I generally try to keep things light here at Left Coast Cowboyland. Wine, organic produce and terriers pretty much sums it up. But some things rile me so much I can’t keep my fingers from the keyboard. Today’s video from Sarah Palin is one such event. I’m calling her out, not because I don’t agree with her politics — and everyone knows I don’t — and not because I think she has helped move political debate into, if not dangerous, certainly less productive territory. No, today I’m castigating Sarah Palin for the unforgivable offense of conduct unbecoming someone who coyly suggests that she wants to lead this country. Add to that appalling word choice and historical ignorance, and — as an English Major, history buff and believer in our political system — I’m crying “heinous”.
Those of you who are deliberately trying to live a Palin-free existence may not have heard of her latest salvo. Since Saturday’s shooting in Arizona, it’s been debated whether our current charged political atmosphere contributed to this shooting (and it quickly became clear that it didn’t) or if, out of respect, we should take this as a wake up call to dial back the hate-speech, lest it does lead to violence. Examples were given including Sarah’s now infamous map of incumbents she hoped to unseat — helpfully marked with gun cross-hairs. It should be noted that it was not the “Liberal Media” who first drew this parallel. It was the woman who was targeted by one of those gun sites and who now lies fighting for her life with a would-be assassin’s bullet hole through her brain. But Sarah Palin took the opportunity, after breaking four days of near silence, to come out swinging with a video statement accusing the media of perpetrating a “Blood Libel” against her. Her choice of words was unfortunate. Blood Libel has been historically and almost exclusively used to mean:
“the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews.”
No need even to Google. Wikipedia tells you all you need to know about the term and its blood-soaked history. But Sarah again refuses to acknowledge that her words may have consequences. Something striken Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who ironically is Jewish, pointed out not that long ago on MSNBC:
“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
Giffords’ comments did not come out of left field. She’d been targeted by hate mail, scary heckling and office break-ins by those opposed to her candidacy.
Which brings me to the point where I call “bullshit” on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. The two of them have jumped to Palin’s defense claiming the speculation about whether today’s vitriolic political climate and rhetoric can spark violence is just another Left Wing attack on their girl. Excuse me, Boys, but this debate was going on long before Saturday’s tragedy. And there is some compelling evidence that rhetoric can spark violence. Secret Service officials have repeatedly noted that as Sarah ratcheted up her anti-Obama tirades, the number of death threats against him spiked. I can just barely remember John Kennedy’s assassination, but I have clear recollection of RFK, Martin Luther King, and the assassination attempts on Ford and Reagan. In the immediate aftermath, people were worried about an external enemy — the Russians or the Cubans — or assuming it was a lone nut. I don’t remember anyone speculating that it might have something to do with the opposing political party. In contrast, one of the first speculations by almost anyone I heard talking about the Arizona shooting was “could this be politically motivated?” And those who were seen as “most likely to fire” were Tea Partiers. Granted it was an emotional reaction — borne of horror in the wake of a senseless tragedy. But what does it say about the recent rhetoric that this seemed like a logical possibility? Even Gabby Giffords’ father said, “Her only enemies were the entire Tea Party.”

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is a classic model for a leader's tone in times of tragedy. Sarah, you missed that one big time.
So the possible danger of hate-filled speech and the language of violence has been on the table for awhile. Because most of us know that words have meaning. Words can motivate, mobilize and inflame. Why can we not have a discussion about whether we can disagree — even vehemently — without calling for each others’ death? Even über-conservative Roger Ailes told his Fox Commentators: “…shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Of course, Ailes had to add: “I hope the other side does that.” Yeah, yeah. And as Sarah points out in her video, in earlier days political disagreement was met with dueling pistols. And a member of an antebellum Congress beat his opponent nearly senseless on the floor of the Senate over divisive issues. Is that a justification for continuing on this path? Can someone break the cycle? Can we evolve? [Oh, I forgot, Sarah. You don’t believe we evolved.]

Sarah, I know you don't go in for learnin' and history and stuff. But Thomas A Beckett and Henry II could tell you a thing or two about the link between words and violence.
Sarah Palin may truly believe her words and imagery have had no impact on threats of violence — and again, it’s clear they didn’t in this case. Her feelings may have been hurt by being linked in the discussion to the Arizona tragedy. She may even feel it’s completely unjustified even to raise the subject of moving political discourse to a more civil tone. But Sarah, this is an occasion where it really is NOT ABOUT YOU.
If you truly want to be a leader — especially leader of the United States — this was a time to choose your words carefully, rise above the immediate details of the tragedy and make a call to our better nature. Take a cue from President Clinton’s speech at the memorial for those who died in the Oklahoma bombing:
Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear. When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us honor life. As St. Paul admonished us, let us not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Or aim even higher. How about taking a lesson from the Gettysburg Address?
In summary, Sarah, this was a time for you to forget your personal grudges or perceived victimhood. This was a moment for you to voice the national grief, contribute to healing and urge us to reach for solutions. And it is not an inopportune time to suggest that we find ways to be civil to each other — even if that civility could not have stopped a lone madman from committing an unspeakable act. And Sarah, this was not a time to forget how to Google. In your ham-fisted, knee-jerk defensiveness, you missed the moment. You took the wrong tone. You pulled out the wrong historical reference and you missed making history.
I would be tempted to paraphrase Henry II of England and say, “Will no one rid us of this troublesome pseudo-candidate?” But history majors will recall what the veiled suggestion of Henry’s question precipitated. You see: words matter.
I doubt seriously that she knew the meaning of the words. But I am never sure that she understands anything that comes out of her mouth.
The term was used in a Wall Street Journal piece too. Thesaurus run a muck? Incomprehensible, although maybe it will cause some people to investigate the history and enlighten themselves. I had forgotten about that horrid history.
Of greater concern is her lack of concern. Her speech was all about Sarah Palin and her perceived victimhood — when this was a time to honor and pray for the victims and appeal to all our better natures. As far as whether coverage of this event is a concentrated attack on her, as she seems to think it is, my advice to La Palin would be: if you don’t want to be linked to violent acts, don’t use violent imagery or rhetoric. If you don’t want to be perceived as having dirty hands, keep your hands clean.
It’s all Sarah all the time the woman is wack. When I looke in her eyes I see the same look as in the eyes of the perp. Scary and I don’t scare easy.
Arrested development perhaps? We used to say that the definition of adolescence was “the world revolves around my belly button.”
Some people just should not get to feel the glow of the limelight. Wack is right.
Lisa… I couldn’t agree with you more. Do you suppose that none of her advisors even thought to Google the phrase “blood libel?” Yikes… hard to believe!
Both sides of the political spectrum have to stop using images and rhetoric that conjure up violence. The US has more guns per capita than any other country… more than Yemen! Amazing. How did we get there? By bringing guns to political events, by allowing 30 cartridge magazines for semi-automatic Glocks, and by romanticizing the notion of violent response to disagreement in political discussion.
Violence gets us nowhere and using bullseyes… as the democrats did in this link
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
and crosshairs (as republican Sara Palin did), send subtle (maybe even subliminal) but unmistakable messages. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.
I don’t know that Mrs. Palin could ever say anything to please those that despise her.
Would you consider reading the speech she gave and imagine someone you admire reading it? Would you think differently?
I don’t know that Mrs. Palin could ever say anything to please those that despise her.
For those of us that admire Mrs. Palin, we know we are looked down on, made fun of, and bullied by others. But we vote. We listen. We read. We try to exchange ideas. Some how we all need to just get along. I’m doing my part.
I’m afraid I would condemn such a self-serving speech no matter who made it. The video was all about “poor little me” even in her decision on when to release it. This was clearly NOT a time to air your personal grievances. But she made it that opportunity. Sorry, this is not about partisanship. This is about a would-be politician who severely misjudged what is required of a leader at a very specific time.
What came through very loud and clear was a very whiny “poor little me, I’m misunderstood” tone. This was NOT the time or the place for that — even if she has been misunderstood or unfairly maligned. This was a time to reach for a higher level and ask fellow Americans to come with you. And most certainly, a time to remember the real victims. Sarah, gave only the most cursory platitudes to those who were shot. Sorry, but even Republicans are saying she completely missed the mark. At the same time that thinking Republicans are saying that Obama hit it.
Also, her remarks showed a real hypocritical disconnect. It’s patriotic and Constitutional for her to exercise her free speech — even when that speech seems to advocate violence? But when others criticize her speech and suggest now is the time to end that violent rhetoric, that is “blood libel”? Can’t have it both ways.
And the very use of the term “blood libel” — especially when referring to a Jewish Congresswoman and the woman who first made the connection between Palin’s rhetoric and the possibility of violence — was she inferring that Gabby Giffords is invoking a blood libel against her, Sarah Palin? Hamfisted and tone-deaf doesn’t begin to describe it.
She’s stupid, a fundamentalist a republican and a narcissist. I would expect no less from her.
King,
She could be all of those things and still have done this right.
She could have said something to the tune of:
“While I have never advised violence and never condoned it, in the light of this tragedy, I can see why some are angry at my language and a website I never meant as harmful. For any pain I’ve caused — even though unintentional — I apologize. I understand why people who are hurting are looking for reasons behind this apparently senseless violence. But although none of us had any part in this act of a single deranged individual, let’s all move forward to a new era of civility. I pledge to do my part in honor of those who died here — even though it wasn’t any incivility that killed them. It is their due.”
She would have been hailed as a bigger person and would have earned admiration across the board.
She didn’t go that route. She chose to come out swinging, defensive, accusatory and proclaiming her own victimization. She misread what the country needed and she fell back on the same old divisive rhetoric — which the mood of the country shows is jarring people. She proved that she doesn’t have the right stuff to be a leader.
SarahPalin2012 – Progressive’s best hope for Real Change!
Thank you… this is just what I’ve been thinking for the past week.
Really, Sarah, why come out swinging and defensive? Now I think you have something to hide and I dislike you even more….
I also believe that she doesn’t understand half of what she’s saying. I think she just wants the fame and attention.
Ironically she and her ilk are the ones who vehemently blame Muslims for inciting violence against Americans withe rhetoric yet, somehow, nothing she or her fellow attack dogs say could inspire the same.
Twisted.