Below is some “political discourse” expressing the hope that Sarah Palin will either be shot or die of cancer.
An interesting bit from Charles Krauthammer:
…the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”…
And from our “Where’s the Outrage” department. Senator Bernie Sanders exploits the Tuscon murders to raise some moola.
Unbelievable. Sarah Palin is now, excuse the expression, coming under fire for accusing her critics of “blood libel” in their, uh, campaign (another military term) to pin the Tuscon murders on her. Apparently, blood libel is only approved for Jewish and other liberals to use against their enemies because it refers to the old anti-Semitic slander that Jews use the blood of Christian children in making matzoh. From a post in Politico:
…Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that while it was “inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder,” Palin went too far in calling the attacks on her “blood libel.”
“We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood-libel’ in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others,” Foxman said…
But video touched a nerve with Jews, who cited the actual use of “blood libel” by anti-Semites to incite violence from the 1200s to the Nazi era.
“Chances are Palin had no clue about the origins of the phrase but this episode like so many others argues that she should withdraw from American politics,” said Phil Singer, Democratic consultant who has advised Hillary Clinton, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
“She’s become a more mainstream version of Anne Coulter – the last thing our politics needs.”
Daily Beast columnist and media critic Howard Kurtz Tweeted: “There was some sympathy for Palin over being tied to shooting – she chose to go inflammatory. Blood libel has special resonance for Jews.”
One Jewish member of Congress said, “I’m stunned, it’s just so crazy.”
A few Jews, including the often sensible liberal Alan Dershowitz, saw through this political nonsense:
…“There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim,” he said in a statement to Big Government.
Palin’s supporters, some of them Jewish, took to Twitter and the web to defend her – citing a Wednesday Charles Krauthammer column in the Washington Post whose headline that accused Palin critics of “libel” and a Wall Street Journal column by conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds using the term “blood libel” to describe attacks on the former Alaska governor.
“Even if she indeed meant it literally, she is right on!” says Yossi Gestetner, a public relations consultant to Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish community leaders in New York.
“People – based on hate to Palin and without proof – did use the term that ‘Palin has blood on her hands,’ and did fault her on the shooting. This, my friends, is indeed a Blood Libel: Without evidence, blaming a person you hate for spilling innocent blood; exactly what her opponents are doing since Saturday afternoon.”…