politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Opinion: Don’t Write Sarah Palin Off Yet...
Source:
digitaljournal.com
URL Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302515
Published: Jan 16, 2011
Author: Michael Cosgrove
Post Date: 2011-01-16 19:13:34 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 760
Comments: 2
Sarah Palin’s ‘blood libel’ speech may have confirmed that she has a tendency to say the wrong thing in the wrong way, but it would be foolish not to recognise that it also shows why she is a force to be reckoned with. “…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." When I heard those words for the first time and read the press coverage of them my immediate reaction was "Uh oh, here she goes again." But I was wrong. The Arizona shooting has been followed by much debate on two issues. The larger debate is about trying to decide whether or not political rhetoric played an indirect part in what happened and if it did which side of the political fence is the guiltiest, and the second issue concerns the question of Palin’s cross-hair campaign and whether or not it played a large part in the tragedy. Whereupon she immediately went into quasi-hiding for several days. We don’t yet know whether that silence was self-imposed or whether it was imposed by advisers and high-ranking Republicans, and nor do we know which criteria were used to decide that policy. Nevertheless, that decision has proved to be a very wise one. The Arizona attack led to immediate and very hostile condemnation of Palin by most of the press, politicians and what seemed to be the public too, and the Tea Party-Republican congress coalition appeared to be fudging the issue by refusing to accept any responsibility. Then that opposition started counter-attacking and what began as one-sided condemnation of the right turned into a left-right accusations free-for-all, and the question suddenly changed from “Is the right guilty or very guilty?” to “Is political debate in America as a whole to blame for this?” In other words, a stalemate had been reached. And that was the precise moment that Sarah Palin chose to resurface and give her version of what had been going on. That speech has been immortalized by just two words, and as long as the Internet exists all you will need to find text, images or video related to it is to know how to google 'palin bloood libel.' The blood libel reference was immediately picked up as a stone to throw back at her by her opponents, who considered it to be manna from heaven and proof that all the accusations about her - that she is inflammatory, provocative and irresponsible to the point where she is dangerous - had been justified. But you can't have it both ways. Palin is reputed to be badly-informed on just about anything and everything and to know next to nothing about economics to foreign policy and the crisis to the Iraq-Afpak wars. So why should she be suddenly expected to know about the implicative origins of the expression "blood libel" as if she were a philosopher and well-learned historian and go on to use it in an attack against Jews? That term is not commonly used in any context today, but when it is, it is almost uniquely used to refer to people who have been falsely accused of something which leads to a campaign of denigration and or criticism being directed against them as a result of it. There's no religion in there at all. Its real origins however were well summed up by pro-Israel group J Street press secretary Amy Spitanick who says "Essentially it implies that Jews murder Christian and non-Jewish children to use their blood in Jewish rituals and holidays {....} Using the term would imply the using of non-Jewish blood for the baking of Matzah." How many ordinary Americans knew that before she used it? Not many I'll wager. That explains why although Spitanick, like other representatives of Jewish organisations, is critical of Palin's use of the term, their measured response clearly indicates that they consider her use of it as being more due to the modern-day metaphorical meaning of it than to its origins. And that squares with what many people think about Palin, which is that she just isn't the best religious historical authority in the world. That incident will be forgotten quickly. What will not be forgotten however is what shall remain of that speech. It was just as combative and up-front as many other speeches she gives, except that this time she came out on top and gave the impression that she was rising above the fray. She was quite right to accuse her accusers of throwing petrol onto the fire by implying that she alone was responsible for the tragedy. More tellingly, she added that she "...listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event." She also states with no doubt whatsoever that the alleged shooter acted alone and was not influenced by society. Sarah Palin is being condescending? Now there's a rare occurrence, particularly when she is right to be condescending. Not only that, she delivered that speech with the kind of cold and steely determination that is rarely seen in pre-recorded televised speeches by politicians. Usually perceived as flailing around and ranting, she came across here as being authoritative and assertive, reassuring and clear-headed. And here's the rub. She has her finger right on the pulse of what many Americans think. And who says so? Americans do. Several polls have been carried out since the shooting, and most of them come up with the same results as the one carried out by Rasmussen Reports a couple of days ago. Their national survey finds that only 28% of Americans think that the attack was the result of political anger in the country. Fifty-eight per-cent consider that it was a random act of violence by an unstable person and 14% are undecided. The survey says that "Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 56% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties view the shooting as a random act of violence. Even Democrats by a 48% to 37% margin agree, although leading members of their party have attributed the shootings to a climate of anger they say has been generated by opponents of President Obama. In a separate survey taken following the weekend shootings, 45% of Likely U.S. Voters said they are at least somewhat concerned that those opposed to the president’s policies will resort to violence, but 52% do not share that concern." In other words, Sarah Palin has the majority of Americans on her side, and the "blood libel" issue isn't one. This was a very significant speech. Palin proved here that she is able to mix compassion for the victims with an attack on her detractors. Her no-nonsense style came across as a blunt and pertinent rebuttal of criticism leveled against her which is hard to refute. She was obviously angry at what she feels to have been an injustice and you would have to be blind not to see that, just as it would be foolish to deny that she is right to a certain extent. No other Republican has showed anywhere near the amount of honesty and frank appraisal of the current situation as she has, and it could even be said that she is the foil to Obama's speech in Arizona. Measured, calm and collected, Sarah Palin has turned what looked like a certain political defeat into what could be a long term investment. Don't write her off yet. Not by a long chalk...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Palin has more courage than 90% of the candyass "males" in politics.
She's exactly like Ben Ali and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And the Imperial City/NYC would say the same about Riyadh. Don't write them off yet. But then again: Tunisia wasn't meant to happen...8D I'd keep that jet loaded (with fuel&gold;} just in cases. ;} Palin in Saudi Arabia. What a thought. 8D
It was just as combative and up-front as many other speeches she gives
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
Don't write her off yet. Not by a long chalk...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]