway an accurate description of the country we live in.

    Actually, the vast majority of Americans, including some like the Tucson shooter with serious mental illness and many, many others just overwhelmed, hurt and confused by recent economic losses, the failure of government to act in positive ways, and their fears for the future, are neither Right nor Left. Mainly they are just frightened and disillusioned. Many, a number that has been growing consistently for decades now, in fact have been thoroughly discouraged by the cynical and increasingly power seeking (rather than problem solving) antics of both ideological sides, as well as the alienating, bullying and bombastic language that has increasingly emanated from the Right. The confused, discouraged, and often angry, "independent" is more typical of the average American voter (and non-voting American too) than anyone at either ideological extreme. But contrary to popular opinion, these "independents" do not occupy a happy middle ground. It is foolish to assume, as so many do, that their lack of or confusion about ideology makes them less dangerous than some those who embrace ideological extremes.

    This shooter was not only seriously mentally ill, he was also, apparently from the testimony of those who knew him, deeply affected by the often crazy, disillusioned, nihilistic, conspiracy minded and increasingly insane conversation that is, to a larger and larger extent, taking place outside the mainstream media -- on the internet, on the fringes of talk radio, etc. -- and, in many lives, taking the place of the ill tempered mainstream political conversation.

    Unfortunately, some of this insanity, and the fear and confusion that generates it, is starting to be seriously exploited by the mainstream. The most obvious example is Fox and Glenn Beck. For instance, the internet movie Zeitgeist, which the shooter took to heart, can not be simply labeled as conservative or liberal. But it is nihilist and terrifying -- and some of its paranoid notions about the Fed, gold currency, the "second constitution," etc. are, through the Tea Party movement, and as a result of increasing media anything-for-a-buck cynicism, beginning to be repeated and given an airing in broader and more influential media (once again, most forcefully by Beck and Fox).

    It's perhaps time for both sides, if they are serious about the country's welfare, to stop worrying about "liberals" vs. "conservatives" and start worrying about the genuinely confused, insane and paranoid notions that are taking hold among many -- encouraged by the failure of our economy, the failure of our mainstream political culture, and by the willingness of powerful but increasingly desperate media players -- "mainstream" "conservative" and otherwise -- to try to make a buck in any degraded way possible. Including by exploiting desperation, discouragement and nihilism.

    The real loser was the media (3.50 / 2) (#71)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:05:46 AM EST

    The "left" jumped on the media spin, and still to this date won't let it go, but most in this country quickly dismissed the rhetoric angle because it was baseless.

    Palin was dragged into this by the media assumptions and has used it to make more noise.  If you like her it's been a good week.  If you don't like her it's been a bad one.  

    Palin is a meda creation and I find the constant attention she gets from right and left extremely humorous.

    She is the political Paris HIlton or Kim Kardashian and we all complain about her but continue to consume her product which is publicity.

    At first (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    it is confusing but then when you think about it, all this comes together.

    Krugman along with several others was saying that the heated rhetoric from conservatives has created a toxic brew in this country.

    Now Obama has missed the chance to point out to the country that right wing hate speech is toxic to the dialog in this country and with his speech he has he has given them cover and now they can come out and say well, Obama says it's NOT a problem so there lefties!!!

    It is a huge failure on Obama's part to keep quiet and now the conservatives will feel emboldened to ratchet up the rhetoric even more than they already have. I don't think he should have brought this up at the memorial service because it was not the time but he should have made it crystal clear that the dialog in this country is a problem.

    No, not a time to go "Palin" and cast (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:55:51 PM EST

    Not a time for partisanship.

    This was an event right in Obama's wheelhouse....When you are talking at a memorial service for the slain, comfort and coming together is what is needed--a no-blue-states, no-red-states speech....better angels of our nature...higher purpose.....

    That approach does not work well in every instance as we have seen over the last year or so--but yesterday it was the perfect tone....


    I didn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:32:59 PM EST
    mean he should have brought it up at the memorial service. I was thinking along the lines of at a press conference like Clinton did with McVeigh. Conservatives are using his own words to justify their behavior which is unfortunate.

    Moreover, Obama won the tone (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    argument....by how he addressed the issue....it was quite deft actually....

    Conservatives will find it harder to make outrageous comments....for a little while at least....

    But a lecture to conservatives about their bad tone would have backfired....As it stands, Obama's tone and general comments about not turning on one another during political discourse really hit the mark.....


    I think he gained more by not bringing it up (none / 0) (#26)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    Just my opinion, but last night was a badly needed "win" for him. I hate to use the term win given the circumstances of his speech, but whether he talked about it or not, everyone else is and that has to be a good thing.

    ey vey (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    This whole Palin business is nonsense.

    What I'm hearing/reading/percieving from most people is that in general, the rhetoric used by politicians (yes, that includes Palin, but is by no means limited to her) in the recent elections has been uneccessarily inflamitory.  These criticisms were made BEFORE this recent event.  Now that the event has happened, it makes a lot of people think that that rhetoric could have contributed to an atmosphere that intices people to lash out.

    No where do I see anyone accusing anyone else (except the man in question) of murder, or accomplice to murder, or any such thing.

    What people are calling for is a little reflection on whether the tone and rhetoric used has been appropriate.  Many, myself included, think it has not been.  The fact is, even aside from this recent shooting, threats toward public officials have sky-rocketed.  If rhetoric didn't get a "rise" out of people, it wouldn't be used.  Obviously I don't think this was the intended "rise", but the road to hell... etc... etc...

    Now, if saying people should "think before they speak" is tantamount to accusing someone of blood libel, so be it.  I think what most people are calling for is simply a little perspective and civility.  And Sarah Palin was severely lacking in both of those.

    You are practicing revisionist (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:14:59 AM EST

    Palin and Limbuagh where not cautioned they where accused.

    It is one thing to say we should all get along but it is quite another to say that a certain type of speech is responsible for this tragedy.  That was the media narrative right after the shooting and some on this site and the left still hold that view.

    You appear to be wanting to use this tragedy as a reason to make the right play nice.

    I find that puzzling and naive.

    Here is some "rhetoric" from earlier political times...


    Time for the "left" to crack open a history book


    They were accused (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    of using uneccessarily inflamatory rhetoric.  Which they did.  If rhetoric didn't work they wouldn't use it.

    There is no one thing that is "responsible" for the tragedy.  But yes, a lot of people think rhetoric was a contributing factor to the "perfect storm".

    I think when something like this happens people should sit back and think about it.  Not pretend that nothing happened.  Reflection is not a dirty word.


    There is one person (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    Responsible for the tragedy.  He's in jail.

    Everything else is reflective 2nd guessing.

    In your mindsand others certain speech is "offensive".   I find much of the speech on this website "offensive" to my views but it is not harmful.   There is simply no logical connection to be made between the speech of Palin and the shooting.  None.

    The total lack of perspective that some are using to justify their true motives, partisanship, is simply breathtaking.


    Palin's mistake (none / 0) (#73)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 08:21:10 AM EST
    From Debra Saunders columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle:

    This is a free country. If Sarah Palin wants to run for president in 2012, she is free to try. But she will not win the GOP nomination, because Republican voters are not going to choose a middle-aged version of Britney Spears - a figure whose most evident talent is to attract attention to herself - to challenge Barack Obama.

    It's this simple: Republicans are too smart to nominate a candidate with a 50 percent unfavorable rating, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, before she has declared for office.

    Cue to Palin's latest video, in which she countered left-wing nuts who, with no proof whatsoever, tied her to the Tucson shootings. "Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said.

    For close to three days, Palin had handled the brouhaha tastefully. On Saturday, she issued a short statement offering her condolences to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the other victims and their families; then she kept her mouth shut.

    By Tuesday, cooler heads prevailed. News coverage rightly focused away from the blame game and turned to reporting on Giffords' recovery, the other victims and information on the man - I won't name him, that's what he wants - charged in the crimes.

    Without saying a word, Palin had won that round.

    That is, until Wednesday when Palin released her video, which turned the spotlight back on her and added a new element. Now cable TV news can noodle over whether Palin was deliberately provocative or clueless in using the words "blood libel" - a term coined to describe the spurious and ancient charge that Jews murdered non-Jewish children and then drank their blood in rituals. (And yes, I know a Wall Street Journal opinion piece used the same term Monday.)

    The sorry episode confirmed the suspicion that Palin is addicted to getting attention, while her boosters are addicted to defending every thoughtless utterance she releases. And even her boosters know what most Republicans know: Palin is not a serious thinker.

    Click or ignore Me