They just can’t help themselves.
A Reuters story today (written by John Whiteside and edited by Todd Eastham) comments on Sarah Palin’s speech earlier at a tribute to Ronald Reagan, in which she warned that the Democrats’ big government policies have set America on the “road to ruin.” Towards the end of the piece, we are treated to a summary of what they think we ought to believe about Palin.
Palin, who visited Reagan’s ranch on Friday afternoon, has adopted bits of his personal style, from his folksy manner of speaking to frequent references to faith and religion.
Has she really “adopted” bits of Reagan’s personal style? Hasn’t she always had a “folksy” manner of speaking, and an ease with invoking her religious faith (whether you like this about her or not)? When did she start copying Ronald Reagan, exactly, according to Reuters? In high school?
However, the worst is yet to come:
But she has been a lightning rod for liberal critics for her inflammatory speeches and political commentary on the Fox News Channel.
Last month, she accused critics of “blood libel” in linking her inflammatory rhetoric to a deadly Arizona shooting spree, igniting another in a series of firestorms around her.
The “blood libel” phrase, which refers to a false, centuries-old allegation that Jews were killing children to use their blood in religious rituals, has been employed for centuries to justify the killing or expulsion of Jews.
Excuse me — really? People who want “to justify the killing or expulsion of Jews” have employed for centuries “the ‘blood libel’ phrase?”
In trying one more time to make Sarah Palin look stupid — for what was an appropriate use of an historical term which has come to have a broader meaning, for both Jews and non-Jews — they get the origin and historical meaning of the term completely wrong. Anti-Semites have not and do not use the phrase “blood libel” against Jews. What was used against Jews was the repulsive accusation that they used the blood of Christian children in making matzohs. It was Jews who characterized this accusation as a “blood libel;” i.e. a lie blaming them for blood which they did not shed.
Over and over again, so-called journalists trip over themselves in their rush to make Sarah Palin look stupid or evil. In doing so, they discredit their profession and underline their own innate partisanship and embarrassing lack of credibility.
Just another normal day.