She could have risen to the occasion in commenting on the Arizona shootings. Instead she revealed a nasty streak of self-absorption.
Sarah Palin finally made a public statement about the Arizona shootings this week and the criticism directed at her role in creating an atmosphere of incivility and outright hostility in the American political discourse. It wasn't her finest moment. She included an obscure anti-Semitic reference to "blood libel" in her meandering, nearly eight-minute video.
"Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions," she said. "And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas." This was all good. Then she went off the tracks: "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."
Poor Palin. Even when she tries to get it right, she's still wrong. She focused more on defending herself than on conveying true sympathy for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims. Graceless under pressure. Writing in the Huffington Post, Rabbi Brent Hirschfield explained the meaning behind a "blood libel" and why many Jews took offense at Palin's use of the phrase. "In the briefest terms, it is the charge that Jews use the blood of non-Jews, typically that of children, for ritual purposes, especially the making of Passover matzo."
Hirschfield explained that the charge originated among medieval Catholics but has also been used by Protestants, and more recently by Muslims, to provoke rage at Jews. "That's what makes Palin's use of the term so interesting -- for the analogy to work, she must be the Jew!" said the rabbi.
Palin channeled the Great Communicator when she said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker." That's groovy and hip, and a sentiment I think most would agree with. Where she gets in trouble with me is in the following line: "It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Where does Palin take responsibility for the gun sights trained on the districts of Democratic representatives, including that of Giffords? Where was Palin's concession that perhaps "Don't retreat -- reload!" might not have been the best way to get her point across?
