Sarah Palin isn’t to blame for the Arizona shooting spree that killed six — including a 9-year-old girl and a Federal judge — and seriously wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
And anyone writing or saying as much is wrong.
But most of those same critics, who include some journalists, members of the media, Democratic politicians and a lot of people with common sense, are right about one thing. The political rhetoric in this country has gone too far, and Sarah Palin’s use of targets on a map with specific representatives in crosshairs crossed the line.
No, Palin can’t control what a crazy man with a gun will draw from anything she says or does. And she’s not the only one to use images of guns and violence in her speeches and campaigns. Everyone from football coaches to President Barack Obama have done so.
But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t need to be responsible for her words and actions.
She’s right: No one is responsible for the shooter’s actions except the shooter. So she should own up for her actions. If she doesn’t want to draw such heat from the media and Democrats and whoever else is breathing and has working brain cells, MAYBE SHE SHOULDN’T PUT OUT MAPS WITH PEOPLE AS TARGETS.
On the same day the President gave a moving speech at the memorial for the victims of the Arizona massacre, Palin released an early-morning video firing back at her critics. Tone down the talk?
Palin’s videotaped, carefully written and obviously read statement only exacerbated the problem (like most things that come out of Palin’s mouth).
When criticizing the media and journalists (not the same thing) for rightly calling her out for her words and actions and wrongly blaming her for the shooting, she accused them of “blood libel.”
For those who don’t know, blood libel is a specific term with a specific history. It has been used throughout history and refers to the accusations that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood for religious ceremonies. It has been used for years, and as recently in public discourse as 2005 in Russia, by those who would promote anti-Semitism.
Sarah Palin can’t be that evil to try and evoke those images, can she? No, it’s just a mistake, right? She didn’t know the meaning of the phrase and is sounded good?
But Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish.
Poor choice of words? Poor timing? Or something more sinister, cold and calculated?
You be the judge. Intentional or not, Palin once again comes off as slow, at best. If she meant to use a phrase with this kind of meaning, she’s despicable. If she used it because it sounded good without bothering to find out what it meant, she’s a rube.
Prior evidence should tell us she’s at least a rube. I hope in this case that’s all she is.