Politics

Krauthammer on debating Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’: ‘Have we completely lost our minds?’

Photo of Jeff Poor
Jeff Poor
Media Reporter

It has been over four days since a shooting in Tucson that claimed six lives and injured 14, including Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. However, one of the dominating themes of the day is a debate over former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s response.

On Fox News Channel’s Wednesday broadcast of “Special Report with Bret Baier,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer questioned the sanity of this debate, which involved Palin accusing “journalists and pundits” of manufacturing “a blood libel.”

“[T]he fact is that even the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League in expressing a mild rebuke to Palin for using this admitted itself in its statement that the term ‘blood libel’ has become part of English parlance to refer to someone falsely accused,” Krauthammer said. “Let’s step back for a second. Here we have a brilliant, intelligent, articulate, beautiful, wife, mother and congresswoman fighting for her life, in a hospital in Tucson, and we’re having a national debate over whether the term ‘blood libel’ can be used appropriately in a non-Jewish context? Have we completely lost our minds?”

But he also questioned the wisdom of Palin using her celebrity to spark this debate. He argued by the time she released the video, it was a moot point.

“I found her speech unobjectionable, unremarkable but unnecessary,” he said.  “Of course, anybody who is attacked as she was has the right to defend herself in public. However, it wasn’t as if others hadn’t counteracted the calumny about her and others being responsible in some way for the massacre in Tucson. By the time she had the video on her website, the debate was over. The left, which had launched the accusation, had been completely defeated, ‘refudiated’ if you like, and disgraced over this. There wasn’t a shred of evidence and the battle was over. I mean, it was a rout to make the Pickett’s Charge look like a draw.”

Watch:

YouTube Preview Image

To back up his theory, Krauthammer referred to a claim from a high school classmate of Loughner’s that he wasn’t interested in news, political speech or talk radio.

“Case closed – it’s over,” he continued. “It was unnecessary her speech because she then re-injected herself in this and made herself at the center of this. Restarted the debate and started the debate on the irrelevancy on the ‘blood libel.’ It was unfortunate, I think — and unnecessary.”

  • BigRmv

    Seems like a lot of people missed Krautheimer’s point that Palin didn’t need to enter the debate or defend herself because–by the time she did–others had already pointed out the falacies in the “the Tea Party” did it rhetoric.

    But I must say I am still amazed that Democrats and their ilk can’t understand that what happened in Arizona was a criminal act by an individual. If we were to suppose that someone’s words were strong enough to prompt others to such actions, we would see Democrats taking that proverbial “Flying Leap” that I and others have so often suggested.

  • Cancerous Conservatism

    Tea Party Terrorist have shot themselves in the foot with this Whole Tea Party Massacre Episode in Aryanzoneuggh, They defined themselves with nazi type neo con ideals. they stacked the list of words of instruction and inciting or advocating killing Americans Citizens who were not going to re elect them.

    I guess they can justify Charles Manson, with blood Libel defense as well and that is the moral rightous justification of their story, and they are sticking to it, even if they know its a lie and a slap in the face of the attack on the Democratic process…

    so , much for life , liberty and justice for all.

    so much for democracy…

    so much for free speech

    so much for keeping america safe.

  • Pam Secord

    Krauthammer, you’re the best. Often the only one who gets to the point. I kept hoping to hear you say something about the state of our society in it’s spiral toward soaking up more and more violence. I watched the news coverage of the Tucson tragedy on TV (CNN & FOX) for a couple days then had to let it go because as usual, in my opinion, no one brought up some important issues and they just hacked away at each other ad nauseum . Are none of you in the beltway hanging out with any preteens and teens? Do you really have no sense of how violent this society is in it’s movies, songs, games, schools? This boy only needed to grow up in this society to have all the indoctrination he needed to be violent and turn out crazy. Without the wisdom of parents helping their children to analyze and think through the violence in our society and world, how can they possibly hope to understand? The comments from Darlene above are relevant (Jerry Springer).

    Now at this point I must say that I AM a Sara Palin type (gun totin, animal hunting, self-sufficient, cabin building, wilderness living female), so don’t think I’m against guns or any such nonsense. But even I am desensitized to the violence in movies and on tv and I try not to be. What chance do children and young people have to build sensibilities of tenderness, sweetness, purity of heart, helping others, etc. when they are surrounded on every venue by violence, sex, drugs, etc.? Do you pundits/analysts really think this has no overarching psychological affect/effect on kids? Perhaps you all hope kids are getting the guidance they need at home, but the majority are not. You all need to go hang out in a high school in any large city in the USA for a few days. Go incognito as a janitor. Watch first hand what the teachers deal with and how the students treat eachother,and I guarantee you the debate would change.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Nelson/100000172083764 Bill Nelson

    Krauthammer another beltway blowhard

  • Pingback: The Political Disconnect Shared by Liberals and RINOs Alike | Our Last Stand

  • angst

    Yes, we have completely lost our minds. Not even Krauthammer could stop commenting on the commentary of comments surrounding the shootings. I’ve never seen anything quite like it, and I’m sure it’s going to be a fascinating case study in national over-dramatization that sociologists, political consultants and journalism professors will be poring over for decades to come.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Darlene-C-Matthews/864160654 Darlene C. Matthews

    YES.
    ….and that is why the words that give imagined support or permission to the many desperate or psychotic people are so dangerous.

    Sadly, Palin likely stole the latest words from GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    a who also used them wrong, who like likely stole the words for misuse from a mel gibson movie critique by Charles Krauthammer.

    Now the circle closes.

    Its not one or two comments at issue. It’s pictures, tv, radio, internet, advertising of violent ideas and pics on merchandise on political sites and more.
    A barrage of fear mongering and violent rhetoric on going and from many sources that creates the problem.

    Sadly,some in Tea are big on playing dominate as victim USING their hurt and shame over being called out to claim they are victimized and asking for donations to continue the fight

    Instead of saying this is a terrible tragedy and let’s all calm down and make sure no one on either side of the fence accidentally gives what can be construed as support for violence to those out in far far left or far far right field.

    I also wonder- would Tea disappear as irrelevant without the fear mongering and violent rhetoric to keep the copy cat of Jerry Springer low road to ratings going?

    In early 1994, Springer and his new producer, Richard Dominick, revamped the show’s format in order to garner higher ratings. The show became more and more successful as it became more and more lowbrow, with an emphasis on infidelity. Its guests were typically lower class, minimally-educated, blue collar people confronted on a television stage by a spouse or family member’s adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, transvestism, hate group membership, or other controversial situations. These confrontations often led to shouting, profanities, chair-throwing, fist-fights, pulling of hair by fighting women, and removal of clothing. Female guests also receive ‘Jerry Beads’ for exposing their breasts to the studio audience, in the style of Mardi Gras revelers. The show garnered huge ratings, and lots of attention. By 1998, it was beating Oprah Winfrey in many cities, and was reaching more than 6.7 million viewers. (Waxman, 1998)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer

  • dahni

    Charlie,you mean Palin can’t use the term ‘blood libel’ because Giffords is Jewish? Is she? I don’t care. You need to get out in the countryside more often Mr. K. Most of us brand the ‘blood libel’ of Palin as stupid, mean, bottom-feeding leftist politics.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Hanson/696673441 Chris Hanson

    Here’s the “Fire Paul Krugman Petition”;

    http://www.petitiononline.com/Hater123/petition.html

    Your help is needed.

    Please distribute to all who understand the issue of insinuation libel.

    Thanks

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/01/paul-krugmans-totalitarian-temptation#comment-28596#ixzz1AwpllT7w

  • tjd0hwo

    Charlie acts as if Sarah should let others defend her (although she has the right – sure). Just last night during expert commentary after the AZ memorial, Charlie said this may be an important moment for BHO’s presidency, when he had the last comment after Chris Wallace indicated Obama’s performance would mean little to his presidency, Krauthammer, very pointedly, rebutted that he did not think BHO’s performance would be insignificant. The man, Charlie, doesn’t like a non-intellectual such as Chris (a damn fine news professional) to disagree with him. He, Charlie, is an elitist fabricated from whole cloth by Charlie himself.