By Greg Sargent
I didn't have a chance to put together a morning roundup today, so let's just lead off with Sarah Palin's video response to critics who alleged that her crosshairs map and no-holds-barred rhetoric contributed to a political climate that may have helped lead to the Arizona massacre:
<...>
A few quick things to note. First, the obvious care that went into making this video -- the pre-written script is over seven minutes long; she clearly rehearsed the reading at some length; and the backdrop includes an American flag on the right flank -- demonstrate once again that Palin and her advisers knew this was a potential make-or-break moment. Palin, of course, has long taken her case directly to supporters via Twitter and Facebook, while not permitting herself to be exposed to any journalistic cross-examination. Utilizing a pre-taped video message is a new twist on that strategy, and a reflection of how high the stakes have become.
Second, her core accusation on the video, the one that was clearly selected with an intent to drive headlines, not only accuses critics of "blood libel," but actually accuses them of expressing concern and outrage about the shooting
in bad faith, as if they are doing so in an effort to do nothing more than damage her politically:
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
Note the word "purport." Finally, Palin, wholly unapologetic all the way, ridiculed those who have called on her to tone it down, and even cited Gabrielle Giffords's reading of the First Amendment on the House floor to bolster her case:
We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedom by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. And it was a beautiful moment, and more than simply symbolic, as some claim...but less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech that he found offensive.
Unfortunately for Palin, Giffords herself was one of those who objected to the crosshairs map. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords
said last March. "When people do that, they've gotta realize there's consequences to that action."
In other words, Palin's phony framing of the issue -- that by raising concerns about her word-choice and imagery, critics are trying to deprive Palin of her First Amendment freedoms, rather than simply asking her to be more mindful of the potential consequences of incendiary rhetoric -- is one that Giffords herself rejects.
Palin deserves the attention.
Updated to add:
HALF-TERM GOVERNOR BREAKS HER SILENCE....<...>
Today, Palin broke her silence issuing a video, which is nearly eight minutes long. It's a standard tactic -- the right-wing media personality can't subject herself to questions or muster the confidence to deal with cross-examinations, so to communicate, Palin's forced to hide behind statements others write for her, and then upload them. It's not exactly the stuff Profiles in Courage are made of.
In any case, the statement/video is about what one might expect. Palin, speaking from Alaska with an American flag over her right shoulder, has no regrets and no apologies to offer. Instead, she's concerned about "blood libel."
"If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
I don't imagine Palin actually knows what "blood libel" means, but historically, it's referred to the ridiculous notion of Jews engaging in ritual killings of Christian children. More commonly, it's a phrase intended to convey the suffering of an oppressed minority.
In other words, Palin is apparently feeling sorry for herself, again, using a needlessly provocative metaphor that casts her as something of a martyr.
I was also struck in the same paragraph by the notion that media figures are "inciting" "hatred and violence." Palin didn't cite any examples, so I don't know what she's referring to, but there is something odd about the accusation. As she sees the events in Tucson, a "deranged, apparently apolitical criminal" committed a despicable act, but that's no reason to "claim political rhetoric is to blame." That's a defensible argument. But if that's the case, why is Palin concerned about criticisms from pundits "inciting the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn"?
Excessive political rhetoric is fine, but criticizing those who engage in excessive political rhetoric is fomenting violence? How does that work, exactly?
<...>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
