I’ve been observing the ideological war in the media in the wake of the Tucson tragedy and I’ve been wondering how Sarah Palin would respond to the fingerpointing regarding charges that her heated rhetoric may have played a role. Today, she responded with a video::
It will go down as the “blood libel” speech, as she used that loaded term to accuse the media of an unwarranted pointing of fingers at her.
Was this another gaffe -or- was this part of a very controlled and disciplined Sarah Palin who is taking upon the role as a leader? This WaPo article isn’t missing the fact that the video was a stark departure from her prior history of Tweets and Facebook updates, where she reacts with off the cuff “reflexive spasms”. The article ends with this::
“Republican operatives report that Palin has been calling around in recent weeks to seek advice not only on whether but how she should run for president in 2012. This statement might suggest she is not only seeking that counsel, but taking it as well.”
Hearing the video in its entirety, it uses very specific language invoking God and country to get her message across and frame it in a way that will resonate with her base and show she can “talk the talk” of sounding like a presidential candidate.
So, I don’t think the use of “blood libel” will be a gaffe, unless she plays into criticism of its use. I do wonder if a little contrition would have been a better tactic, in that her base is already sold on her, but contrition may have made inroads into support of the coveted moderates. I get a sense that a little of Palin’s feistiness goes a long way and showing a bit of humility could broaden her range without necessarily diluting her brand.
Comments 3
T — January 13, 2011
I think you're absolutely correct. Her 'base' would have barely registered any message of contrition, but it could have had a huge, positive impact on those who are not already in her camp.
As someone who finds her position on almost every major topic wrong-headed and, often times, over-simplistic -- I guess I should be happy that she seems incapable to play to a larger group. I *should* be happy. Unfortunately, as a citizen, I find her brand of belligerent rhetoric harmful to this great republic!! Even setting aside any possible connection to real violence, her approach does not allow for discussion, civil debate, compromise and real cooperation. It tends toward the divisive and dismissive. This is unfortunate.
Are oh so many other politicians guilty of this as well? You betcha! But two wrongs don't make a right.
Recognizing the toxic nature of the political tone in this country does not mean becoming 'politically correct' about everything and walking on egg shells when choosing your catch phrases or what have you... IT MEANS not framing your fellow Citizens as "enemies" who are hellbent on destroying our nation. IT MEANS recognizing and embracing the plurality of our republic -- not creating a binary culture of Patriot/Conservative vs. Terrorist/Liberal.
sally salla — January 18, 2011
Making a good speech is not the same as making a peaceful country. She has a gun pointed at most of America that does not agree with her. It would be sad if she irons out her presentation to conceal her politics. She is best as news announcer.
KM — January 27, 2011
The problem here is that Palin played into the criticism and made the shootings about her. I don't believe this is what people want to see in their president. She should have stayed above the fray, chosen her words more carefully, taken a high road, and spoke to humanity of the story keeping the focus on its victims. Instead, she took the only road she believes exists and proved, yet again, she is unqualified for the position she seeks.