You will be shocked to learn that the reviews by the left-wing and supposedly moderate blogs bear little relationship to reality. I can't help but wonder whether these people actually watched the interview, or simply projected their own imagined conclusions.
I now have viewed the interview (via Right Scoop), and Palin did very well. If Palin were a liberal Democrat, she would be receiving accolades in the mainstream media.
Palin started out the interview with a discussion of how the focus should have been on the dead and injured, and how she wishes them well. The interview then went into the details about how her husband Todd almost immediately after the shooting began receiving calls from the mainstream media for Palin to comment due to the (false) allegations that Palin's electoral target map inspired shooter Jared Loughner.
The most interesting segment was in the middle when Hannity went through a litany of threats against Palin and vile statements regarding Palin dating back to 2008. So much for Obama supporters' "civil discourse." Palin also mentioned how not only she, but also her children, have received death threats.
Palin cannot just ignore the obvious libel against her. That is the strategy pursued by the Bush administration in the face of false accusations that Bush "lied us into war." We saw how that strategy of silence worked.
There is not a shred of evidence to date that Loughner ever saw Palin's electoral map, yet 56% of Democrats (and 35% of people overall) believe that the map was connected to the Tucson shooting.
This puts Palin in an impossible position, one faced by many people who are falsely accused.
If Palin does not defend herself vigorously, the silence is taken as acquiescence and an implicit admission of guilt. If she does defend herself, she is criticized for making the issue about her and she further spreads the defamatory accusations (so-called "self-publication").
One last point. Did some of Palin's harshest critics even watch the interview? I think not, because one of the story lines is that Palin did not acknowledge in the interview the historical meaning of the term "blood libel," but Palin clearly did (see the last video segment at Right Scoop, starting at 0:45):
"The historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children ...."Palin is correct to fight back forcefully against people for whom the truth about the Tucson shooting is just a set of inconvenient facts to be ignored for a false political narrative.
If Palin did not fight back, the slanderers and defamers surely would win. The truth may not prevail here because of the strength of the Democratic message machine, but it is worth fighting for.
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Many of us were begging President Bush to defend his policies. I could understand, I suppose, why he didn't. I wanted Bush to be like John Wayne or General Patton, but he was more like the now retired RINO, Amo "Can't we all just get along" Houghton.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Sarah Palin is speaking out. I hope she pursues legal action.
And while I'm on this subject, I hope Trent Humphries considers pressing charges against Eric "You're DEAD" Fuller.
I have Sarah Palin's back. She has mine. The left can bite us both. Obama is going to lose his reelection bid and all the leftist venom in the world will not prevent it from happening.
ReplyDeleteSarah said Willow is receiving death threats. A little girl.
That is beyond tolerance. They are incapable of civility. Their definition of civility is "crivility:" criminally vile incivility (yes, I just invented the word).
Worst part of the show was the Panel following the interview. Chuckie Schummer's ex aide was a total jerk. Nothing will stop this crap short of legal action. Haven't read or seen any more threats to Mark Levin since he drew a line in the sand. Time for Palin to say 'Enough is Enough'.
ReplyDeleteI saw the interview and she did great. She was well spoken and quite deliberate in her answers, attitude and self-defense. As I have said before, this week wasn't about Tucson, it was the beginning of the Presidential Campaign and the need by the left to vilify the conservatives and especially the person they think will be the challenger to Obama.
ReplyDeleteAlso as you so deftly pointed out, Obama is meeting with funders and bundlers in NY this week. These same persons organized Obama's 2008 funding but they have so far not signed on to Obama's 2012 run, whether for business related reasons or even his treatment of Israel and handling of the Middle East/China/Russia etc. Obama's acolytes need to create a boogie man for him to run against. What better way to do it than to turn a decidedly pro-USA, pro-Israel, strong foreign policy advocate, successful fiscal conservative politician into an ignorant moonbat antisemite.
I have been absolutely amazed at Palin's strength and resilience that has enabled her to withstand the non-stop attacks against her the past couple of years. No matter what they threw at her, she would always come back with a smile, a sense of optimism, and a firm belief in herself and that her ideas for the path forward are right and that Obama's are wrong.
ReplyDeleteHer trademark sense of optimism and vibrancy were missing in this interview. I'm not sure if her spirit is finally starting to break, or if she was somber out of respect for the shooting victims, or if she is just disgusted with having to defend herself against libelous groundless smears.
But I saw a different Plain than the one I've grown accustomed to seeing the past couple of years.
"f Palin did not fight back, the slanderers and defamers surely would win. The truth may not prevail here because of the strength of the Democratic message machine, but it is worth fighting for."
ReplyDelete@Charles, I agree with you on this part. "Nothing will stop this crap short of legal action." But, as we all know, Palin is a public figure with very probable political ambitions. That puts her in a no-win position in a legal case for libel. The question, I believe, is: who, besides Sarah Palin, can take on this leftist media machine and take it down to size, from being a leftist propaganda arm to being a true "fourth estate" as the Founders envisioned? And, critically important, can that be done without sacrificing First Amendment rights?
I don't see Palin "saying, 'Enough is enough'" because of the probability of her not being able to meet the burden of proof necessary to win a libel case; she would have the burden of proving that the media both KNEW they were wrong AND made the reports with intent to harm her. To us it is obvious they did both; however, proving that in court (with or without a liberal activist judge) is extremely difficult. That is what keeps most public figures from suing the media when they are libeled. That burden of proof, combined with the inevitable negative fallout and publicity, can destroy a person and their career ambitions.
Levin has been very specific for a reason in his throwing down the gauntlet: he has no political ambitions and won't suffer any negative consequences. Also, his terms are clearly outlined; if there is a DIRECT accusation of him being to blame for anyone's murder, then he would sue their butts off and win. Without having the political fallout which would virtually destroy a run for public office as a negative outcome, for Mark Levin it would be a win-win. But the left won't bite. The will slither back into their holes and wait for a less stalwart prey.
Sarah needs to decide, IMHO, whether to try to take down the LSM, or run for office. Which would better benefit our nation? Which would she more likely win?
She was most excellent. Strong lady. That's the way we grow 'em here in America!
ReplyDeletepatterico himself has a funny post talking about the journolistic coordination regarding the interview.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the number one failing of the Bush administration was, in my estimation, the failure to respond to the tsunami of slanderous allegations against him, I think your point here an important one indeed.
ReplyDeleteOh, I got this lovely email from Kayla of Care2Action. Full of un researched claims about the Tucson shootings and Palin.
ReplyDeleteI responded back to them letting them know they have seriously libeled and that I am in full support of her suing them into a hole so deep they will not be able to climb back out of the depths of it. I also let them know that I am sending her a check for the purpose of putting it toward legal costs in pursuing the corrections of those that have libeled her and that I forwarded the email onto Palin as well.
All of this just makes me sick and infuriated. It is like these people have no brains, in all seriousness.
This link will take you to the nasty petition and accusations about Palin.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/963/385/661/?z00m=19930171
Interesting take on the spin machine that has been unleashed in Tucson. Trying to link Loughner to Palin, I suppose:
ReplyDeletehttp://rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/2011/01/your-tax-dollars-at-work-in-tucson-and.html
I think you folks should definitely keep pushing the "Palin is the real victim here" talking point. It's totally resonating outside the echo chamber, for sure. Keep it up.
ReplyDelete"That is the strategy pursued by the Bush administration in the face of false accusations that Bush "lied us into war." "
Holy cow! So let me get this straight, you folks all think we *actually found* all the WMDs in Iraq and that Bin Laden and Saddam were best buds? Wild stuff.
And please, please, please encourage Saint Sarah to start suing everyone. Please! It will convince that last 15% (you folks) what the rest of us have already figured out.
Sarah said she's not deterred because she knows others have her back. OK. There are plenty of attorneys here, so, do her the service of carrying the fight to the maledictors on her behalf, pro bono.
ReplyDeleteSarah again shows no signs of backing down.
ReplyDeleteI believe what the opposition may find menacing about her is the sheer fact that she means what she says and she says what she means. The golden quality of Sarah Palin is her trustworthiness. It's like the cross to the Devil. We continue to gamble and risk the future, our children and grandchildrens future on the corruption of politics and policy spawned from it.
The projected cost of buying manufactured trust in 2012 starts at a billion dollars, cost to taxpayers a trillion plus.
I've always thought it ironic and quite sad that so many Republicans talk endlessly about "freedom" and "liberty"...and yet personally cave in at the first sign of being accused of anything (regardless of the truth) by the Left. These sorry Republicans don't even realize how much of their behavior is simply controlled by their accusers.
ReplyDeleteNot Palin.
Sensible Republicans would never have willingly given up their liberty and ideals to Communists in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or to supporters of Islamic terrorism in our current times. So why should they simply bend to the will of domestic (albeit, usually non-violent) Leftist bullies in the U.S.?
(And thanks for highlighting the so-called "Independent-Centrist" blog, "The Moderate Voice"- every post I've seen on that site has been a malicious, anti-right wing screed. The blogger is like another Bill Maher or Jon Stewart- a hardcore liberal hiding behind a "moderate" facade).
@Robot: nice name, very appropo.
ReplyDelete:Holy cow! So let me get this straight, you folks all think we *actually found* all the WMDs in Iraq and that Bin Laden and Saddam were best buds? Wild stuff."
Why, no. Are you aware of Hillary Clinton's, Bill Clinton's, and the majority of congress' beliefs re: Sadam and WMD at the time?
Incidentallly, I am very glad Abu Nidal was captured. You can probably look information on Nidal up online.
No one is saying Sarah is the victim here....the victims are either dead or still in the hospital or recovering in a mental ward somewhere. What is the matter? your full understanding of the Klingon language won't allow you to see the truth, so you have to resort to slander? dweeb. yes, I called you a name, get over it.
ReplyDeleteYes I wish Palin would take a Mark Levin stand here.
ReplyDeleteBush didn't fight back, because it is below the office of POTUS to dignify detractors in this way. A memo the current POTUS didn't get when he won the election.
Palin doesn't have to fight in a court of law, she's already won in the court of (minority fierce and logical) world opinion. I'll be sending her my measly $ for any upcoming campaign, and promise her my vote out of self-interest and high regard for our country, which are one and the same.
ReplyDeleteEnough is enough. Time to queue up, kids.
The news seems to more and more resemble orwelian newsspeak (infospeak?), A story is told about a picture or event that is in fact totally disconnected from the dialogue.
ReplyDeleteThis absurdity can't continue...
It response to the comment by Steven Swenson...The absurdity continues...
ReplyDeletere: "Thin Ice"
http://rightreactions.blogspot.com/
Palin learned by watching the Bush White House implode and the feckless Bushtards run the McCain train into the ground.
ReplyDeleteShe figured out that you never, ever allow a libel, blood or otherwise, to go unanswered. It is important to establish record, even if it buys you unpopularity for a short time.
In the long run, people respect someone who stands their ground.
@ Robo:
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by & trying to straighten us out ... Oh, and for your fine example of the "new civility" you folks like to preach.
We really need a catchy, hip name for all those people who think the map had anything to do with the shooting. Kinda like "truthers" or "birthers" if you will.
ReplyDeleteAll I can come up with is "cartographers," but that makes them sound too smart.