Sarah Palin was ridiculed when she was on the John McCain ticket as his V.P. candidate for failing a Katie Couric question about what newspapers she regularly read. Perhaps a better word was "castigated." The opinion makers painted her as a boob ... if you'll excuse the expression ... for fumbling this one question. Obviously she was a rube, a hick of the first order, and didn't deserve to be one heartbeat away from being President.
That was then and now, two years later, she is again being taken to the woodshed by these same media darlings for being a primary cause of the Tuscon (alleged) shooting spree by Jared Loughner that killed six and wounded more than a dozen including Representative Gabrielle Giffords. This was because Palin had "targeted" Representative Giffords seat in the recent elections as being one that the Tea Party should focus on winning.
Now additional poison darts are being directed at Ms. Palin for using the term "blood libel" Tuesday on her Facebook page, decrying the treatment she was receiving. Apparently, this term has an historic connotation in that it was once (falsely) used to condemn Jews for using the blood of Christian children in their rituals (see
blood libel). Also, more apparently the
Wall Street Journal had used this same term on Monday to describe this same media kerfuffle (see
WSJ use) over the Tuscon-shootings aftermath. Now here is the paradox -- if Sarah Palin is so stupid and buffoonish, how does she know the historic "blood libel" reference when this author, whose been around the block more than a few times, knew not of it? And, if she picked this reference out of Monday's
Wall Street Journal, at least we know she learned something from the Couric interview.
One last thought ... why isn't the
Wall Street Journal also being excoriated for this term's usage by these same prancing princes of the privileged pedantic press? Perhaps because it buys ink by the barrel?
