"Blood Libel" Remark from Palin Sparks Controversy

Posted by Stephanie Condon

Sarah Palin responded in a video this morning to the criticism she has received in the wake of the Tucson shooting, but many people today have been more interested in her choice language than the actual substance of her video response.

"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 that they purport to condemn," Palin said in the video.

She was referring to the criticism she received over her use of images of crosshairs to "target" certain lawmakers during the midterm election cycle.

As the New York Times' Michael Shear explained, "By using the term 'blood libel' to describe the criticism about political rhetoric after the shootings, Ms. Palin was inventing a new definition for an emotionally laden phrase. Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term has been used for centuries as the pretext for anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews."

The use of that phrase sparked some commotion in the Jewish community and spurred others to come to Palin's defense. While the term has deep connotations, there are other examples of its use in a modern political context.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the left-leaning Jewish political group J Street released a statement saying he was "saddened" by Palin's use of the term "blood libel."

The term, he said, "brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."

The Anti-Defamation League released a statement that in part defended Palin, saying she had "every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks." However, the group said, "we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition's board of directors, did not address Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel," but said, "It it would have been even better if she simply rose above the accusations about her map and focused entirely on the bigger message of loss, tragedy and the greatness of our country.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who often comments on Israeli affairs, came to Palin's defense, saying that the term has "taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse." Dershowitz said he has used the term himself to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. He added, "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."

Ben Smith of Politico also points out that the phrase has been used in a political context before. For instance, the New York Post used it in a 1999 headline "after Hillary Clinton stood by as Suha Arafat accused the Israelis of 'daily and intensive use of poison gas' against Palestinian women and children," Smith reports.

Conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds used the phrase in a Wall Street Journal op-ed just two days ago.

Palin's Korea Mixup: "We Gotta Stand With Our North Korean Allies"

KTLA News

12:39 p.m. PST, November 24, 2010

Palin was asked during an interview with how she would handle the current situation between North and South Korea.

NEW YORK -- Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin accidentally mixed up North and South Korea during a radio interview Wednesday.

Palin was asked during an interview with Glenn Beck how she would handle the current situation between North and South Korea.

"Obviously we gotta stand with our North Korean allies," she said. "We are bound to treaties."

A few moments earlier Palin had correctly identified North Korea as an adversary, not an ally.

"We aren't having a lot of faith that the White House is gonna come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is gonna do."

Debate about the nation's policy in Korea has been fueled by North Korea's recent barrage on the island of Yeonpyeong that killed two South Korean civilians, two marines and wounded 18 others in what U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called one of the "gravest incidents" since the Korean War.

Donald Trump considers taking on Palin in presidential bid

11/18/10 - USA Today

By Evan Agostini, AP

Donald Trump is getting more serious about his run for the presidency in 2012.

"I am thinking about things," he told George Stephanopolous in an interview on Good Morning America this morning. "I love what I'm doing, but it could be fun because I'd like to see some positive things happen for the country. ... We cannot let the rest of the wrold beat us up. We're like a whipping post right now."

Trump, who said last month he was considering running, launched a website - shouldtrumprun.com - on Friday to gauge interest in him as a candidate. He said on GMA he is a Republican and would run as a Republican.

What about Sarah Palin? "She's very interesting. Don't underestimate her," he said. So, he'd be running against her? "If I ran, I would have no choice. I'd take her on. I like her, but I'd take her on." Trump said he will make a decision by June.

Sarah Palin: I Could Beat President Obama in 2012

November 18, 2010 | Poll Vault

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been named one of Barbara Walter's 10 Most Fascinating People of 2010. During the special, set to air December 9, Palin said she has a shot at becoming the first female US President.

"I'm looking at the lay of the land now," Palin said. "Trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing."

When asked by Walters if she could beat President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, Palin replied, "I believe so."

Sarah Palin, the Truth Called. It Wants Its Books Back

John Shore
Award-winning author and blogger

Being honest is a good starting point in building trust. - Sarah Palin

On a Barnes & Noble display table I came across yesterday, a short stack of the paperback edition of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue.

(You know how at a Barnes and Noble, or at any big bookstore, they have all those books displayed on tables? No one who works at the store decided to put those books where they are. Book publishers pay a great deal of money to have their books so displayed. The closer the table is to the front of the store, the more it costs. Rather than honest recommendations, those books represent paid advertising space. Isn't that... special?)

I've never before looked at Palin's book. But in passing it yesterday, I noticed that on its cover, following Palin's name, there was no "with" or "and."

You know, as in "with Lynn Vincent," or "and Lynn Vincent." As in acknowledging Lynn Vincent, who was Palin's co-author on the book.

Everyone in the book business knows that Lynn Vincent had a great deal to do with writing Going Rogue. And few if any of them at all sweat that; they all know that it's practically unheard of for Famous People to write their own books. Writing is, after all, exceedingly difficult -- so difficult, in fact, that it's a given that no one has time to master writing and do whatever they did to make themselves famous enough for a publisher to gamble that they can make a lot of money from a book with their name and face on its cover.

Besides, who really cares about the writing of a book? That's a detail handled readily enough. You can always hire someone (like me, actually) to tend to that for you.

Though a book's denoted author and publisher might naturally enough care to downplay the fact that it had a co-author, they always at least acknowledge that co-author. You see it on the cover of countless books: [Famous Person -- in big type] with or and [person you've never heard of -- in small type]. (By the way, there's a world of difference between that with and and. But... too much detail, I'm sure.)

If a publisher and author really want to hide a co-author's involvement with a book, they can include the co-author's name nowhere on the book besides its copyright page. But that's the bare minimum acknowledgment. Outside of using invisible ink, there's no lesser way to include a co-author's name.

Lynn Vincent -- who, again, was, shall we say, extremely instrumental in the writing of Going Rogue -- didn't even get that. Her name's most definitely not on the book's cover -- and on the book's copyright page (which you can view right here) it says nothing but "Copyright, 2009, Sarah Palin."

That's it. One author listed. (And that is the author's call, by the way. If Palin wanted Lynn Vincent's name on the cover or copyright page of her book, you can trust it would be there.)

It's no secret that Lynn Vincent's writing was literally indispensable to Going Rogue. While Vincent was working on that book, she and I were both on the "faculty" of a Christian writer's conference. She was the full-on rock star of that conference: she was collaborating on Sarah Palin's much-awaited book!

She actually knew Sarah Palin! In fact, she had actually left being holed up with Palin to attend the conference! Sarah Palin was actually waiting for her to get back!

Can you imagine what that's like to a bunch of would-be (Christian) authors? People were positively swooning around Ms. Vincent, who seemed a nice person. Very sweet.

She did, however, tell us in no uncertain terms that she wasn't free to say much if anything about Going Rogue. She intimated that its publisher had made it very clear she'd be in hot water if she did.

Here is Lynn Vincent's personal Web site, which she uses to promote her services as a co-author.

The most famous book she's ever worked on -- one of the best-selling books in the country -- isn't even listed.

I'm no particular fan of Sarah Palin's; I think she's no more suited for public office than I am to being a prison guard. And if she ever gets elected to anything more than winkin' slogan-slinger, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong about that.

But this is a woman who sells herself on how forthright, and morally upstanding she is. And yet, she's very clearly done virtually all she can to take full credit for a book she didn't even write -- one that's all about her.

Palin has a new book out next month: America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag. It "celebrates the enduring strengths and virtues that have made this country great."

Though acknowledging that America by Heart will have a collaborating writer, this time around HarperCollins (who also did Going Rogue) is keeping entirely mum about that writer's identity.

They do, however, assure us that the book is written in Palin's "own refreshingly candid voice."

[Update: I've just learned that Lynn Vincent's name does appear in Going Rogue. At the end of the book, under Acknowledgments, in the middle of the fourth paragraph down (after Palin has thanked thirty-seven other people -- and a few sentences down from "I appreciate the opportunity to write a book!"), we read, "Thanks as well to Lynn Vincent for her indispensable help in getting the words on paper." I'm actually astounded more by such a buried, cursory, and calculatingly dismissive reference to the book's ghostwriter (what a difference there is between writing and helping to "get the words on paper"), than I was to think that Palin had chosen to simply ignore Vincent altogether.]

Watch Sarah Palin Desecrate a Flag

A Guardian reporter interviewed Sarah Palin while she was giving autographs to her fans. Sarah put her Sharpie marker on a book, a hat, and an American flag. The latter of which is against the law!

Salon blogger Emma Mustich caught the flag desecration at 1:35 in the below video. Palin autographs a star-spangled banner, then waves it and smiles.

According to extant law, "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." Rallying against flag desecration is a perennial right-wing rabble-rousing technique, but I have it on good authority that Sarah Palin—who once wrote a book about "family, faith, and flag"—had her fingers crossed when she did this, so it's probably fine. Just stand in front of a mirror at midnight and chant "Bloody Hussein Obama" three times, and all sins against state will disappear.

Whither Sarah Palin? (And four other storylines to watch in today's primaries)

By Chris Cillizza | August 24, 2010; 7:44 AM ET

With Arizona, Alaska, Florida, Vermont and Oklahoma voters heading to the polls in the last major primaries of the summer, we at the Fix are turning our Morning Fix over to five storylines to keep an eye on in these states.

1. Whither Palin?: Outside of the candidates actually on the ballot today, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin probably has the most to gain or lose in the results.

Palin has endorsed four candidates running today: Sen. John McCain, Joe Miller in the Alaska Senate race, Allen West in Florida's 22nd district and Paul Gosar in Arizona's 1st district.

Out of that quartet, McCain and West look like sure winners and Gosar is favored. Palin deserves real credit for helping McCain weather a difficult patch in his primary race against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth; she campaigned for her 2008 ticketmate back in the spring when he appeared to be in genuine peril, testifying to his conservative bona fides.

Palin's endorsement successes today will likely be overshadowed by a likely failure in Alaska where Miller, an attorney, looks to be headed to a convincing loss against Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R).

Palin's decision to wade into the primary race in her home state was always somewhat puzzling. Murkowski is not beloved among all Alaska conservatives but neither did she create the sort of animosity within the base that a Sen. Bob Bennett, for example, did in Utah.

Many neutral observers chalked up Palin's decision to get involved in the race to a longstanding tension between the Murkowskis and the Palins; Palin beat Murkowski's father, Frank, in the 2006 gubernatorial primary.

Whatever the reason, a Miller defeat is sure to be painted as a blow for Palin with the "she can't even get someone elected in Alaska" storyline too obvious for most of the media to resist.

And, it comes at a time when Palin's endorsement strategy -- to the extent that one exists -- has fallen on hard times. Since June 8 when Palin-endorsed candidates Carly Fiorina in California and state Rep. Nikki Haley in South Caroline won contested primaries -- wins clearly aided by the former Alaska governor's support -- her preferred candidates have struggled.

Palin has endorsed 13 candidates in primaries since June 8 and has just three wins (Tom Emmer in the Minnesota governor's race, Mary Fallin in the Oklahoma governors race and John Koster in Washington's 2nd district) to show for it. Her candidates have lost high profile governor's races in Georgia and Wyoming during that time.

Palin won't likely get the credit she deserves for stabilizing McCain and will get more blame than is fair for Miller's expected loss. But, with the narrative already being built that her endorsement power is waning, a defeat in her own political backyard won't be helpful to her 2012 prospects.

2. Self Funders' Fates: The Florida Democratic Senate race and Republican gubernatorial primary each feature a free-spending self-funder trying to use millions to get to the party nomination.

Businessman Rick Scott in the Republican gubernatorial primary seems to have the better chance and had spent more money while billionaire real estate developer Jeff Greene, who is running in the Democratic Senate race, has been hamstrung by amazingly bad press.

Both men jumped into their respective races late in the game (in Greene's case, mere hours before the filing deadline) and both have the kind of baggage that would sink most typical candidacies; Greene has had to contend with a steady drip of negative press surrounding his financial dealings and lavish lifestyle, while Scott has fended off
questions about a fraud scandal surrounding his former company, Columbia/HCA.

But as demonstrated by their spending, neither man could be described as a "typical" candidate. Scott has pumped nearly $40 million into his bid against state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) while Greene has poured $23 million into his race against Rep. Kendrick Meek (D).

Self funders have a short -- and not very successful history in the state and Greene seems almost certain to wind up not making a very good investment in himself. Polling is all over the place in the governor's race and those following the race closely acknowledge either man could win.

If both Scott and Greene lose, they'll serve as evidence of a storyline that's played out in
countless other races: even spending vast amounts of money on TV advertisements can be enough to overcome severe weaknesses as a candidate.

3. Party Unity: Given the nastiness of the two Florida races, party unity will be a buzzword come Wednesday morning as each contest will be hotly contested this fall.

For Republicans, McCollum has the backing of most of the party establishment and Scott has down everything he can to thumb his nose at the institutional forces lined up behind his opponent.

The Republican Governors Association has stayed out of the race, but it took the unusual step last week of calling on Scott to take down an ad that tied McCollum to indicted former state Republican Party chairman Jim Greer -- a move that signals that national Republicans have become increasingly worried that Scott's attacks crossed the line.
Recent polling suggests that the extended and nasty attacks that McCollum and Scott have traded have hurt both men. The latest Quinnipiac poll showed Scott's unfavorable rating at 40 percent; McCollum wasn't much better at 37 percent.

If Scott wins, how quickly -- if at all-- will state (and national) Republicans rally
around him given that state CFO Alex Sink (D) is gaining momentum thanks to the bruising GOP primary ? What will the RGA do? (Worth noting: One plus for the RGA if Scott wins is that his ability to self-finance may save the committee some tough financial decisions in the very expensive Sunshine State.)

Meanwhile, Greene has tried to score political points by highlighting the fact that Meek has yet to say whether he would support the billionaire if he wound up as the nominee. (Meek -- again -- refused to say in an appearance on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown" yesterday whether he'd support Greene as the nominee.

Greene failed to gain any traction on the issue, however, and given that he seems headed to a double-digit loss today, it's likely a moot point.

More interesting is what -- if anything -- national Democrats do in the immediate aftermath of Meek's win to show whether or not they will put any money behind his candidacy in the fall. Our betting is they ultimately won't spend money in a race they remain unconvinced he can win -- but they may not make that decision public right after a Meek win.

4. Do Republicans get their preferred candidates?: A number of House candidates with either the overt or behind the scenes backing of the national Republican party face very tough primaries on Tuesday.

Washington Republicans have been rooting for businessman Bruce O'Donoghue to win the primary and with it the right to face 8th district Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). Ditto businessman Craig Miller or Winter Park City Commissioner Karen Diebel in the primary to face 24th district Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), former state Sen. Jonathan Paton to face Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), and dentist Paul Gosar to face Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz).

O'Donoghue faces someone the national GOP initially tried to recruit - former state Sen. Daniel Webster - among others. But O'Donoghue has struggled on the campaign trail, while Webster has the backing of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Miller and Diebel (also backed by Huckabee) are both at the second stage of the NRCC's "Young Guns" program for top candidates, but a third candidate, state Rep. Sandy Adams, could factor into the race.

In Arizona, Paton faces Iraq veteran Jesse Kelly, and Gosar who has the endorsement of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, faces a bevy of Republicans, including 2008 nominee Sydney Hay.

Florida state Rep. David Rivera, who is a top member of the Young Guns program, is not expected to have a problem winning the GOP nomination in the state's 25th district, which Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) is vacating to run for the 21st district of his retiring brother and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R). But Rivera has run into problems in recent days and Democrats will likely seize on any sign of weakness in a battleground open seat were 2008 nominee Joe Garcia will be the party's nominee.

5. Incumbents likely safe: No incumbents are expected to lose today. Nonetheless, it will be worth watching to see how four of them - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) - fare.

McCain has blown former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) out of the water with a $21 million primary spending blitz. A July poll showed McCain leading by 35 points. It's hard to see him winning by that much given the deep animosity within some segments of the GOP base toward him but anything beyond 20 points would be a pretty strong statement.

Murkowski is in a pretty similar situation. She hasn't spent near as much as McCain, but attorney Joe Miller hadn't even crested $200,000 in spending in his pre-primary report with the Federal Election Commission.

Boyd, who holds a conservative Florida Panhandle seat, has taken a McCain-like approach to his primary challenge from state Sen. Al Lawson who is black; the inucumbent has dropped $2.2 million on the race so far although much of Boyd's spending has been geared toward a tough impending general election race.

Young, who nearly lost his 2008 primary to now-Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, looks to be in stronger shape this time around. He faces businessman Sheldon Fisher, who has spent about one-quarter of the $600,000 Young has dropped on the race. Young also got a boost earlier this month when the Justice Department dropped its investigation of him.