I just got 'round to reading this blog on Palin's speech and I'm glad to see that someone else picked up on how Sarah Palin can't get through a short speech without completely contradicting herself on the central issue of that speech. This one made my eyes spin around their sockets. I mean... huh?
At no other point in her address were Beck's phony-baloney, maudlin dramatics more apparent than when she accused the press of inciting violence against her: "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
So when a public figure says something incendiary on television, it can trigger violence, and, therefore, public figures should be careful about their language. Let that be a warning, Keith Olbermann. No recommendations for "Second Amendment remedies" to our problems. And chill out, Arianna Huffington, with anything resembling the word "reload." Sarah Palin said that words can motivate people to commit violence. So cut the crap.
Except she doesn't believe that. How do we know? She said so in the very same presentation: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."
That's a direct contradiction. We can only gather that, in her opinion, words are and are not responsible for inciting violence. Confused?
I guess words or are only dangerous if she's the potential victim (more of her narcissism). But she has no ability to cause anything with her rhetoric... and that's what makes her a political leader who should be taken seriously in a presidential run... the fact that she's completely ineffectual... (???)