Conservative Media Used “Blood Libel” First

January 12th, 2011 at 4:19 pm | 5 Comments |

| Print

Talking Points Memo reports:

Before Sarah Palin posted her Facebook provocation this morning accusing the media of committing “blood libel” for connecting some of her statements to the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), that phrase was being batted around by the conservative media.

Andrew Brietbart used the phrase in a tweet last night (though it’s likely Palin’s video, posted in the early morning hours Wednesday, was filmed before that tweet).

“Blood libel” popped up in a Wall Street Journalop-ed by professor and Pajamas TV host Glenn Reynolds. “Where is the decency in blood libel?” he wrote on Monday, Jan. 10.

Adam Graham of Renew America was the first to use the phrase in reference to the Tucson shootings, according to a search of Google News.

But the very first reference to “blood libel” in the wake of the Tucson massacre came from political consultant Jon Henke, who used the phrase on Twitter the same day as the shootings, according to Google’s realtime search.

Reaction to Palin’s use of the phrase, which refers to the Middle Age anti-Semitic accusation that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood in ritual food for Passover, was — like all things Palin — mixed.

A Jewish Democratic political consultant told Politico it was “absolutely inappropriate.”

Recent Posts by FrumForum News



5 Comments so far ↓

  • politicalfan

    Oh heavens. When a person is blamed for doing something when they did not deserve the blame, they do not need to turn around and blame everyone else.

    Would someone define “personal responsibility” and or collective?

  • Rabiner

    You mean she didn’t think of the term herself? She probably didn’t know the history behind the term either.

  • JeninCT

    Facebook provacation? Sheesh did ANYONE watch the whole thing?

  • valkayec

    Showing up at Reagan’s bedside when no one knew if he would survive, Tip O’Neill bent down on his knees, took Reagan’s hands, and with Reagan recited the 23rd psalm. These two political opponents disagreed on polices but they were friends; they understood they were both Americans and wanted to make America better.

    What happened that we came to believe that our neighbors and political opponents became our enemies? Is this the America we choose? One that looks more like the sectarianism of Iraq than the inclusive America we all love?

    The “blood libel” comment, although used first by a conservative commentator in the WSJ, really is out of bounds and should never have been used. As Jewish groups have written today, the use of that terminology is quite offensive for historical reasons. Why offend when not necessary? Does criticism of Palin really stack up to Jewish pograms caused by false mythologies espoused by Christian leaders in the Middle Ages? Where is the sense of proportion?

    Regardless, far too many people on both sides of the aisle have, over the last two years, gone rhetorically overboard. I wish I had the part of Pres. Obama’s speech regarding the little girl who was killed in Tucson. I think that said it all.

    http://valkayec.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/cutting-through-the-noise/

  • westony

    Palin’s support of Dr. Laura and the “N” word was just as offensive to African Americans. What an offensive, insensitive person. And NEVER accepts responsiblity or apologizes for anything. In the Dr. Laura incident it was about Freedom of Speech. In this incident it’s about Blood Libel against her. Next week it will be something else. Every week there is another controversy that Palin either “starts” or involves herself in. And her supporters continue to fill her head with dreams of the Presidency and illusions about her strong Christian values. When was the last time anyone saw Palin near a church?