Sarah Palin is attacking her attackers on her Facebook page, labeling their attacks on her as “blood libel.”
Sarah being Sarah, I figured she was using the adjective blood to describe a libel that was especially bad, or something similar.
It turns out she was accusing them of being members of a religious minority (usually Jews) that allegedly kill children to use their blood in a religious ritual. (From Wikipedia of course.)
Here’s what she said in context:
“Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, 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. That is reprehensible.”
She always has had a way with words, not always used in the right order, not always with the meaning most people give to them. Now I understand her outrage, she surely genuinely pictures crosshairs when she’s referring to surveyor marks.
Is she complicit in the Tucson murders? No. Is she butchering English? Yes. Is she a knowing rabblerouser? Oh yeah.