Media Curves, a service of HCD Research, Inc. has conducted a survey of self identified Republicans, Independents, and democrats, showing them Sarah Palin's speech, entitled: America's Enduring Strength, following the tragedy in Arizona.
The results show that most Americans find Sarah more believable and more sincere after watching her speech:
A new national study among 1,437 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Americans indicated that Sarah Palin was more sincere and believable after viewing her speech in response to the shootings in Tucson.
The study was conducted during January 13-14 by HCD Research and reported on its MediaCurves.com® website, to obtain Americans’ perceptions of Sarah Palin after viewing a video of a speech she gave in response to the shootings in Tucson.
Respondents were asked to rate Sarah Palin on a scale from 1-7 regarding likeability, believability and sincerity, with 1 representing "not at all strong in this attribute" and 7 representing "extremely strong in this attribute."
With the exception of likeability among Democrats, Palin’s attribute ratings increased among all parties after viewing her speech. The most notable increase was her sincerity ratings, which increased from 2.62 to 2.69 among Democrats, from 5.25 to 5.45 among Republicans and from 3.68 to 3.85 among Independents.
You can view a video of how everyone reacted to various parts of her speech, and see complete details, here.
Seeing this reminds me of the tough scold from the left-wing German Der Spiegel. As the democrat party and their media partners at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, and many others, were committing blood libel against Sarah Palin, and Conservatives in general, Der Spiegel warned their American counterparts not to turn Sarah into a martyr, as it would backfire.[emphasis mine]
Following this weekend's tragic shooting, many on the left in the United States are calling for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to be called to account for their alleged culpability in the killings. But these claims are spurious and could do more to help the left's political detractors than harm them.
[ .... ]
Of all people, it is precisely those who have complained the loudest about the culture of debate -- about the rhetoric of the Tea Party, the right wing's harsh words and the baseless Obama-Hitler comparisons -- who are now poisoning the debate with their own baseless insinuations. With little reliance on facts, they began searching for scapegoats for the attack and they found them, selectively, among the right wing, the Tea Party, Republican Party boss Michael Steele and Tea Party heroine Sarah Palin.
The accusations being lodged are grave. "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin," leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas sneered after the bloodbath. Meanwhile, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann called for Palin to be ousted from the Republican Party if she didn't repudiate her role in "amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics." In his column in the New York Times, Paul Krugman sought to link the "toxic rhetoric" coming from right-wing preachers of hate with the assassination attempt. And former member of Congress Chris Carney said Palin should "say she was wrong."
[ .... ]
What little is known about the perpetrator does not suggest that he was a supporter of the Tea Party or an admirer of Palin's -- he doesn't even appear to have any clear political convictions. His favorite books include the "Communist Manifesto," Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and "Peter Pan," an erratic hodge podge. So far, there is no evidence that there were any political motives behind the crime.
Indeed, the massive criticism of Sarah Palin is misguided. This is not only due to the fact that the accusation is baseless, but also because the calculated attempt to weaken Palin in this manner could ultimately backfire.
The reasoning is quite simple: Palin has always profited in the role of victim -- a victim of the liberal elite. Time and again, she has been made fun of -- when, for example, she spoke for the first time about foreign policy during the 2008 presidential campaign, and later when she wrote notes on her hand during speeches and television appearances. But every time people made fun of the Alaska politician or attacked her as being superficial and unqualified, it merely helped deepen the support of her followers. Now, the allegation that she carries partial responsibility for what has happened in Arizona could turn out to do more to help than harm her.
Yet again, she could emerge as a political martyr.
Despite the left-wing slant of Der Spiegel, they are spot on. The left's baseless attacks against Sarah Palin have been over the top since day one. To them, she represents everything they loathe. She's a beautiful, happy, independent woman, and a self made success. She is happily married to her handsome high school sweetheart, and has five wonderful children.
She's un-apologetically pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-America. She believes in America's strengths, and the American people. Like the Great Ronald Reagan before her, she sees America as that Shining City on a Hill. She's to them like garlic to a vampire!
The democrats will never understand just how stupid they truly are. Had they not carried out this blood libel against her, trying to blame her for the actions of a left wing mad man, she would have never had to make her speech in the first place! If she had not made this speech, she would not have had the opportunity for Americans see her shine in the midst of tragedy, and their opinion of her wouldn't have been improved.
Her supporters saw the speech as nothing less than presidential. An optimistic, forward looking speech that celebrates America, while condemning violence and reminding people who is actually to blame for the tragedy. How ignorant it is to apportion blame, when the only person to blame is the nut who pulled the trigger.
BTW, the left lost it's mind over the fact she used "blood libel" and doubled down on the attacks. This caused Jewish leaders world wide, on both sides of the political spectrum, to step up and defend her usage of the phrase, another big failure for the democrats.
This craziness also caused everyone to start digging up many examples of democrats using the "blood libel" language as well. Such as:
MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle: John Kerry Underwent A "Blood Libel By The Swift Boat People." "The problem for Kerry here is that two years ago, Joe, he did not talk like that when he was undergoing a blood libel by the Swift Boat people. If he had stood up two years ago, in July of 2004, and looked into the cameras with the same intensity he showed today on this issue and said, Hey, I didn`t see Dick Cheney on the bow of my boat in the Mekong Delta, we might have a different president today. That didn`t happen then, and so he`s playing catch-up in terms of his reputation now." ("Scarborough Country," MSNBC, 10/31/06)
Democratic Congresswoman On Accusations Against Al Gore: "I Would Put Them In A Category, Literally, Of Blood Libel.""Rep. DEUTSCH: Well, again, it–it is ve–a–an incredibly fair and well-run process. But let me respond to the two things you said. First is the Republicans’ allegations over the last 24 or 48 hours, which I consider the most scandalous statements that I probably have heard in my entire life. And I would put them in a category, literally, of blood libel, that Al Gore has conspired to prevent servicemen and women from their votes being counted, which is absolutely not true." ("Rivera Live," CNBC, 11/20/00)
Some Democrats View Attacks On Their Patriotism "A Blood Libel." "What about Bush’s cheap shot attack on Democrats implying they support terrorists? Unfortunately, it’s just the kind of wedge issue many people, maybe most, in whole sections of the country, primarily the South and the West, are all too ready to accept on faith. Democrats, as they see it, are embarrassed by expressions of patriotism or, worse yet, ashamed of them. For a minority of left-wing Democrats that’s all too true; but for most Democrats that’s a blood libel that Republicans have been spreading since the McCarthy era — alas, with some success." (John Farmer, "Presidential Campaign To Run From The Sewers," Star-Ledger, 11/24/03)
Salon: Blair Trumpeted "Blood Libel" Against Iran. "You can’t teach an old lapdog new tricks. And Tony Blair was barking up the wrong tree yet again last week in his first major appearance since he skulked ingloriously away from office back in June. Blair seized the opportunity of a New York speech to trumpet the blood libel that Iran is now the embodiment of the entire ‘global ideology’ of Islamic extremism, explicitly conflating the Tehran regime not only with al-Qaida but also with Nazi Germany." (Chris Floyd, "Blair And Bush Team Up To Sell New War," Salon.com, 10/24/07)
[Editor's note ....isn't amazing how the left always sticks up for the enemies of America and Great Britain .... GP]
Washington Monthly Book Reviews Labels Anti-Clinton Book "Awfully Close To A Blood Libel." "Losing bin Laden might be thought of as the pilot for a series to be called CSI: Right ‘Wing Conspiracy.’ In the book, British journalist Richard Miniter sifts through eight years’ worth of the Clinton administration’s approach to Osama bin Laden’s terrorism, and lays the blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks squarely on — altogethernow, Regnery Publishing buffs! — Bill Clinton. Armed with 20/20 hindsight, Miniter finds a long series of missed opportunities to capture or kill the terrorist. The result is an odd book that manages to raise serious questions and make serious points about the competing pressures and interests that go into creating a foreign policy, but that still overreaches in manipulative and mendacious ways. . . . However, if Miniter had been less interested in leveling what seems awfully close to a blood libel, it would be easier to congratulate him for producing a clear account of the competing policy questions, institutional inertia, bureaucratic competition, and the personality conflicts that thwarted the formulation and execution of a policy to stop bin Laden." (Jamie Malanowski, "Kill Bill: The Relentless Effort To Blame 9/11 On President Clinton," Washington Monthly, 11/1/03)
CQ Weekly: "Not Just A Fiction, It Was Very Nearly A Blood Libel." "In his Oct. 17, 2002, testimony for the joint House and Senate inquiry, CIA Director George J. Tenet conceded no error, acknowledged no miscalculation. Beyond removing ‘the wall’ of legal restrictions on intelligence sharing and increasing his budget, he saw no need for fundamental change. In his view, any suggestion that the CIA was not joined at the hip with the FBI in pursuit of al Qaeda was not just a fiction, it was very nearly a blood libel. ‘One of the most critical alliances in the war against terrorism is that between CIA and FBI,’ Tenet testified." ("CQ Outlook: Is Homeland Security Keeping America Safe?,"( CQ Weekly, 6/13/03)
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist and; Author David Halberstam Describes The Movie Pearl Harbor As A "Blood Libel." "Look at ‘Pearl Harbor.’ ‘Pearl Harbor’ is nearly a blood libel against the event. The people who made that movie should be ashamed of themselves. Then you see ‘Apocalypse’ and you see what real filmmaking really is." (Jeff Stark, "David Halberstam on ‘Apocalypse Now’," Salon.com, 8/3/01)
Baltimore Sun: Ellen Sauerbrey Issued "A Political Blood Libel" In 1998. "Post: ‘Take us back to the last election. Do you still think you won that?’ Sauerbrey: ‘I think it’s irrelevant.’ Excuse me? Sauerbrey then vaguely blamed Baltimore City for ‘problems,’ which she said have been addressed by ‘new equipment.’ And then the subject was changed. Well, all denials to the contrary, the last election is not ‘irrelevant.’ What Sauerbrey issued, in its aftermath, was a political blood libel, accusing her opponents of stealing the democratic process. She had all sorts of time to prove her allegations, or drop them, or apologize for them and blame them on the emotions of the moment. Instead, she took them all the way to court — where they were thrown in her face." (Michael Olesker, "Accusations Hurt Credibility Of Candidate Sauerbrey," The Baltimore Sun, 7/21/98)
You really have to hand it to the left. When they fail, they do so in absolutely spectacular and breathtaking fashion!
The democrats have absolutely failed on every level. From the second Sarah Palin was introduced to the nation, Barack Obama, and his party, elevated her to the presidential level. Part of this is because so many of his advisers knew of, and have went up against Sarah before, in Alaska. They all lost.
If you go back and look at the 2008 presidential campaign, once Sarah was chosen, the democrats almost forgot about John McCain and focused exclusively of her. From then on, it wasn't McCain vs Obama, it was Sarah Palin vs Obama. It created the impression that she was indeed presidential, an impression that has only been enhanced, as Sarah's real record of achievement has come to light, and she continues to prove herself as a true leader.
The vile and vicious attacks from the democrats after the Arizona shootings should be condemned by all decent human beings. Those who engaged in blood libel against Sarah Palin should be rejected, shunned. Discounted as nothing more than hatemongers and rabble rousers, not fit for polite society.
In the aftermath we are finding the American people are rejecting the hateful rhetoric of the democrat party completely. Their vision for America does not fit with American's vision for America. Their hatefulness does not fit with America either.