Regardless of Palin's victim status (whether organic or manufactured), she now should apologize to the Jewish community.

Early in this thread I called her an idiot. I admit that it was a knee-jerk reaction. I take it back. Sarah Palin is a reactionary who knows no shame.

At least Palin isn't claiming that the Democratic Party is secretly trying to get Loughner off scot free. That claim was apparently made by Limbaugh.

This is what contemporary right wing rhetoric looks like. I find it hard to believe none of the folks on the right here are willing to denounce it.

I find it amusing that the left has (for once) taken a news item and reframed it for their own benefit and that it's driving the right into a froth. There's nothing the right dislikes more than the left stealing a page out of their playbook

Ok, why should Palin apologize to the Jewish community?

And when did Rush make that claim. I heard a clip of him telling people the shooter was a dem. which of course turned out to be untrue.

She has made a mockery of particular aspect of a long and dark history of Jewish oppression and ostracism.

Actual Jewish blood libels are as recent as post-WWII, and have even spilled over into the 21st century.

To have Palin use the term within the context she has is insensitive and ignorant. If I were Jewish, I would be deeply offended by her remark. I have Jewish friends, and although I haven't talked about this with them, I am inclined to be angry at her myself for her cheapening the gravity of such a concept that to this day remains a dire situation to some people (and their families) who are close to me .

As I said, Palin knows no shame.

Well I'll be honest with you I had no idea that's what the term meant. I'm guessing Palin had (probably does now, likely getting calls by now) no idea either. I usually assume Palin has no idea what she's talking about when she's speaking. I mean have you ever heard her speak about foreign policy?

Rush Limbaugh Democrats Support Shooter | Loughner Victim | Mediaite

Okay, I misremembered the "scot free" part. Apparently the Democratic Party is just trying to make sure that Loughner is charged with some sort of lesser crime.

While I don't want to touch this "debate", I will simply add to the discussion a response I read from a Jewish Law Professor:

For the record, I don't consider what she said anti-Semitic. I consider it insensitive regardless of what a law professor says.

I am an ardent supporter and defender of Sara Palin. She is human and subject to human error like anyone else. If Palin's biggest critics held others to the standards they set for Palin there could actually be some form of constructive discourse. They do not and there will be no constructive discourse on tone until that happens.

And to think she has a genuine shot at becoming president.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

I sincerely doubt Palin stands alone in the standards people hold for public figures. Regardless, it does not absolve her of her errors and she should handle them with dignity if she's going to be in the public eye.

Listen to his show and make your own judgment. I heard the comment in context, the liberal spin is purposefully provocative.

What part of "the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame" is there to contextualize? What part of "he's just a victim" is there to contextualize? What part of "to make sure he's not convicted of murder – but something lesser" is there to contextualize?

Are you telling me that if I listen to the whole episode that this quotation takes on a different meaning? What if I don't want to listen to it? Can you explain it to me instead? What's been spun about this? Who's being provocative?

I listened to her entire monologue including the comment in question, it takes an incredible amount of effort to find real fault in anything she said and very thin skin to find anything she said to be offensive. Her response was well crafted, thought-out, professional and reflect the type of tone I would expect from a political leader. No other politician or political pundit has come close to the caliber of her response on this issue.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------

It was political satire, used to illustrate a point. If you don't listen to his show, you would not get it. I don't comment on John Stewart because I never watch his show and I don't pass judgment based on selected snippets of his show - nor will I allow others to form my view - yet it happens with Rush all the time - why?

i didnt think the blood libel meme anti-semitic.
i just thought it mind-bending in its stupidity.

here's a blurb about the blood libel:

Blood libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


what is she saying by invoking it? first she likens american neo-fascism to judiasm, and so displaces this from a political to a religious matter (which is might as well be judging by the way the wagons are rallied around the defense of the identity...)

the implication is that the right is being victimized by a force like anti-semitism across this tragedy in tucson.
and that any linkage between the neo-fascist predelection for the rhetoric of gun violence and anything that they do not find advantageous to acknowledge as an outcome is like blood libel.

it's amazingly stupid, even by the low standards to which one typically holds sarah palin.

Well, either Limbaugh isn't a satirist or he's a failed satirist.

Are you saying he didn't really mean what he said about the Democratic party? That he's poking fun at people who mischaracterize the Democrats' criticism of right-wing rhetoric? I thought Limbaugh was a conservative.

Try to be objective for a moment...can you not see the irony in the liberal vitriol against conservative talk radio and Palin...o.k., now go back. Understand that no conservative like Palin, Beck or Limbaugh are considering themselves victims of anything. Nor will they "tone it down" or change what they do or how they do it.

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

We have had other discussions about Limbaugh, all I suggest is that perhaps spending a week or two of regularly listening to his show.

Limbaugh was using the logical argument used against conservative talk to come to a conclusion reasonable people would find incredible in order to shame his critics. I thought it was pretty crafty and somewhat humorous. Why not just find his shows from Monday - Wednesday and listen to those if you are really concerned about what he said and what he meant.

I guess the complexity of Limbaugh's humor is beyond me. I should have known, this is the guy whose cunning comedic mind conceived of "Barack the Magic Negro".

That still makes me laugh when he plays it. Again, you ignore the context. I also find South Park funny as hell and I have seen some stuff that could make a Nigerian truck driver blush, what a world we live in where people have no ability to laugh.:shakehead:

Of course, Limbaugh didn't conceive of that. You knew that, right?

like i said, the neo-fascist set had a bad couple days of news cycle management. maybe they're not used to it, given that they have their own media apparatus with a collective predelection for the circle jerk. but they did. and it's remarkable the way they've been squirming since. they obviously are concerned about their political language migrating outside the church when they cant control what is said about it. and they've been pretty good at managing this stuff---after all, they're the biggest neo-fascist movement in the west and they've avoiding being labeled neo-fascist. which is, i suspect, a bottom line fear---if things get really out of hand we could land there kind of thing. bad bad bad.

i have been reading quite a bit in the press since saturday from all sides and haven't really seen that much vitriol from those outside the church of american neo-fascism. what i've seen is people pointing out the nature of the political language. what i've seen is people emphasizing that this is poisonous stuff. what i've seen is people saying that what happened in tucson saturday happened in a political context. what i've also seen is an astonishing display of collective evasion by the right. they've tried everything: lying about what was said, presented themselves as the real victims of saturday's shootings and now likened their loss of control of news cycles to the blood libel. there's been the routine vitriol of beck, who spent his monday groveling at sarah palin's feet again, and that schizophrenic limbaugh just making shit up out of whole cloth. all this while complaining about vitriol.

it's been a pretty revealing performance. i hope it damages american neo-fascism for a long long time.

bg-

I can ~sort of~ see some of what Limbaugh is saying. This does represent a challenge for...not really the Democrat party...but for liberals. First of all, this type of act brings forth the most visceral reactions of society. In the past, this guy would have been taken out back and shot already (Lee Harvey Oswald, minus the conspiracy theories).

So, there will likely be a larger acceptance among liberals to seek a death penalty, which I think we can agree is a divergence from their typical platform. In order to avoid facing that political hot potato, there might be a attempt to prop up this guy's mental illness in order to save face. "He was crazy, so we can't execute him. We'll go easier on him." While there is no doubt this guy was crazy, he knew right from wrong. He was a functioning psychotic. He certainly has been provided the most able public defender in the United States - not that I am complaining, everyone deserves such an attorney when facing an accuser.

So, while I can't look inside the mind of Limbaugh, I think that is he is trying to imply that the prosecution of this guy represents a political mine field for the liberals. I don't agree with his last sentence - that democrats will attempt to charge him with a lesser crime. It's more the punishment which will represent a political challenge - considering that he almost killed a member of the People's House.

Lemme guess, it was really Gallagher.

Well, since you seem unable to Google, I will help you. The phrase was originally penned by a BLACK journalist for a (if I remember correctly) San Francisco newpaper. A popular conservative, musical satirist then created a song inspired by the article. Limbaugh agreed to play it on his radio show.

I'm certain you will acknowledge this and apologize for spreading lies in order to advance a political agenda. :) Lighten up. It's an honest mistake. He uses it so much, it's easy to attribute directly to him. He just didn't conjure it.

Please don't mistake my ignorance of Limbaugh-centric trivia for political maneuvering. My hat is off to you.

Ummm I'd side with roachboy if asked...if asked.

I wasn't going to say much due to bad health. I wile away my hours now online due to it.

While I personally did not listen to that day's program, I have listened to Rush enough to know when he is joking. He knows how to make money and get attention to make more money. How he does it is he'll take a small shred of fact and warp it and put his bias into it. Not much different than some of the Lefties out there on tv. The media gets pissed about Rush, much like they do with Stern, because neither can be controlled in what they say, the appearance of them being rebellious, is their paycheck. What I truly don't get is how someone can understand that simple money making scheme with one and want the other banned or silenced in some way. The "left" commentators do the same thing but if you notice they appear on left leaning networks. Thus, they are more controllable, same with Hannity, Beck, O'Really... and so on only they are on a right leaning network that claims to be "fair and (un)balanced."

BTW Happy Birthday to Rush (60) and Stern (57).

"i have been reading quite a bit in the press since saturday from all sides and haven't really seen that much vitriol from those outside the church of american neo-fascism.

You must have innocently missed Keith Olbermann tonight, who invited guests on to speak about the difference in tone between their programs and fox news. Flip to fox news at that moment, low an behold it's live coverage of governer brewer praising Barack Obama for his speech tonight. 45 minutes later, and 3 keith olbermann guests still complaining about Sarah Palin later (including him desperately trying to get Gabrielle Giffords cousin to say something negative about Sarah Palin), what's on fox news, live coverage of Barack Obama looking like a president.

You have gone off the ideological deep end. Seek help. Maybe it's what you choose to read. Doubtful, Maybe.

If this is because you have me blocked, congrats on your sixth sense. Otherwise, I think it's time to let go, man.

the press consensus about the palin clip gravitates toward emphasizing the epic stupidity of the blood libel phrase and her fumbling of an opportunity to move beyond talking exclusively to other neo-fascists.

Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'blood libel' comment

what's interesting in this piece beyond providing a little resume of quotes is the information about palin's reframing campaign in which she is trying to recast herself as a "tea party hawk" in order to appear less stupid and partisan and more "presidential"---what's funny about the "tea party hawk" idea is that if you strip away the noxious rhetoric of the tea party, it's really the same as any other reagan-y military keynesian. same old same old, but even less smart and certainly less viable as an approach to the empirical world.

matthew--->don't watch or care about olbermann. sorry to disappoint.

as for "partisanship"---if the paliny right was broadly understood as american neo-fascism---which it is and that in a strict sense----then i wouldn't be bothered with them because the stupidity of their politics combined with the weight of the term would assure their marginalization. what bothers me really is that they are able to be neo-fascist without getting called on it much less labeled what they are. i blame an activist conservative media apparatus that is operating on explicitly political grounds in the context of a downsized and domesticated mainstream press that seems afraid to take on the far right. perhaps in wobbly financial times they worry about offending some of the corporate big boys who run the show. but mostly, i think they've just been cowed by conservative media activism. to everyone's detriment.

It's neo-fascism masked as patriotism. Liberals are a threat to the republic in their lack of fascist leanings. Why do they hate the republic?

the ultra-right advocates the republic of the late plato, texts like "the laws" which are essentially about a sham democracy behind which a "night commission" runs the show. in the name of security of course. that's why invisibility is so key. like american crossroads or the koch brothers. the financial oligarchy is a big enough tent to encompass both more and less open versions of the charade democracy/republic idea.

You sure you don't mean the Democratic party forcing abominations like Obamacare on us? Talk about sham democracy.

Putting things to votes is a sham democracy?

Um, since we don't live in a democracy, wouldn't it be "sham republicanism"? And wouldn't it be a hallmark of the principles of representative government, even if it's a bad idea? Representatives are required to vote their concience, not as their constituents ask.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make health reform a "sham".

Well, the republic in the U.S. does rely on representative democracy. So you could call it either.

I'm well aware we live in a representative republic (think that's the right term) and that the representatives aren't required to vote for what the people want.

However, when they don't, they get targeted to be voted out of office, as happened in 2010.

Then I agree with nothing in the first quote and everthing in the second. Referring to Obamacare as an example of a "sham democracy" demonstrates a failure to grasp the realities of the world that you corrected with your second statement. There's no sham. The system worked EXACTLY as it was designed to.

It is when you don't like the people voted into office. When you like the elected officials then it's not a sham. It's really no different then the hypocrisy of people who threw a fit when Bush was in office and people were making signs portraying him as stupid, a monkey, Hitler etc... People such as Rush and Hannity repeatedly claimed it was fine to disagree with the POTUS but it is disrespectful of the office and un-American to call the man names since he was in fact the POTUS. And "OMG! Yes! Especially during times of wars. The mans Commander and Chief you know. Yes, yes I know, how disrespectful. Yes, really it's disrespectful to the troops themselves. Oh, yes, yes I agree completely." Oh how times have changed. Now that they don't like the POTUS it's not only OK it's encouraged. Which is why Rush's listeners get to hear stuff like "Barack the Magic Negro" and think it's funny.

When Bush was in office the "patriot act" passed without much dissent at all. We need to be able to obtain info on people in these troubled times! In walks Obama and the same folks who were all for the PA now are calling on people not to answer questions on the national census because giving the government info is dangerous.

And people wonder why little to nothing beneficial comes out of our political process.

It's frustrating as a spectator. I can't imagine being directly subject to the process.

Much of the frustration I sense is in the very nature of a two-party system. You have a never-ending duel of ideologies that flip back and forth every four, eight, or twelve years or so.

For me it's frustrating because (aside from America being a significant part of Canadian life) I'm coming from a system that has two, three, and sometimes four parties criticizing and occasionally forming alliances against the party in power. Sure you can say that we "essentially" have a two-party system in that our federal government is going to be formed by either the Conservative party or the Liberal party, but the process of governance requires participating in a House that is made up of various other parties who support the interests of their constituents. Whether there is a geographic/social drive (Parti Quebecois' and the Bloc's support for Quebec sovereignty/rights/interests) or an ideological drive (NDP's social democratic platform), there are smaller parties who have significant influence given the fact that their being able to form their own federal government is either a long shot or a virtual impossibility.

I don't see this at all in the American system. I find that rigid and likely a great cause for the polarization we see. It's a switch: either/or. Either it's all about the Democrats or it's all about the Republicans. Everyone else either has to pretend they're one or the other or be entirely marginalized. As just one example, there is virtually no support for social democracy in the American system.

And, of course, with this either/or setup it's easy to make exaggerations: "oh, the Democrats are taking America down the road to communism/socialism!" or "oh, the Republicans are militaristic expansionist unilateral voodoo economists!" When you don't have anyone in between or on the fringes (e.g. there is nothing in American politics that truly leaves the center on the left), then it's easy to characterize your only opponent as worse than they really are. Much of this is due to the fact you don't have anyone truly moderating anyone, when instead you have polarization: there is no compromise, no moderation—only getting your way or not getting it. Either America is governed from the centre or it's governed from the right. It can't ever rest anywhere.