Dog Whistling in the Dark

Can the kerfuffle over Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" get any sillier? Yes it can:

Sarah Palin’s use of the charged term “blood libel” may not have been an accidental blunder, but a deliberate “‘dog whistle” appeal to her evangelical Christian supporters for whom the expression has meaning, commentators and others are saying.

Taegan Goddard, founder of nonpartisan news site Political Wire, floated the idea after the release of Palin’s video remarks Wednesday, writing that “… while it’s not entirely clear what Palin intended, it’s possible she was trying to use dog whistle politics to speak to her religious base who often feel they’re an oppressed minority.”

Commentators have adopted the phrase “dog whistle” to describe Palin’s use of certain words and ideas that will be immediately heard and understood by conservative Christians, but often will not be picked up on by the broader public.

Number one, Taegan Goddard is not nonpartisan. He may portray himself that way but I've read enough of his stuff to know he leans pretty far to the left.

Be that as it may, I'm a conservative Christian and until yesterday had no idea that the term "blood libel" meant anything other than a terrible slander against a person. That's the only way I've heard the term used in my entire life. I was not aware that there was a connection to old myths about Jewish religious ceremonies.

 If I didn't hear the dog whistle, I guarantee you nobody else did either.  The only people who have tried to make an issue out of this are those who will seek any opportunity to slam Palin.  It's pure politics and certainly doesn't have anything to do with defending the Jewish faith.

In fact, it's most likely that Palin picked up the term from Glenn Reynolds' Wall Street Journal piece on Monday:  The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel