The left blames the right. The right blames the left. The sane blame insanity. What Loughner put on Youtube and what he said to friends about his conspiratorial beliefs is simple insanity. Many of us try to explain terrible events by trying to attribute order to them, giving them a cause and therefore and effect that we can comprehend. Some went after leaders on the political right including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but most strongly Governor Palin. They argued that her words and actions incited this man to this deed. Palin had evidently placed crosshairs on a map of congressional seats to target as especially important to win for those politically aligned with her. Rep. Giffords district was one of them. “Palin put crosshairs on Giffords! She must be responsible!”

Well friends, Loughner published a lot online and with incredible and ludicrous details. No where does he mention anything about Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. Here is where anti-Judaism creeps in to the picture.

No few people accused Palin of inciting Loughner to this action and Palin responded by accusing them of a “blood libel“. “Blood Libel!” Some Jewish leaders screamed:

Blood libel is a term that belongs to us! It can only refer to accusations that Jews use the blood of others for baking matzah, for sacrifices, for gefilte fish, for powering Dimona, as a secret ingredient in Coca Cola, for making Barbies and other actions of pure evil.

Well, I embellish a bit. The reality is that “blood libel” does indeed have painful connotations for Jews. Libels have resulted in pogroms against the Jews time and again with some entire communities being massacred. Yet the concept is a simple one, and here Governor Palin was correct. The concept is that one community, or even a person, is accused of a murder in which they were totally uninvolved because the accuser wishes to do that community, or the specific people accused, harm regardless of their culpability. Jews were accused of crimes because people hated the Jews, not because they were involved in the crimes. Meanwhile, the Jewish community officially objects to Gov. Palin’s use of the term. Okay. I think it was appropriate to an extent, but using another term would have been better, one option which I will share with you in a moment.

Where does the anti-Judaism come in? It comes into the picture with the selective outcry about incitement. All one need do is to look at the difference between the coverage of the Fort Hood shooting and the Tucson shooting. In the Fort Hood shooting, the perpetrator was a devout Muslim who had at one point attended the mosque in America led by Anwar Al-Awlaki, near the top of the Al-Qaeda chart. Al-Awlaki is the head of Al-Qaeda in Yemen. No one in the mainstream media, N-O O-N-E, would ever accuse Maj. Hasan of being incited by an Imam in an American Mosque, would they??? Hasan had direct contact and was in communication with Al-Awlaki in America!!! But the media blamed the army, the right wing in fact, for persecuting him, even though the military welcomed him and went out of its way to help him through his schooling and residency.

Let us compare that to the Tucson incident. In that, the media immediately looked for incitement by right wing leaders, going so far as to ignore the facts published by Loughner himself that negated their arguments. Who needs facts when you have a narrative that you like to use! Some of you have just noted that this is where Governor Palin is connected with anti-Judaism.

Jews and Israel specifically are often accused of crimes that they not only did not commit, but can provide evidence that they had nothing to do with. Yet there are those out there who accuse none-the-less. Is the argument that Israel trained sharks to attack tourists in Egypt not libelous? What about the argument that the Mossad is responsible for the attacks against Christians in Iraq rather than the Muslims who claimed responsibility? How about those who argue that Israel perpetrated 9/11? I could go on and on, but you get the point. The assertion that Governor Palin’s words somehow impelled this wacko (wacko is far nicer a term than is deserving) to bloodlust is not only totally unfounded, but is in fact controverted by the evidence offered by Loughner himself. Should Governor Palin and others similarly accused have called the media’s accusation a “blood libel” as opposed to a Media Libel, which is the term I would rather apply, or some other similar term? Perhaps she should have used another term. But fussing at her about her use of “Blood Libel” misses the real point. The real point is that the same narrative hugging, fact denying, that is going on against Israel and has been going on against the Jews for time immemorial is being applied in the mainstream American press to their perceived opponents on the political right.

Far from being guilty of anti-Judaism, Governor Palin and others on the political right including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who were also similarly accused of incitement, were in many ways the victims of anti-Judaism simply applied beyond the boundaries of the Jewish community and unto friends of Israel. Meanwhile, as I write this, Rep. Giffords, a strong supporter of Israel and a member of the all too persecuted tribe, is making a remarkable recovery in a Houston hospital. My thoughts are with her, with her family, with others making recoveries and with the families of those who lost loved ones to Sinat Hinam, blind hatred.

Obama’s not going to let up on this, but given the broad consensus within Israel, I doubt Israelis are going to yield to Obama on it either. A year from now, if election results favor the Republicans, maybe Obama will be forced to let up, but for now, we Israelis are going to have to live with this criticism without getting all hysterical about it. While Obama may want to make a radical change in US relations with Israel, it’s doubtful that he has the support in Congress or in American public opinion to make it.

He’s right. If Congress changes hands it will probably make a difference. Republicans, in general, are more sympathetic towards Israel. Sarah Palin, in her interview with Barbara Walters, demonstrated that difference. (via memeorandum)

“I disagree with the Obama administration on that,” Palin told Walters. “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

It’s true that Palin’s expressed beliefs are quite a bit more supportive of Israel than those of the average American and I doubt that she’d be able to act on those beliefs even she achieved higher office. Still it’s a refreshing contrast to an administration run by someone who used to be close with Rashid Khalidi.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

WOLF BLITZER: Do you think she has a future nationally as a presidential candidate?
BILL MAHER: I don’t know about a presidential candidate, but I would never put anything past this stupid country.

Later in the interview, Blitzer gave Maher the chance to change or retract his words.

BLITZER: So, uh, people are already complaining that you’re calling the United States a stupid country. I’m giving you a chance to clarify.
MAHER: I don’t need to clarify. It is.
BLITZER: Tell me why you think the United States is a stupid country
MAHER: Because Sarah Palin could be president. [laughs] Do I need to clarify any more?

And then he digs the hole a bit deeper:

It’s a big country, that’s the great thing about it. There’s 300 million people here. So, uh, within this large country, there are tens of millions of very bright, intelligent people. You know, the ones who are watching us. Not the ones who are writing the emails. But, you know, in general, um, gosh, uh, you know, this country just gets dumber and dumber by the day, and, uh, I don’t think I have time on your show to list all the reasons.

And yet, he does list the important reasons. And let’s be clear about this: Bill Maher doesn’t think Americans are stupid because they’re stupid. He thinks they’re stupid because they don’t think like him. They voted for George W. Bush, and he didn’t. But when given one last chance to recant, he doesn’t. Maher really does think that overall, America is just full of stupid people. His closer:

“Just because Americans elected a bright guy [Barack Obama] doesn’t mean they’re bright.”

Let’s be honest: Elitism is nothing new. And frankly, elitism from the left is as old as elitism from the right. It just comes off as a lot more hypocritical when the left, who are all for egalitarianism and equality, suddenly revert to type and dismiss the little people as a bunch of less-than-equal, ignorant, stupid yokels who simply don’t know what’s good for them. Not to worry, though—their betters, like Bill Maher, will tell them what they should think.

This sense of elitism came out in a big way during the Clinton impeachment. Many of you may have forgotten this, but I haven’t: The media and political elite were outraged and appalled that even while they tried to force Bill Clinton from office, the American public overall, in poll after poll, said that he should not have been impeached, and should not be removed from office.

Bill Maher is just this year’s version of the same elitists. Americans don’t think like him; therefore, they are stupid. Americans don’t vote like him; therefore, they are stupid. And oh, yeah—they’re not really all that smart in the first place.

Unless, of course, you’re one of the ones who watch CNN, Bill Maher’s show on HBO, vote for the right candidates (those would be the ones he approves of), and hate Sarah Palin, Republicans, and all things conservative.

Guess I’m just one of those stupid Americans. I voted for John McCain.

Weapons cache? What weapons cache? Lebanon is doubling down on the next war with Israel by (of course) siding with Hezbullah and insisting that the arms cache that exploded was arms “left behind by the Israelis.” Even the UN is unable to cover up this blatant violation of 1701. However, nothing will be done about it. You know it. I know it. The UN will manage to find a satisfactory excuse for allowing Hezbullah to keep arming south of the Litani, in violation of 1701, because, well, the UN is virulently anti-Israel. The Lebanese are placing themselves squarely at fault for anything that happens next. Old Chipmunk Cheeks has emerged (vocally, anyway) from his secure, nondisclosed location and threatened Tel Aviv. Not many people will remember this the next time Hezbullah invades Israel or sends rockets that way, and Israel goes after non-Hezbullah areas. But I will.

Speaking of Lebanon: The IDF built a Hezbullah city to train its troops for the next war. This, of course, is why the IDF will continue to succeed against Israel’s enemies. Well, that, and a little help from above.

U.K. groveling to Arab world: I’m currently reading Benny Morris’ 1948, and you know, the Brits haven’t really changed at all in regards to Israel. They’re currently expressing “regret” that they sold Israel arms that were used to defend herself in the Gaza war. It’s almost as if the Brits are really, really sorry they allowed any Jews to settle in their ancestral homeland at all. Oh. Wait.

U.S. groveling to Arab world: George Mitchell is in Syria, talking to the man who is responsible for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq, asking him to cut a peace deal with Israel. Here’s my prediction: Assad will not closed down the offices of Hamas and other terror groups in Damascus. He will not break ties with Iran. And he will not stop sponsoring Hezbullah and trying to run Lebanon. But he will, of course, blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, and demand the return of the Golan Heights, plus territory that never belonged to Syria in the first place. Why not? It’s worked all along. The world will not see Syria as part of the problem. Only Israel’s refusal to turn over the Golan. That would be the same Golan from which Assad’s father used to regularly shell Israeli civilians while they were working on their farms and living their lives.

Sarah Palin: Free at last. Sarah’s no longer governor of Alaska. Expect to hear even more from her now that her enemies can’t charge her every move with ethics complaints. Really, the SOB’s actually tried to say that her raising money for her defense against ethics charges was unethical. Can you say, “Set-up”? I knew you could.

Snakes in a drain: Just for something different, a 14-foot python was hiding in a storm drain in Florida. You know, the alligators are bad enough. I may never visit Florida again.

There are the titles and pullquotes to two of Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair profiles.

Raising Obama
Is he tough enough? That’s the question being asked of Barack Obama. To those who have known the candidate since boyhood, it’s not just those “dreams from my father” that make Obama a contender, but also his mother’s daring, his grandmother’s grit, and his own relentless drive.

It Came from Wasilla
Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska’s charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn’t always jibe with reality. As John McCain’s top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the author tracks the signs—political and personal—that Palin was big trouble, and checks the forecast for her future.

And here are quotes from the articles. First, Obama:

The Barack Obama who wrote so poignantly of adolescent alienation and the search for racial identity is the same Barack Obama who learned, the hard way, how to deal with the likes of Emil Jones Jr., a man whose cell-phone ring tone is the theme from The Godfather. Obama’s good looks and soft-spoken willingness to ponder aloud some of the inanities of modern politics have masked the hard inner core and unyielding ambition that have long burned beneath the surface shimmer. He is not, and never has been, soft. He’s not laid-back. He’s not an accidental man. His friends and family may be surprised by the rapidity of his rise, but they’re not surprised by the fact of it.

Now, Sarah Palin

Palin is unlike any other national figure in modern American life—neither Anna Nicole Smith nor Margaret Chase Smith but a phenomenon all her own. The clouds of tabloid conflict and controversy that swirl around her and her extended clan—the surprise pregnancies, the two-bit blood feuds, the tawdry in-laws and common-law kin caught selling drugs or poaching game—give her family a singular status in the rogues’ gallery of political relatives. By comparison, Billy Carter, Donald Nixon, and Roger Clinton seem like avatars of circumspection. Palin’s life has sometimes played out like an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure.

That’s some difference. Obama wasn’t compared with Michael Jackson or Al Sharpton. But Purdum felt it relevant to bring up the memory of the first woman elected to both the House and Senate side by side with a publicity whore and Playboy Playmate. Subtle. It’s the writer’s way of getting the reader to compare Palin to Anna Nicole without actually making the comparison. And it also denigrates the memory of Margaret Chase Smith, another female Republican politician.

Purdum says that Obama has a hard inner core and unyielding ambition, but those are good qualities in a man. Palin? The same qualities, but with a very different spin.

It is the story of a political novice with an intuitive feel for the temper of her times, a woman who saw her opportunities and coolly seized them. In every job, she surrounded herself with an insular coterie of trusted friends, took disagreements personally, discarded people who were no longer useful, and swiftly dealt vengeance on enemies, real or perceived.

Does that description sound like anyone who was recently president of the United States? In fact, it sounds like the current office holder, as well as the last two presidents. But when it’s a woman who shows these qualities, well. You know the drill. Man—relentless drive. Woman—narcissistic personality disorder. Republican woman? Superbitch.

The double standard about Sarah Palin is overwhelming, especially when you consider that she really hasn’t done anything much different from any other politician. She’s not a hundred percent truthful? Whoa, shocker! A politician who lies! She’s egotistical? She’s driven? She’s tough on her enemies and rewards her friends? Holy crap, alert the media! We’ve never seen any politicians like that before!

The Palin attack machine will continue for a long time to come, especially if the reason that Sarah quit this week is to ramp up for a run for President. But for now, I’m going to take her at her word. I’d quit, too, if I had to undergo the kind of vicious attacks that she’s been dealing with even now, eight months after she lost her bid for the vice-presidency and went back to Alaska to govern. Can you name another politician that’s been attacked as often, as viciously, and as widely as Sarah Palin?

Neither can I.

I thought she did just fine, and it makes me feel a bit better about her after those horrible interviews. Now what I’d like to see is more of that Sarah Palin and less of the one who gives nothing but bullshit answers to the media. Sorry, Sarah, but you don’t get a bye for using the “Bad ol’ MSM!” routine in the debate tonight.

Like Kathleen Parker, I was seriously wondering if Palin wasn’t a really bad choice after all. Unlike Parker, I didn’t write a column about it.

Now the mask is off:

Yesterday, NJDC said that Monday’s protest against Ahmadinejad was too important to be tainted by partisanship. Today, NJDC commends the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for making the right decision by withdrawing their invitation to Governor Sarah Palin. This decision shows that bi-partisan solidarity against President Ahmadinejad has won out over partisanship – even in this highly charged election year.

NJDC had no problem with partisanship when Sen. Clinton was the scheduled speaker, so the issue isn’t partisanship. And contrary to NJDC’s claim this shows non-partisan support for the anti-Ahmadinejad rally, not bi-partisan support.

Similarly the anti-Israel group that calls itself pro-Israel, J-Street, protested Gov. Palin’s scheduled speech to the rally:

Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline Monday’s rally in New York of Americans Jews concerned about the threat Iran poses to the United States and Israel.

Sarah Palin at a rally to unify American Jews on Iran? Really?

Palin stands diametrically opposed to the majority of American Jews on nearly all issues – including on Iran. With just a few days left before the rally, we have no time to lose.

Now parse that statement. In what way is Palin’s stand on Iran contrary the views of American Jews? Because she stated that Israel had a right to defend itself?

More generally, the implication is that no one has the right to be pro-Israel (in J-Street’s anti-Israel way) unless they believe all the right things. Noah Pollak had it right.

This is appalling. When did abortion and the environment become issues of unique concern to Jews? They of course are not, any more than taxes and social security have any special relevance to Christians. J Street is attempting to bludgeon Palin with disapproval from the Jewish community when in fact it is the liberal community that detests her.

What does J Street want its few acolytes to do? Harass the organizers of the Iran rally until they disinvite Palin — you know, in the spirit of inclusiveness and democracy.

Hot Air:

She was willing to go but the Democrats didn’t want to share a spotlight with her. So rather than let her attend and use her presence to drum up attention for the cause they’re ostensibly there to advance, the left muscled the organizers into canceling all politicians’ invites.

Going back to the NJDC, shouldn’t the priority be the opposite? Shouldn’t the priority have been that the issue of standing up to Iran is so important that even Democrats would be willing to appear with a Republican to show American resolve. Messianic times might be marked by a lamb lying down with a lion, but apparently it will not include Democratic tolerance for Republicans.

At a time when Democrats fear that Jews might not vote for Barach Obama in the same proportions that they usually do, the Obama campaign takes a gimme and absolutely fumbles it.

Red State:

But that’s all right. This is the candidate that the Democrats wanted, this is the candidate that the Democrats deserve, and this is the candidate that the Democrats got; and I offer the pious hope that they fully experience every aspect of their choice, down to the very molecular level.

I hope the Republicans play this up. I listened to Ben Cardin the other night claiming how strong Obama would be against Iran. Now I see that Obama won’t even ensure that one of his proxies would speak at a rally to register his symbolic opposition to Iran. Do I really think he’ll do anything substantive as President?

The McCain campaign sees an opportunity and takes full advantage:

This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. Instead of pressuring Senator Clinton to withdraw and pressuring the event’s organizers to disinvite Governor Palin, we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the folllowing day. After all, the last time Senator Obama took the stage to address a nonpartisan, pro-Israel audience, his call for Jerusalem to remain the “undivided” capital of a Jewish state was easily clarified the next day.

Still it’s puzzling as to exactly what’s going on. Shmuel Rosner offers some explanations.

The first question now is whether it was Sen. Clinton’s idea to withdraw or whether she did so on orders from the Obama campaign. I can understand that she was miffed that she wasn’t told about Palin’s invitation by the organizers, but Rosner didn’t think that was a reason for her to withdraw.

So did Hillary – looking to 2012 – see this as a way to make Obama look bad in the eyes of Jewish voters and the Obama campaign stupidly followed along with her faux outrage? Or was the Obama campaign so intent on preventing Gov. Palin from establishing pro-Israel credentials they wanted to force her out whatever the cost?

Regardless the campaign got its Jewish allies NJDC and J-Street – who are vastly more liberal than the Jewish community as a whole – to claim that the event ought to be “non-partisan” – figuring that those groups would inoculate the campaign against charges of playing politics by the wider Jewish community.

Jennifer Rubin has more tawdry details.

More discussion at memeorandum.

Was this a really good time to show that the Democratic commitment to stopping Iran was less than 100%? Uh, no.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

1. How do you field dress a moose? Please be specific and tell me what kind of equipment is generally used, and why you would do so in the first place.
2. What is the Bush doctrine? Name the dates and times it was enunciated, and who was the first to describe it as such.
3. How old were you when you got your first passport? If you weren’t a reporter, do you think you would have gotten one? Be honest.
4. Do you go to church, synagogue, or any other house of religion on a regular basis?
5. If your teenaged daughter got pregnant, would you mind if your colleagues in the media investigated the story and threatened to leak it to the public? (This is mostly for nationally-known reporters; reporters from small towns can skip this question and move onto the next.)
6. Do you think all feminists must be pro-choice or they are not “really” feminists?
7. Are you a registered member of either party? If yes, which one?
8. Whom did you vote for in the past four (if applicable) presidential elections?
9. Did you contribute any money to a presidential campaign? If so, which one?
10. True or false: If you’re not voting for Obama in November, you’re a racist.
11. True or false: If you don’t think Sarah Palin is a good vice-presidential candidate, you’re a sexist.

Whoops. Looks like that’s eleven questions. But that’s okay. The media won’t be putting forth any such suggestion as the eleventh question. Because it’s not the narrative.

Click on the links to see how many reporters vote Democrat in November. (Or to learn how to field dress a moose. Being a city girl, I’ll just pass on that.)

Please hand in your responses to be graded. We will not be using a curve.

Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers. If you like this post, you’ll like the all-Sarah-Palin, all-the-time Shire Network News podcast, where my contribution is why a former Clinton/Gore/lifelong Democrat voter is going to vote for McCain-Palin.

Any idiot can get a blog on DKos. And this ridiculous accusation is proof that many idiots do.

Oh, wait. That was Andrew Sullivan’s link.

Here’s the Daily Kos moron’s blog.

These unerring detectives have Photographic! Evidence! that will shock you!!

And they’ve been slammed to the mat by—facts.

Unless Bristol was pregnant for fourteen months, the baby is Sarah Palin’s. And it’s been confirmed by Kos Kiddie “Red Pen”:

Unless someone has counter evidence, we can drop this crap now. Yes, there are still some interesting questions, such as why she flew to Dallas and back when she was this pregnant, and why the Alaska Airlines crewmembers insisted that she was not visibly pregnant on the flight. Nevertheless, until this photo is debunked, we look stupid pushing this rumor.

That is all.

Morons. Sexist, misogynist sons of bitches. STUPID sexist, misogynist sons of bitches.

Way to prove how progessive you are, lefties. Way to keep women wanting to vote for your candidate. Just keep on slamming Sarah at every opportunity, sinking lower and lower as you go, and you will drive me firmly into the arms of the right. You’ve already lost me for two Presidential elections. That’s right, you lost a feminist who was a lifelong Democratic voter. At this rate, you will never get me back.

Update: Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant. Doesn’t change a word I wrote in this post.