Sarah Palin finally gave an interview (and I use that term liberally because it was with Sean Hannity) about the week she spent in the headlines after being accused of inciting violence that lead to the shooting deaths of six in Tucson last Saturday. This comes nine days after the Daily Kos reminded the nation of her crosshair-speckled map of America that included Congresswoman Giffords’ district along with some of her other gun-based political rhetoric.
While many believed that it may be time to take the rhetoric down a notch, no one seriously believed that Palin was in any way connected to Loughner or had provoked violence. I actually thought she handled herself well by rising above the fray and not playing the victim or even acknowledging what evidence showed to be a ridiculous politicizing of events.
Then she opened her mouth. It was easy to pick up on her use of the phrase “blood libel” because of its anti-Semitic roots, but the part I was most disturbed by was her two uses of the word ‘evil.’ The first properly described Loughner. The second described the ideas she felt compelled to speak out against. In other words, Loughner and left-wing pundits who dragged her name through the mud are on the same level.
Palin gave the interveiw from her living room, the same backdrop for her blood libel video. Hannity introduced the idea of Palin being connected to the tragedy by pointing out the 10,000 links on google after searching for “Palin Tuscon Shooting.” One of the links was dated January 14, after Palin released her controversial statement. Needless to say, the numbers were skewed.
When the infamous map was mentioned, Palin admitted that the targets were indeed crosshairs, but continued to link similar maps and Loughner to Democrats and the left.
She said that the map was removed from her website by an employee without her knowledge, but she approved of the decision when she heard that it was.
The rest of the discussion between the two well known Republican fundraisers went as expected. Palin complained about being ‘censored’ and argued that Democracy couldn’t exist without ‘respectful descent’ like hers. The criticism has been harsh, I’ll give her that. But calling it censorship may be a bit of a stretch.