Since the shooting in Tucson, half Gov. Palin has been on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism for her gunsight graphic and heated, violent rhetoric. Today, she spoke. Behold, a video has been issued from Mount Olympus Wasilla. You may watch it here.
She had an opportunity to show leadership, instead she used incendiary language ("blood libel") and wallowed in her victimhood. In other words, it's business as usual in Palin World. Her only hope of ever winning the presidency is through exploitation of an extremely divided electorate, so why would she become a uniter at this point?
She seems to have two central points. First, the blame for horrific crimes rests solely with the criminals. To suggest that words incite them is wrong:
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."
Second, the words of journalists and pundits incite violence:
"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."
Got that? When Palin talks of gunsights and Death Panels, of a socialist take-over of America and palling around with domestic terrorists, it's simply a benign exercise of her First Amendment rights. When "journalists and pundits" suggest otherwise, it's a "blood libel" that incites violence.
She had an opportunity to show leadership, instead she used incendiary language ("blood libel") and wallowed in her victimhood. In other words, it's business as usual in Palin World. Her only hope of ever winning the presidency is through exploitation of an extremely divided electorate, so why would she become a uniter at this point?
She seems to have two central points. First, the blame for horrific crimes rests solely with the criminals. To suggest that words incite them is wrong:
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."
Second, the words of journalists and pundits incite violence:
"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."
Got that? When Palin talks of gunsights and Death Panels, of a socialist take-over of America and palling around with domestic terrorists, it's simply a benign exercise of her First Amendment rights. When "journalists and pundits" suggest otherwise, it's a "blood libel" that incites violence.
