@Angie — Thanks for the comment. Right, we have no idea if she’s to “blame” for her comments, so it seems a bit unfair to blame or infer that she is, I think. That’s equally irresponsible.

I think it’s obvious that she didn’t know what “blood libel” meant, which begs the question “then why the hell was she using it in a speech regarding the attempted assassination of a Jewish public figure?” Just pure, unadulterated stupidity. I can’t believe anyone supports this nitwit.

Sarah is just plain uneducated, she’s a total nut, it’s weird that people listen and follow her nonsense.

oh please, of course she bears some responsibility! but she’s got plenty of company. she and every other psycho right wing freak-out leader with a microphone spewing ignorant crap at even more ignorant people eager to swallow it up. target graphics and gun speech is for morons and crazies and she knows it. no matter how ridiculous she is, someone, somewhere on her staff, or in the RNC, must have recognized this as a dangerous or undesirable tactic on her website, along with her constantly overblown rhetoric. she and every other talking head insisting that both parties are responsible for this crap is making me crazy! i don’t see any democrats freaking out and shooting anyone or encouraging violence and death threats. not even during the horrific bush years did the liberals act like such immature rampaging sore losers.

@Lam…I don’t think anyone is saying both parties are responsible for this shooting. What most reasonable people are saying is that NEITHER party is responsible for this. Loughner is primarily, to the extent that such a clearly disturbed individual can be, and after that responsibility lies with the people who failed to take action when he began descending into his illness….NOT with Palin, whom we’re not even sure that Loughner ever followed.

Also, if you seriously think that no Democrats ever encourage violence or issued death threats during the Bush years, or later (plenty of Republicans including recently Eric Cantor have been subject to hate crimes and violence) you were living under a rock. Political rhetoric in the United States has always included hangings in effigy, violent imagery and the like.

Fantastic hyperbole, Linda.

Um, on this thread I didn’t say anything about blood libel. All I’m saying is that Palin is not responsible for the actions of a madman who doesn’t appear to have even cared much for her. How is that behaving without any decency or sensitivity?

Okay, fine, I’ll say it again…While the use of “blood libel” originated with the vile lie about Jews using the blood of Christians in rituals, it has since come to a larger metaphorical use in American English. I myself have read schoolbooks describing Romans’ lies about early Christians, Christian lies against pagans and other instances of libel regarding the murder of innocents as “blood libel”. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the term is appropriate here, and I personally would not use such a term, although I did defend Palin’s use of it on the grounds that i don’t believe she’s an anti-semite, as others had asserted, and do know that Palin is not the first to use such a term outside of its historical context, as is more often done with the terms “Holocaust” and “Nazi” and “fascist”.

Now, aside from disagreeing with you about whether the misguided use of the term “blood libel” makes Palin automatically an anti-semite, how am I acting without decency?

Gah. For the last time, I can see where some would be offended. Which is why I wouldn’t use the term, myself. I simply disagree with whether that makes her defacto anti-semite. I’m not sure that disagreeing with you makes me stupid, anti-semitic or otherwise vile, but it’s silly to argue with you any further.