Palin doesn’t threaten pogroms

Israel/Palestine
on 39 Comments

Last night on Chris Matthews David Corn said that Sarah Palin’s blood libel comment was the kind of thing that had brought forth pogroms against Jews once. He offered a similar fearful idea at Mother Jones:


Yet for her to equate the criticism she’s received with the genocidal persecution of an entire people demonstrates either ignorance or narcissism. Or both. “Blood libel” is a term that refers to Jews using the blood of children (mainly Christians) for religious practices, and this false accusation has been used to justify violent pogroms against Jews. Palin is not the victim of “blood libel.” But leave it to Palin to deploy such incendiary language to stir up a controversy today…

Does anyone really think Sarah Palin was threatening a pogrom against Jews or even knows what a pogrom is? No. She is too ignorant to know what blood libel means (beyond the bloody sound of it) and if she had known what resonance the term has for  Jews she would never have said it. Look this is the woman who wraps herself in an Israel flag and got briefed by the Israel lobby even as she was coming out to the nation in St Paul, September 2008. I can give you 100 reasons to fear and loathe Sarah Palin, pogroms against Jews isn’t one of them.

The pogrom comment is about throwback Jewish identity. You might even say that pogroms are why Jews are Democrats in the first place. As Jerry Muller writes, American political identities have a European tribal component: “to the extent that the Republican party is perceived as defining Ameircan identity in Christian terms, it tends to repel Jews, just as Chistianist parties in Europe once did…. in most of Europe, the doors to the political Right were slammed in Jewish faces by parties that regarded Christianity as integral to national identity…”

Talking about pogroms is invoking a European narrative that has no real bearing on American life. We’ve been here at least 110 years, that’s when my grandfathers came over, and there’s never been a pogrom. If we remain steeped in righteous tales of our victimization, we will never come to grips with our actual responsibility in the U.S.

39 Responses

  1. Gellian
    January 14, 2011, 6:49 pm

    This whole thing is manufactured outrage, Phil, and it’s not worth you wasting your breath on. Nobody really believes this David Corn fellow. He’s simply stirring the pot to keep you watching, same as the demagogues on Fox. He’s just doing it from the left rather than the right.

    And that said, you’re damn right it’s a blood libel against Sarah Palin, in the sense that people are accusing her of a murder she had no hand in.

    • LeaNder
      January 15, 2011, 7:17 am

      Gellian, I have to admit that I rarely agree with Harris and the other critics of the usage lately, but I actually do now. I find the Dersh response about a more broad usage, which as David has shown mainly serves to exculpate his own use of the term, highly political and ultimately disgusting.

      I do expect if you look closer into the historical cases that you will find serious and real hunting down of suspects in this context. Do you expect somebody can put Palin on trial today based on the polemics, we witnessed?

      What I don’t like about Palin’s argument, and here I absolutely agree with Phil, had she known what the term means, she wouldn’t have used it, that she tries to paint herself as a victim. I even agree with you, maybe she slightly is given the heated political discourse surrounding the issue. But she isn’t even closely a victim like the real people accused of blood libel over the centuries.

      Considering this:
      “Blood libel” is a term that refers to Jews using the blood of children (mainly Christians)

      obviously not mainly but necessarily always.

      Obviously not mainly.

      Can you show us the parallels in this case? Was this only about killing a “Christian child”? Is Palin accused to be the perpetrator? And to close my argument: Does she belong to a group that based on this and related stories will be expelled from America in let’s say 150 years from now?

      • Gellian
        January 15, 2011, 8:32 am

        Leander,

        You say, “I find the Dersh response about a more broad usage, which as David has shown mainly serves to exculpate his own use of the term, highly political and ultimately disgusting.”

        You don’t have to agree with Derschowitz’s self-serving reinterpretation of the claim to agree with me that ‘blood libel’ is *itself* a highly political term. It’s used to lump together a number of incidents from the middle ages, not all of which feature the same causes or outcomes. In that sense it’s like ‘anti-Semitism’ in general, which is a catchall term for all sorts of antipathies and hatred or simple misunderstandings in which a Jewish person ends up on the losing side– in addition to murder, my relatives use the term to refer to their failure to be admitted to an exclusive country club they wanted to join.

        I’m not an expert on the medieval blood libel by any means, but I have read a fair amount about it (the Simon of Trent incident in particular), since I’m pretty interested in moral panics. I would say without hesitation that the spasm of vitriol that surrounded Palin was clearly a moral panic that has avoided devolving into a witch hunt, but if I were her I would have been pretty afraid for my life. What seems to be emerging at this point is that the shooter, Loughner, was either ‘apolitical’ or even ‘leftist’, meaning the Pavlovian-induced attack on Palin by the left just doesn’t hold up. Some commentators probably didn’t realize this, others surely did and were exploiting it for political advantage. You don’t have to agree with Palin’s politics or even like anything about her to realize that.

        So the major difference between Palin and the ‘blood libel’ folks is that in this case, it’s a Christian being targeted by a lot of commentators on the left, many of whom, it’s hard not to notice, have one thing in common. I would imagine this is why the reaction to her use of the term blood libel is so furious — even if not universally so.

      • Gellian
        January 15, 2011, 9:16 am

        And for another interesting take on the term blood libel as Sarah Palin and recent Jewish writers have used it, see here (referring to Commentary Magazine):

        link to amnation.com

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 9:48 am

        I would say without hesitation that the spasm of vitriol that surrounded Palin was clearly a moral panic

        no it wasn’t. the spasms of vitriol came from palin. everytime she issued one of her fatwas w/bull’s eyes on them.

        please note how nothing in your definitions of blood libel in your 2nd paragraph apply to palin, at all.

        if I were her I would have been pretty afraid for my life

        funny you mention nothing of the people targeted by palin. wasn’t it they who had the crosshairs aimed at their heads? it was palin touring the country working crowds of fans into Pavlovian-induced frothing frenzied hordes.

        What seems to be emerging at this point is that the shooter, Loughner, was either ‘apolitical’ or even ‘leftist’

        i suppose there’s some reason you put leftist in scare quotes. a quick google search of loughner and leftist places you in like kind company, where you belong. many radical rightwing blogs seem to agree w/you, unsurprisingly.

        You don’t have to agree with Palin’s politics or even like anything about her to realize that.

        no, you just have to be on the right leaning partisan fringe.

        So the major difference between Palin and the ‘blood libel’ folks is that in this case, it’s a Christian being targeted by a lot of commentators on the left

        no it is not. the major difference between Palin and the ‘blood libel’ folks is in this case palin did repeatedly use clear strong messaging targeting people for assassination as a metaphor for taking them out politically whereas in the traditional usage of the term blood libel is used to imply the charges are false. we do not know if loughner was influenced by palin. what we do know however is her slogans, tweets and facebook were all inflammatory and used blatant hunting imagery aimed directly at the head of loughner’s target.

        therefore the charges against her were not false.

        let me asked you something. if i used crosshairs on the faces of jews and used terms like bulleye etc to take them out and one of them ended up dead would it be fair to say i was a victim of bloodlibel if someone accused me of incitement? of course not.

        see here (referring to Commentary Magazine)

        you underestimate your audience here. we already know where to find palin’s defenders. why not just link to the weekly standard while you’re at it.

      • LeaNder
        January 15, 2011, 10:22 am

        Look, Gellian, my classic response when I somehow feel like expressing a sigh.

        I am not into View from the Right or Lawrence Auster for that matter, I am afraid. I might have a look into the Commentary articles though, if I have time.

        Read Al Giordano’s article below, I don’t like his headline too much, but the rest is pretty close to what this feels to me. I am much more interested in close criminal science and or psychological studies of the Laughner case than fast right/left polemics. Although, that far I got in the article you linked to:

        the very sort of incitement and hate-mongering that conservatives are routinely accused of.

        It’s simply not true that this is just an accusation, from my perspective it is a simple fact. Some conservatives, I am not saying all are Machiavellians and cater to the lowest instincts of people trying to influence them their way. And yes some on the left say stupid things too. Let’s see if anybody studies these kind of political polemics on the assassin. I am more in favor of understanding than fast explanations. And admittedly this case immediately drew my attention. And not for one second I was interested in political usage of the case.

      • Gellian
        January 15, 2011, 11:10 am

        Well, it sounds like I am with you on this one. It’s not a left/right thing. People on both the left and the right are fearmongerers — no disagreement here, and to me it seems obvious that rightists are more guilty of that than leftists. (Leftists are more utopian and naive, and that often gets just as many people killed as rightists do.)

        As for the Auster article, take it or leave it. I don’t know anything about him (her?), the author. I just thought it was an interesting analysis someone passed along.

        The interesting thing is, What is a blood libel? No doubt that term is often used to the accusations made in the middle ages that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes, to make matzo flour or whatever out of them. But it’s one of those terms that Jewish pundits throw around endlessly, you see it all the time. So why do they get a monopoly on it? Especially since Christians have no corresponding term for their victimization at the hands of collectively frothing Jewish intellectuals, as is happening to Palin in this case. So I nominate blood libel. It seems appropriate.

        And we even have a fine example just above our comments of what happens when someone drinks the koolaid all the way! She compares Palin’s bullseyes over politicians’ heads as a metaphor for electoral defeat to her own inclination to place bullseyes over random Jews’ heads as a metaphor (?) for…what exactly? Political defeat? Umm, if they’re politicians, I guess. Otherwise, not too sure.

        Does that comparison strike you as, well, kind of retarded? Then I’m with you on that one, too.

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 11:27 am

        Leftists are more utopian and naive

        as opposed to rightists who are realistic and less naive?

        the very sort of incitement and hate-mongering that conservatives are routinely accused of.

        my observation is that it’s right wing fanatics who continually apply the “hate-mongering” lingo. in fact over and over again right wing fanatics accuse their opponents of hatred, it’s one of their calling cards. so the poor victims of hate mongering are conservatives? what else is new? tell me something i haven’t heard before.

        Christians have no corresponding term for their victimization at the hands of collectively frothing Jewish intellectuals, as is happening to Palin in this case.

        maybe i have blinders on. who are the frothing Jewish intellectuals attacking palin? could you provide a link please.

        So I nominate blood libel. It seems appropriate.

        it’s already been nominated, by palin herself seconded by dersh and a slew of other radical neocons. so you’re in appropriate company.

        She compares Palin’s bullseyes over politicians’ heads as a metaphor for electoral defeat

        gee ya think?

        over random Jews’ heads as a metaphor (?) for…what exactly?

        a blood libel, in it’s traditional usage. see how different they are?

        Does that comparison strike you as, well, kind of retarded? Then I’m with you on that one, too.

        you might let her answer first before you ‘join her’ in confirming your version of retard.

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 11:40 am

        This whole thing is manufactured outrage, Phil, and it’s not worth you wasting your breath on.

        but it’s worth your breath isn’t it gellian?

      • LeaNder
        January 15, 2011, 12:57 pm

        Obviously Annie, I won’t confirm his “kind of retarded”.

        Annie, I am with you concerning the hate-mongering, absolutely. But this is interesting: bullseyes over politicians’ heads. I am not aware Palin’s campaigners used such obvious imagery.

        It’s simply an attempt, hat tip to Ad Giordano, to seize the day, exploit the wrong incident for the wrong reasons.

        More interesting would be the line of thought started by David Samel, to which Gellian added his little something here:

        Could it be Palin, due to some kind of gratefulness to her neocon handlers/supporters is a devoted reader of Commentary lately, without noticing she doesn’t understand much of it? And that’s the reason the term somehow found its way into her speech?

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 2:25 pm

        leander, the bullseye lingo was palin’s terminology for her crosshairs graphic on the map of politicians to be targeted. it was captured on her twitter page prior to her scrubbing it and featured on this blog along w/many others.

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 2:41 pm

        here it is. i couldn’t find phil’s post on it but it went viral (example in context). here’s a copy (jpg).

        in her own words on her twitter account Nov 4th :

        Remember months ago “bulleye” icon
        used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’
        incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20
        (90% success rate: T’aint bad)

        SarahPalinUSA

      • tree
        January 15, 2011, 2:57 pm

        wasn’t it they who had the crosshairs aimed at their heads?

        and

        crosshairs graphic on the map of politicians to be targeted

        ..are two entirely different things. The first would be inexcusable. The second not such a big deal. Frankly I believe that much of this kind of hullabaloo about petty things have unfortunately consumed political discussion in this country, rather than needed discussion of important issues. The Republicans do it much more, but there are Democrats who do the same kinds of things . Its one of the reasons I’ve turned away from the Democratic party. (The other, more important, reason is that the party seems to be refashioning itself as Republican lite, replete with hypocritical stances, ala, its bad when “they” do it, but OK when “we” do it. )

        But all the hoo-doo about this, including Palin’s “blood libel” claim is just so shallow and unimportant. I call it the Springerization of politics. Its as if US politics has become one great big “Jerry Springer Show”, with people yelling and screaming at each other over things that mean nothing.

        And, considering the current overuse and misuse of the term “blood libel”, it think that Palin’s use was inline with the currently skewed norms. Lately, like “antisemitism”, its been used to silence discussion more than anything else. And, also lately, its been used in cheap attempts, not to refute the allegations, but to cast aspersions on the ones making the allegations. Like the misuse of the word “antisemitic”.

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 3:01 pm

        another thing, as for how it found ‘blood libel’ found it’s way into palin’s speech i do not know for certain but one thing i think is a given is that her handlers went into emergency mode wrt messaging because this crosshair/bulleye lingo wasn’t some flyby night one shot thing. it was her calling card and a tea party calling card going into the elections, using hunting/gun lingo and imagery and everybody knew it. had it been benign there would have been NO REASON for her to scrub it from her twitter. she should have apologized for using this kind of imagery, instead she blathers about being a victim of attack.

        do i think it was palin’s fault gifford’s got shot? of course not. do i think it is incitement to use inflammatory violent imagery while campaigning? of course. she did it. she’s not a victim here she’s a crybaby. she was inciteful and inflammatory and deserves to be called out for it, not pitied. she needs to learn a lesson about her violent rhetoric and violent ‘code’ speak. hopefully she has. when you spend your life ratcheting up the discourse don’t scream victim when it turns violent.

        do you remember when the gun totting people started showing up at political rallies last summer. was palin denouncing that? hell no. that was a tea party thing.

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 3:07 pm

        point taken tree.

      • tree
        January 15, 2011, 3:14 pm

        I didn’t necssarily mean to direct that at you personally, annie. :-)

        I just needed to vent. American politics is so petty these days. Its exasperating.

      • Antidote
        January 15, 2011, 8:44 pm

        annie — please tell me who is more direct at cross hairing/targeting people for assassination: Palin or Obama?

        link to youtube.com

        I don’t like Palin one bit. But when I saw that ‘joke’ by Obama, I stopped liking Obama. And that was even before I knew that the Coen brothers grew up in a Jewish household. I just googled it.

        Where was the outrage? How is it different from rabbis’ wives in Israel telling Jewish girl to stay away from Arabs? Ok, they were not joking. Still: it’s hugely offensive to me to make jokes about targeting people for killing. Whether it’s the Coen brothers, or Assange, or whoever else

      • annie
        January 15, 2011, 9:19 pm

        he’s not referencing the cohen brothers, they are adult film makers. he’s talking about the jonas brothers, the teen singing group.

        i choose my battles, i have battles w/obama but this isn’t one of them. sorry. his toast might have been in bad taste but i don’t think it falls in the category of incitement. just a dad warning the boys away from his daughters in a joking manner. it had nothing to do w/any ethnicity whatsoever. his girls are probably just discovering crushes and have crushes on the jonas brothers. he’s new at this his girls are young.

      • Antidote
        January 15, 2011, 10:17 pm

        You’re right about me getting the wrong brothers. Still: Obama, unlike Palin at this point, is not just swashbuckling, but actually CIC of an army which kills people with drones, many of them civilians and written off as ‘collateral damage’.

        If any deranged father would shoot one of the Jonas brothers for trying to make out with his daughter, you could make the very same claim of ‘incitement’, and be a lot more ‘on target’.

        The US has always had a swashbuckling streak, and yes, crime rates are higher than in many other Western democracies. But when all is said and done, such shootings as the one in Arizona occur in many countries with stricter gun control laws and stronger prohibitions against incitement.

        I know this is not a liberal view, but the first thing that came to my mind when I read about Loughner and his drug use was one of my room-mates at university, about the same age. Pothead, moving on to other drugs, then having a psychotic breakdown. He eventually killed a stranger with a knife in a bizarre attack, ended up in psychiatric care and, eventually, in a regular prison, on medication, where he committed suicide in his cell. Check out Dutch medical research on cannabis triggering psychosis in young adults. You can’t blame the Dutch for being anything but liberal on pot. They have ideal conditions for their research. Few people there lie about how much they smoke, and at what age they started.

      • yonira
        January 15, 2011, 11:12 pm

        he’s not referencing the cohen brothers, they are adult film makers. he’s talking about the jonas brothers, the teen singing group.

        Porno Annie? I don’t think the cohen brothers are in the ‘adult film industry’

      • annie
        January 16, 2011, 2:02 am

        no, not porno. they are adults as opposed to the jonas brothers who are kids. or were last i heard. maybe they’ve grown up since i last checked in on them. my friend had a cohen bro sighting in petaluma recently. whoa..dude. who doesn’t luv the cohen bros? blood simple? helllo i’ve watched it at least 10 times, probably more. fargo, don’t ask. hot hot hot hot hot those bros, frances is a very lucky duck.

        ok, slow night so i’ll bore you all.
        my generation wasn’t able to buy videos and watch them endlessly but my son was born into it. do you have any idea how many times i’ve seen the spaghetti scene in lady in the tramp? don’t ask, wayyy over 100. then there was at least 6 years of wayne’s world. every friggin night. shwang! (side story , you can scroll thru this it isn’t important. when he was 8 on halloween one of the kids @ school wore a kennedy mask and my son burst into an impersonation of mike myers singing happy birthday mr president. i wasn’t there but the teacher told me about it. none of the other kids ‘got it’ but the teacher knew exactly what it was about. she asked me ‘wtf’ and i said ‘wayne’s world’, because he ask me when he was 6 or 7 what that scene was about and i told him about marilyn and madison sq garden) he knows every word of that movie..then he started to grow up. he graduated into… dude..the big lebowski! over and over and over. he’s now a film maker my son.

        end of story…almost, and i went to see true grit opening night, w/my son.

        so i damn well know the friggin cohen bros.

      • annie
        January 16, 2011, 2:14 am

        enjoy.

        is that adult enough for you?

  2. yourstruly
    January 14, 2011, 6:59 pm

    The former v-p candidate was reacting to the accusation that she may have had something to do with Saturday’s mass murder in Tucson by going into the attack mode. That’s a staple on TV’s Law & Order, except there the wily detectives interregating suspects pay little attention to the emotional response of their suspect. Instead they ask the big question, “where were you at 10 pm on the night of so & so? The big question for what’s her name is what’s going to be your attack statement if some other “nut” takes you seriously and offs one more of the congresspersons on your hit list? You get to use “blood libel” just once.

  3. Oscar
    January 14, 2011, 7:07 pm

    The modern day pogrom is the one being waged against the people of Palestine. Underwritten by US and EU taxpayer dollars.

  4. MRW
    January 14, 2011, 7:45 pm

    As Al Giordano writes at The Field:
    link to narcosphere.narconews.com

    Much ado has been made in recent hours about Sarah Palin’s map that expressly “targeted” Arizona US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ district, and others, with graphic gun sights, and also of Palin’s (and others’) ham-handed attempts to “scrub” her own images and statements from the Internet, as well as similar use of lock-and-load ballistic language by Republicans, including by the 2010 campaign rival of Giffords who, contrary to the initial hurried media reports, still lives (for now) after a bullet went through her brain on Saturday. And, yes, all such propaganda was and is stupid and reckless, bad speech that can only be countered by good speech.
    [...]
    But if I had a nickel for every Facebook status update I’ve seen in the past two days directly calling Palin the “assassin” and saying, without a hint of nuance or irony, that “hate speech” caused the violence in Tucson, I might be able to buy Zuckerberg out and put the entire social network out of its misery. To this came the predictable calls to legislate or outlaw said “hate speech,” like that of US Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pennsylvania) who is getting media attention by announcing he’ll introduce legislation “making it a federal crime to threaten or incite violence against a member of Congress or a federal official.” (Interestingly, when Hugo Chávez backed similar laws in Venezuela, the US media called it an attack on free speech and democracy, which either it is or it isn’t in either country, but it can’t be one thing in Venezuela and a different thing in the United States, can it? How about, say, in Iran, where dissidents by the thousands shout “death to the dictator” from rooftops at nightfall? Is that “hate speech” that the State is justified to punish?)

    The entire article is thought-provoking and worth reading.

    • LeaNder
      January 15, 2011, 7:55 am

      thanks, MRW, I haven’t read Al Giordano for ages it feels. Nothing else to say: simply brilliant.

    • Donald
      January 15, 2011, 2:03 pm

      The article itself is good, but if you get into the comment section you see Al falling into his usual egomaniacal pattern–he, Al Giordano, is an effective radical organizer while everyone else on the web is an ineffective histrionic fraud.

      He’s also a diehard Obama fan, the sort that believes Obama plays 11 dimensional chess. I think he identifies with Obama as a fellow community organizer.

      All of which is to say that Al Giordano is sometimes worth reading, but he’s got an ego that’s larger than most countries and you should take him with a grain of salt.

  5. Citizen
    January 14, 2011, 8:41 pm

    I find ig really hard to imagine that Palin was not being directed by her Jewish handlers to use the blood libel offense defense.

    • MRW
      January 14, 2011, 9:38 pm

      ;-) Citizen, they probably left her all the literature, and she noticed the term (or her Wasilla-based PR person did) and thought, Gee, if I say this I can be the macher of the airwaves and bury Obama! (Hence, the fireplace video, the flags, the whole FDR fireside chat thing.)

  6. optimax
    January 14, 2011, 9:03 pm

    Early Christians were accused of ritual child sacrifice into the third century. Some writings from that time say the accusations came from the Jews. When they gained power they turned those same accusations at Pagans and then Jews later on. Don’t know when when the term “blood libel” was first used.

  7. Jeff Klein
    January 14, 2011, 9:30 pm

    You just don’t get it. Sarah Palin is the victim of a pogrom. . .

    link to tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

  8. munro
    January 14, 2011, 9:36 pm

    Palin Borrows ‘Blood Libel’ from Israeli Far Right
    link to juancole.com

    In the Land of Queen Esther: The Unauthorized Sarah Palin Story
    Max Blumenthal heads deep into the land of Sarah Palin

    • Citizen
      January 15, 2011, 8:26 am

      Jeez, those video clips of her local Wassila church assembly in action are scary. They evoke antique people speaking in tongues, night burnings, and witchcraft. Irony is the odd minister speaks in mumbo jumbo and of a python who wraps its body around Christ and is squeezing him, the forces of evil they pray to
      erase. Jeez. Is that crazy stuff crammed down deep inside her? That would be hidden in her big bag on Jerry Springer’s show, Baggage. And McCain picked her. And America might?

  9. optimax
    January 15, 2011, 12:00 pm

    Leander,
    The book is called “The Strange world of Human Sacrifice” and is on googlebooks. Start on pg 98.

    link to books.google.com

  10. Kathleen
    January 16, 2011, 5:23 pm

    Palin does not write what she has to say. Someone wanted to keep her in the news. Whether she runs or not she is making millions by staying in the news.

    Hate Speech double standards

    After the horrendous murders and injuries in Tucson we are hearing a critically important discussion and debate about gun laws, numbers of magazine (odd way to phrase bullet capacity) clips, the ability of an individual carrying a firearm to get close to a Congressperson, the killers mental health falling through the cracks, whether hate language has an effect. All important issues to examine and have a national discussion about. There has also rightfully been a great deal of focus on the inflammatory and violent language by Sarah Palin and others.

    The other day Sarah Palin came out and said “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.” Many Republicans including Rep Pence on Washington Journal today keep repeating that violent words do not matter. That this is freedom of speech.

    Yet when some Muslim Iman’s and other Muslims violent or inflammatory language on the Web or elsewhere possibly influence the man who committed the massacre at Ft Hood and other crimes committed by Muslims or others Sarah Palin, Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike are all about investigating or going after these individuals who allegedly inflame situations with hate speech.

    More serious double standards that Palin and other Republicans are repeating. Hate speech from Muslims not acceptable. Hate speech from Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and others totally acceptable. What a serious contradiction.

  11. JLWarner
    January 17, 2011, 2:12 am

    Phil Weiss is absolutl;y correct. Palin is ignorant and did not know what she was saying (at that point) and is not an anti-semite, and yes, there are 101 reasons to not like Palin’s politics and methods.

    • Kathleen
      January 18, 2011, 9:58 am

      Palin does not write what she says. Be real. That statement about “blood libel” has kept her in the news for over a week. This is about $$$$$$$

Leave a Reply