Four hours ago Sarah Palin posted this video response to the tragedy in Tucson. In it she addresses the debate that followed about whether the harsh political rhetoric played a role. Slickly but simply produced, beautifully written and clearly delivered uncut directly into the camera, she has struck the exact right tone to ensure her continuing political influence:
The transcript is, of course, on her Facebook page.
UPDATE: Media and weblog reaction is starting to come in. Much of it is focusing on the lines in her presentation that seem to respond to the controversy swirling around her. here’s a cross section.
—The Atlantic:
Anyone still wondering whether political debate in American would change in the wake of the shooting of 20 in Tucson that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords grievously injured got their answer this morning as Sarah Palin delivered a resounding no.
The former GOP vice presidential nominee, who has been little heard from since making a brief Facebook statement on Saturday and later passing a note to Glenn Beck to read on air, released a seven-and-a-half minute video Wednesday morning defiantly defending the right to free speech and seeking to shift debate over responsibility for the shooting from the consequences of heated political rhetoric to the actions of the shooter, alone.
—The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart:
Sarah Palin has emerged from the protective cloak of Twitter and e-mails to Glenn Beck to speak directly to the American people about the tragedy in Tucson. In a video, she expresses condolences for the victims’ families and concern for those recovering from Saturday’s horrific events. But for nearly eight defensive minutes, the woman who has been at the center of a stormy national debate over our super-heated political discourse does her best to absolve herself of any role in that discourse.
…Yes, as people grappled to make sense of what happened in Tucson, many leapt to early conclusions and pointed fingers before having any facts. Palin is right to bemoan such knee-jerk reactions. But, as I wrote on Monday, that there is no connection between between alleged murderer Jared Loughner and the extremes of the Tea Party movement is beside the point. We, as a nation, are finally talking about the troubling tone and tenor of our political discourse over the last two years.
Palin is having none of it.
Don’t blame me, blame the gunman, she implies in the video.
Sarah Palin said Wednesday that the journalists and pundits who blame the political right for the act of “monstrous criminality” in Tucson, Ariz., Saturday are committing a “blood libel.”
The former Alaska governor, in a seven-minute video, mourned the tragic shootings that took the lives of six people and wounded 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). But she said the rampage was the act of a “single evil man” who gunned down peaceful citizens. She said she moved from puzzlement to “concern” as reaction to the incident in some quarters blamed conservative rhetoric for provoking the violence caused by “this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal.”.
Violent acts, such as the shootings in Arizona, “stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,” Palin said. In remarks reported by Politico and The Hill newspaper, Palin said the media “should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
–And it now seems as if Palin has set off a new controversy by the use of a phrase:
Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” – which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzoh for Passover – touched off an immediate backlash. (see: Full text of Sarah Palin’s statement)
“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews – the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself… It’s absolutely inappropriate.”
The video statement from the 2008 vice-presidential candidate came on the same day President Barack Obama is to fly to Arizona to attend a service honouring victims of the attack.
Ms Palin has been criticised for using an online graphic containing cross hairs symbols that marked Democratic districts she targeted for defeat in the recent US mid term elections.
Among the districts targeted was that of Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was gravely injured on Saturday in the attack at a constituency outreach meeting at a Tucson shopping centre.
With courage and grace, Governor Palin has spoken out providing the dignified leadership we’ve been missing for far too long.
Ms. Palin may draw attention for saying critics would create a “blood libel’’ by linking the shootings with political rhetoric. The phrase refers to false claims against minorities — most commonly, assertions dating to the Middle Ages that Jews murdered Christian children in order to use their blood in holiday rituals. Such claims were often used to inflame hatred against Jews
Ms. Palin in her video says that “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.’’
–Some of the Tweets about her use of the phrase “blood libel”:
kmthurman RT @joshtpm: Sarah Palin says she’s victim of “blood libel” in Arizona shooting http://tpm.ly/htHeIi
less than 20 seconds ago via webpolyscijunkie RT @diggrbiii: Oh, I see. So now the news is going to be that Palin used the term “blood libel” instead of, you know, the lies being hurled at her. #tcot
less than 20 seconds ago via webaimeett where do i even begin with this BS? RT @joshtpm: Sarah Palin says she’s victim of “blood libel” in Arizona shooting http://tpm.ly/htHeIi
less than 20 seconds ago via HootSuitejhutch RT @HowardKurtz: There was some sympathy for Palin over being tied to shooting, + she chose to go inflammatory. Blood libel has special resonance for Jews.
less than 20 seconds ago via ÜberTwitterandrewrevell RT @mckelvie: Palin’s bizarre “blood libel” claim over the Giffords shooting: http://bit.ly/gdxObo Does she know what the phrase means?
less than 20 seconds ago via webrosieschaap RT @christinebohan: Sarah Palin has accused the media of committing ‘blood libel’? Oh dear.
less than 20 seconds ago via Seesmic WebJazzShaw If the use of “Blood Libel” by Palin (and hypotheticall, let’s say, Pelosi) doesn’t bother @yidwithlid I’ll give it a pass @EdMorrissey
half a minute ago via TweetDeckerinhaust RT @southsalem: RT @MelissaTweets: RT @gpollowitz: Dear MSM: welcome to the “blood libel” debate. Now report on its use in the Muslim world. /#Palin #tcot
half a minute ago via TweetDeckmartincallaghan RT @BorowitzReport: Given her misuse of the term “blood libel,” I think Palin’s brief forays into the English language are ill-advised.
half a minute ago via webJenfidel Palin’s blood libel charge? One of first Media reports 1 hr. after shootings was Gifford’s father: “I blame the entire Tea Party.”
half a minute ago via TweetDeckganglesprocket Sarah Palin accuses her critics of “Blood Libel”? Is there no limit to this idiot woman’s delusions?
half a minute ago via web
ElliottHolt RT @WesleyStace: A BLOOD LIBEL? Has Sarah Palin been reading Cormac McCarthy or that Elders of Zion book? #EndTimes
half a minute ago via webMarionManeker Is Palin our Father Coughlin? Our Joe McCarthy? “Sarah Palin charges critics with ‘blood libel'” http://t.co/sLlSPt1
half a minute ago via Tweet ButtonTeaBagga OK, I get it. If I accuse someone of Blood Libel then I too can join the ranks of Victim-Americans. kewl #tcot #teaparty #blamepalin #palin
half a minute ago via web
]
theDivaLea @McKelvie I’m pretty sure, based on the words used in that statement, that other than “blood libel” Palin didn’t write it…
less than a minute ago via TwittelatorArgoJournal RT @lehmannchris: Pretty sure Palin just intended the blood-libel quote as a birthday gift for Rush Limbaugh
less than a minute ago via webmlfoley RT @brainsturbator: On the plus side, now everyone gets to learn what “Blood Libel” actually means. Well, except for Palin herself, of course.
less than a minute ago via webAlpanaM ‘Blood libel’ is a racist and anti-semitic term and Sarah Palin is an idiot.
less than a minute ago via webGregPinelo The “blood libel” thing is so Palin. Heat up the rhetoric and make it violent using words she doesn’t even understand. I refudiate her.
1 minute ago via HootSuite
She claims that debate now is more civil than back when there were duels, and says we can’t be stopped by those who seek to “muzzle dissent by shrill cries of imagined insults”. And, haters, take note: we’re better than “mindless fingerpointing”. When Sarah points her finger, as she does many times in this video, she wants you to know that her mind is fully engaged.
Palin’s toned-down appearance and scripted delivery show that she wants to adopt the appearance of reasonableness, but the message is more-or-less unchanged. The setting is presidential, but the message is classic Palin, lashing back at her critics. She was clearly hoping to show “gravitas”, but that’s more than set dressing.
Update: Here’s how the Times, Post and Politico headlined their reports. So much for reasonableness and gravitas.
Sarah Palin broke her silence about the Tucson shootings, and her response is exactly what you would expect.
Ms. Palin and her Tea Party supporters were blasted by their opponents after the shooting, which left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords severely wounded and six others dead, as many critics blamed their gun rhetoric for creating a heated political atmosphere. (For more on that debate, Full Comment’s Chris Selley rounds up the reactions).
The video, released early Wednesday morning, starts off with your usual Palin fare — talk of prayer, the strength of America, some sort of Ronald Regan quote.
But then, and this is where it gets a bit iffy, Ms. Palin attacks the media and her opponents for saying she might have played a part in inspiring the shooter, calling their words “blood libel.”
Earlier this week, I told a reporter that a public response would be tricky for Palin. She needed to defend herself but without being seen as descending to the level of the debate as it stood at that moment. Plenty of others were defending conservatives already, but Palin needed to engage the debate on her own terms at some point in a manner that allowed her to rise above the accusatory morass that the media encouraged almost from the hour in which the shootings took place.
This video message affirms the wisdom of that approach. Palin does an excellent job in making her point without lashing out in anger over the attacks, and underscores the importance of personal responsibility rather than group guilt in a free society, the priority of free speech as an underpinning of democracy, and the determination of Palin and the rest of the conservatives to defend those principles. It’s precisely what Palin needed to say, and precisely the manner and forum in which she needed to say it.
Now, what will Barack Obama say?
UPDATE II: More reaction coming in:
It is unclear why the term “blood libel” should be used in the context of the Arizona shootings. There is no way to determine intent, but it is an odd phrase to use here.
After the horrific Tucson shootings last weekend, future U.S. president Sarah Palin retreated to her prayer cave and prayed for guidance. Today, she’s announced her findings: the real tragedy here is “journalists and pundits” who “manufacture a blood libel.”
Whichever insufficiently supervised functionary writes Palin’s Facebook screeds posted a humongous screed from her this morning, on Facebook. It was a forthright apology for Palin’s role in depicting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ district in gun sights.
Kidding! Haha, a joke. Of course it’s actually a poorly edited, not entirely logical, buzzword-laden attempt to score political points.
….There you have it: Sarah Palin is not to blame. Jew baby-killing pundits are. That’s leadership
Naturally, the Left has started targeting Palin (and targeting is the right word) for her use of the phrase “blood libel”, although the phrase is quite appropriate….
…It’s quite obvious Palin, intellectually, gets it. I’m sure that Clyburn, intellectually, gets it. But Clyburn is so hung up on exploiting this tragedy for his and his party’s political advantage that he is compelled and reduced to fling insults at Palin.
This will be added to the Left’s “narrative”, as was done by Taegan Goddard, just wait and see.
President Obama is set to speak later today in Tuscon. I hope he summons up enough good sense to leave the politics completely out of his speech. Unlike Palin, nobody has accused him of being even partly responsible for the recent tragedy.
Sarah Palin is in full pushback mode today, issuing the above video and Facebook statement to correct the damage done to her image thanks to her own vitriolic speech.
From a political point of view, she has to do this, though I wonder if her diehard followers see this as some form of capitulation. It also shows why President Obama probably has a check written to donate to her campaign on the day it launches, if it ever does.
Two days ago, Instapundit/law professor Glenn Reynolds assailed the politics of “blood libel” in the Wall Street Journal.
Today, Sarah Palin issued her own poignant, but fierce rejoinder against the vicious smears of Tucson massacre opportunists and drew on “America’s enduring strength” to pay tribute to the victims.
They criticized her for not saying anything.
Now, they’ll criticizing her for saying something.
The blamestream media is already up in arms — can we still say that? — over the use of the phrase “blood libel.”
Six people were killed when Jared Loughner started shooting in Arizona on Saturday, while Rep. Gabrielle Giffords remains hospitalized. Sara Palin was also a victim and she wants everyone to know. In her first public statement on the matter, save a brief Twitter and Facebook posting, Palin only uses the word “I” seven times, but she’s the real subject of her own message. “No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy,” she writes. Then a thousand additional words, none of which add up to much.
Not an elected official, and not yet even a candidate, Palin responded with words and video because the salivating media wanted — even needed — her to. As a leader, she did not impress. For spectacle, she did not disappoint
—Daily Kos’s diary by HeidiEight:
If we hadn’t seen her act so ridiculously before, I’d say this latest video was inconcievable.
I don’t know who wrote the speech she read off a teleprompter (it’s reflected in her glasses) in the video she released this morning; I don’t even want to link to it.
Echoing the new battle cry of the right, Sarah Palin has come out of hiding to accuse those who suggest over-the-top rhetoric and a volatile political climate might offer some explanation of Saturday’s gun rampage in Arizona of manufacturing a “blood libel” against her.
Desperate to defend herself after being called out for placing the crosshairs of a rifle over the home district of a congresswoman, who was then the victim of an assassination attempt, the former governor of Alaska scrubbed her website of the offending imagery and then portrayed herself as the victim. To describe her predicament, Palin used a term for false and aggressively anti-Semitic claims that Jews murder children as part of religious rituals.
The wounded congresswoman, Arizona Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish.
FoodieLore Oh Sarah Palin – politics aside, I mourn what you’re doing to our American language. Literally.
less than 20 seconds ago via TweetDeckRichardFrench RT @OTOOLEFAN Cosigned! RT @daveweigel: For a second there I was worried a national news story wouldn’t become about Sarah Palin.#makeitstop
less than 20 seconds ago via TwitterrificMother_Rell RT @Shoq: RT @Mike_FTW: Sarah Palin calls for unity by reminding us we can all hate Jews.
less than 20 seconds ago via TweetDeckPotterybarnmerc My mom called me and her neighborhood is 90% Jewish and she said that her friends equate Sarah Palin with Ricki Lake. HA.
less than 20 seconds ago via ÜberTwitterDrunkEnough I wondered how long it would take for Sarah Palin to complain that SHE was the victim.
half a minute ago via Twitter for Macsabsteve RT @PDandrewCBS: Blood libel? Really? Does Sarah Palin really know what “blood libel” means, where it came from, and how many people died as a result of it?
less than a minute ago via weblilmspsychmajor As if Sarah Palin didn’t sound crazy enough, now she’s claiming blood libel. Maybe she should crack a book before she opens her mouth.
less than a minute ago via Plumeget1me1 Sarah Palin used an emotionally laden phrase in a video denunciation of journalists and pundits who blamed polit… http://bit.ly/fwN1QO
less than a minute ago via twitterfeed
And this from MSNBC’s must-read First Read:
By releasing this video a full 15 hours before tonight’s memorial service — and thanks to the relatively slow day in the political world before tonight — her video will get plenty of attention. And whether she meant to or not, there will likely be a stark contrast drawn between her words and what the president says tonight. And that leads us to a few questions for folks to ponder: Should she have released this via Web video? Why not do this via interview? Should she have released this video BEFORE today’s memorial service or waited until tomorrow? Is it fair to use this video to judge her ability to be presidential at a time of crisis or national tragedy? If so, was this a presidential-caliber speech? There’s been a lot of finger-pointing by the very loud base voices on both sides of the political spectrum, most of it playing out on the internet/Twitter/prime-time cable. This video is only going to serve to feed that beast.
UPDATE III:
—Andrew Sullivan:
We know this much right now: Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message – even at a time of national crisis – was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.
One would have thought that Palin, like any responsible person in her shoes right now, could have mustered some sort of regret about the unfortunate coincidence of what she had done in the campaign and what happened afterwards. Wouldn’t you? If you had publicly defended a map with cross-hairs on a congresswoman’s district, and that congresswoman had subsequently been shot, would you not be able to express even some measure of regret at what has taken place, even while denying, rightly, any actual guilt? Could you not even acknowledge the possibility that your critics have and had a point, including the chief Palin-critic on this, who happens to be struggling for her life in hospital, Gabrielle Giffords.
But no. That would require acknowledging misjudgment. Palin cannot acknowledge misjudgment, as she cannot admit error. It would require rising to an occasion, rather than sinking to it. And to moderate that tone, to acknowledge that one can make an error, to defend oneself from unfair accusations while acknowledging the need for a calmer discourse in future – this is beyond her.
It is, of course, also her strategy. She can only win in a hugely polarized country. She has as little support outside the Republican base as she has a cult following within it. And she has decided that this occasion for introspection is actually an opportunity to double down.
There is something menacing about that.
Palin’s statement is, I think, very good. It emphasizes, appropriately, the victims and the nation’s political process rather than politicians, demonstrating once again that Palin is less obsessed with Sarah than her enemies are. Overall, the statement comes across as mature, balanced, sympathetic and yet strong in its rejection of the left’s opportunism.
Palin’s statement is unlikely to move the needle on public opinion about her in any significant way. Her supporters will love it and will cheer her for standing up to “media bullies. Her critics will use it to criticize her, whether about the “blood libel” comment or something else. And an perusal of the early reaction confirms this.
Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.
–in a post titlted “Lord Help Me, I’m Defending Sarah Palin,” The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait says Palin is getting a bum rap for the use of the blood libel phrase — and is being unfairly criticized:
But she does have a basic point. She had nothing to do with Jared Loughner. He was not an extremist who embraced some radical version of her ideas. And her use of targets to identify districts Republicans were, um, targetting is not exceptional or prone to incite anybody.
What’s happening is that Palin has come to represent unhinged grassroots conservatism, and people in the media immediately (and incorrectly) associated Loughner with the far right. Moreover, the Republican establishment understands her potential candidacy as a liability and is looking to snuff it out. So you have this weird moment where Palin is on trial for something she has no connection with at all.
UPDATE FOUR:
The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman’s piece needs to be read in full and excerpted a bit more extensively here:
Sarah Palin has just proven again that she has only one gear — forward — and only one mode — attack.
The 2012 presidential campaign has begun, not in Iowa or New Hampshire, but in the bloody streets of Tucson.
AND:
After a litany of other Republicans, from Roger Ailes to Ari Fleischer, suggested that calmer rhetoric is warranted in the aftermath of Tucson, Palin — after remaining essentially silent for three days — amped up the rhetoric in a pointed counterattack, accusing “journalists and pundits” of manufacturing a “blood libel” against her by suggesting that she somehow is to blame for the toxic political atmosphere in Arizona.
There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than “blood libel,” which is the ancient and false accusation that Jews secretly murder Christian children as part of their religious rituals. This anti-Semitic attack has resulted in countless pogroms and massacres through the ages.
Saint Sarah, it seems, is now comparing herself to one of those martyrs.
AND:
Notably absent was any second-guessing of a single word or action of her own over the last two years. To do so, apparently, would mean to somehow accept the premise that the “lamestream media” is worthy of attention. As far as she is concerned, they don’t exist — except for the sake of being likened to pillaging Cossacks.
AND:
….Anybody less harsh than she is will be, by her standards, a wimp, and giving in to the assumptions and storylines of the lamestream.
On the other hand, taking on Palin is a guaranteed way to get attention. For Republican candidates, it would be shrewd as a general election strategy — and even as a primary-season one, depending on the shape of the race.
Read it in full.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is also a major topic here at TMV. For todayh’s related posts go here, here, here, here and here.
Check to see if there are more posts on the subject today.