More Quote of the Day Honorable Mention, Part 194

"Two Minute Hate" Edition
*

M. Joseph Sheppard at A Point of View:

"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston's hatred was not turned against Palin at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Obama, the Democratic Party, and the Spin Doctors; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. Then the face of Sarah Palin faded away again, and instead the slogan of the liberal elite stood out in bold capitals: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

Ed Farnan at Irish Central:

"Now will there be apologies to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party from those that libeled them? Will the death threats to Palin and the head of the Tucson Tea Party be retracted? Will the main stream media write pieces un-doing their mischief and disinformation to the world? I am waiting..."

Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot:

"Rebecca Mansour, communications director for SarahPAC, sends along even more uses of the term 'blood libel' in a non-traditional context... There is little indication that any of these previous uses of the term kicked up much controversy. If someone is bothered by the term stretching beyond its historical context, that’s a legitimate gripe, but that train left the station a long time ago... Because of the numerous earlier uses of the phrase on both sides of the aisle, with no discernible objection or controversy, it is easy to conclude that voices driven to great outrage by Palin’s use of the term are just looking for any old excuse to be outraged."

Katrina Trinko at National Review Online:

"On Twitter, one of the most popular 'hashtags' was #blamePalin, which was used to, well, blame Palin for TV-show cancellations, malfunctioning toilets, and bad restaurant service. Unfortunately, for all the joking of the Twitterati, liberals were serious."

Stu Tarlowe at American Thinker:

"Sarah Palin is taking heat for invoking the term 'blood libel' to describe the false blame heaped on her and other Conservatives for the Tucson massacre, on the supposed grounds that she trivialized that term and by doing so showed insensitivity to Jews. While I feel that casually labeling people 'Nazis' does tend to trivialize the real Nazis and their horrors, I thought Palin's use of the term 'blood libel' was not inappropriate... Now, given that at least two of the victims, that I know of, are Jewish -- the Congresswoman herself and Gabe Zimmerman, her aide who was killed -- Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, praying and reading from the Bible at the podium, could have offered non-sectarian prayers and Old Testament scripture selections. Instead, they chose to quote the New Testament and to pray specifically to Jesus. So, I'd like to ask: Just who is being insensitive to Jews?"

David Burge via Twitter:

"I'd like to see Eric Fuller's phone records. It'd be instructive to see how fast his calls from MSNBC dropped off."

Jim Treacher at The DC Trawler:

"Fuller attended a town hall meeting called 'After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued,' conducted by Christiane Amanpour. It did not go well... See if you can follow the logic: According to Olby & Co., Jared Loughner isn’t responsible for his own actions. Sarah Palin and the 'teabaggers' are, despite a complete lack of evidence that there’s any connection. Whereas Eric Fuller is responsible for his own actions, despite parroting the same crap that the professional left has been spouting for a solid week."

John Hayward at Human Events:

"Anyone who would go on the air to accuse Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, or John Boehner of having anything to do with Jared Loughner’s actions is a disgrace."

Hugh Hewitt at Townhall.com:

"So this is the best argument about the shootings from a conservative that Politico can find? Scarborough could have more convincingly argued that the moon made the killer shoot than he made the case for poisoned political environment making him do it. The point isn't the lousy argument. That argument was made and exiled from all but the hard left by mid-week, and like the false documents held up by Rather in 2004, only the extreme media will continue to peddle the idea that the Tucson massacre was about political media. The point is that Politico's chief conservative columnist made the extreme anti-conservative argument --a week after it had been discredited."

Serr8d at Cutting Edge:

"Markos Moulitsas, of Daily KOS infamy, was the very first out of the gate, spurring on his foul minions to hate-speak against Sarah Palin. But by no means was his Twitter response unique. Seems some of his flock has moved to death threats and death wishes... A shame their mothers can't wash their foul mouths out with soap."

Matt at Huffington Post Monitor:

"The Huffington Post's Jewish Problem... Palin's ['blood libel'] response drew criticism from Jewish groups, and the Huffington Post published this news under the headline Sarah Palin's Jewish Problem... The Huffington Post has a wide variety of bloggers that spew all manner of hatred towards Jews and Israel... Numerous HP bloggers have called for the destruction of Israel, the Jewish state... While the HP criticized Palin and company for working for Jews to move to Israel, the HP's own bloggers defended Helen Thomas's call to remove Jews from the Middle East... And among the readership, there is too much anti-Semitic hate speech posted every day to record here."

Brent Baker at NewsBusters:

"As if MSNBC.com attracts any kind of representative audience."

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters:

"Mark Shields on Friday actually asked Charles Krauthammer if Sarah Palin unintentionally made last Saturday's shootings about herself and not the tragic event. Krauthammer not only set the substitute host of PBS's 'Inside Washington' straight, but also called for an apology from all those that shamefully tied the former Alaska governor to this awful tragedy... The last week has been a huge embarrassment for the media, and if those that were quick to point fingers had a shred of decency, they'd be vigorously apologizing for their behavior."

Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters:

"Neither Hill nor Dickerson acknowledged the active role CBS News took in attacking Palin in the wake of the shooting."

DrJohn at Flopping Aces:

"The persecution of Palin by the Obama water carrying Journolistas at Politico has been noticed before and with some displeasure... David Duke could have used the phrase 'blood libel' and he would not have gotten the crap that was piled on Sarah Palin. Many have used the phrase without so much as a furrowed brow from the left. Democrats have used language not one iota different from that used by Palin but only when Palin does or says anything does it become a cause célèbre. That’s persecution. Somewhere, Josef Goebbels is smiling."

- JP