Unlike body language experts who have a political bias, I do not. Instead, I always try to maintain my objectivity . Thus, I have no agenda when it comes to Sara Palin. I am merely reporting what I observed on her latest video message that she posted on Facebook. W hat I observed was very disturbing as there were too many moments where I believe she continued to exercise poor judgment.
BAD ACTRESS
Watching Sara Palin’s recent speech on video was like watching a very bad actress perform. Her words and her body language were out of synch and completely disconnected in so many instances.
Her monotone and incongruent body language .where she shook her head NO when she should have been shaking it YES and vice versa was also disturbing. It seemed very insincere and contrived.
Absent was any apology for her use of violent imagery. Using inappropriate terms such as blood liable were as disturbing as her imagery of our founding fathers whom she described as using dueling pistols to settle their differences.
In light of the circumstancesm this inappropriate talk once again reflected very poor judgment on Sara Palin’s part in my view.
ANALYSIS OF SARAH PALIN’S SPEECH
When she said in her speech “I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims, she disturbingly shook her head NO when she needed to shake it in the affirmative.
Body language wise she was saying I don’t agree with the beautiful Catholic mass. When people’s body language does not match their words they are usually thinking about their own agenda and what they want to say next, instead of being in the moment and being genuine about what they are saying.
She continues to shake her head NO as she says The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
It is clear through her body language that she does not believe what she is saying here . Her words about Catholic mass does not ring true to her based on her body actions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As she says the following, she appears overly dramatic like a very bad or beginning actress. She clearly does not believe what she is saying about people exercising their rights to have differences of opinions. In the first place, that day was a meet and greet for Gifford’s constituents, not a form for debate. This clearly shows her ignorance and what is foremost on her mind- debating the issues ands getting her points across. She says:
“Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Then she does the absurd as she shakes her head in the affirmative YES as she said It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.
In nmy view, t is also inexcusable and incomprehensible why a politician would put cross hairs on a map- crosshairs to target someone for death while using a gun.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As she says the following you don’t feel the sadness or compassion in her tones. It is read off the teleprompter and comes across as being very insincere.
She reads:
There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.
This passionate statement needed to be said with much more conviction t have sounded believable.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Out of the blue, Palin invokes the name of President Regan. In doing so it shows obvious manipulation. It is no doubt used to get Regan fans on her side in her quest to get people to subliminally associated her with Regan. She reads:
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
As you can see from this statement, here was absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring up Regan, as this crime had absolutely nothing to so with him or what he ever said in the past. And if society is guilty as he is quoted as saying, then they are guilty of not getting a deranged man the help he desperately needed.
If what Sara Palin said was true and she was being sincere, she needed to say that even though she had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred, she was still holding herself accountable, as a member of society for upsetting people by putting crosshairs on a map of the US. In my viwe she would have gained a lot more public respect of she would have openly admitted her error in judgement at this point in her speech.
________________________________________________________________
The following was perhaps the only truth she said. But she ruined it by politicizing it by talking about those who voted in the last election. It was clearly a dig in my view. She reads:
Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
She continues to be political in talking about the last election and reminding us that she was a part of it. She is lets us know politically that Obama’s party won two years ago, but that last November the other party one.
She sounded petty by not mentioning the names of the parties- Democrat and Republican and even pettier for bringing this up in the first place in my viwe.
It was clear that her agenda leaked out here. She was letting everyone know that her party was victorious last November and that if she runs, she will be part of that Victory in the next election. In my viwe this was not the time or place for such rhetoric.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the only passage of the speech where she did seem connected and sincere and passionate about what she was saying:
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BLOOD LIBEL?
But then she blows it when she ignorantly uses the terms blood libel. This once again shows her ignorance. The words blood libel are not for this instance. The definition of Blood libel according to Wikipedia refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.
This was not the situation to invoke such words and Rabbi Marvin Heir of the Museum of Tolerance called her on it all over the airwaves. Her let her know that her words incited further angst and alienation as she said
“ 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.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DUELING PISTOLS?
Once again her poor judgment is revealed when she brings up something that is in very poor taste in light of the circumstances, that political figures settled their differences with dueling pistols back in the day..
This was the last thing she needed to bring up as there was no need to bring this up at this point. It once again showed her ignorance and complete lack of good judgment as she reads:
“There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.”
If we must condemn violence as she said, then she did not have to bring up such acts of violence and tell us that there is no need for government if men and women were angels.
Even if they were angels there would always be need for a set of rules that people needed to follow to make a society function. To me that is very negative thinking. If we are to condemn violence then she needs to condemn herself for putting up a map with crosshairs which indicates the ultimate in mental violence.
Now she reminds us why she is really doing this. With the American flag in the background , she reminds us of her campaign. Discussing this is irrelevant and completely out of line under the circumstances. Once again it shows very poor judgment on her part as she says:
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
911?
Then she inappropriately throws in 911 as she says :
Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security.
911 is the last thing one needs to be throwing into the equation. This massacre was not done by religious extremist but by a home grown deranged American. Mentioning the two in the same breath is manipulative and a ploy to pull at emotions and enrage, in my view.
In her next statement we see hypocrisy in her speech when she says
We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.
It is not about stifling debate. Instead, it is about debating without the mental violence of showing crosshairs . Using crosshairs as a symbol of violence is what needs to be stifled inmy view. She continues with :
”We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner”
As soon as she said this she needed to apologize a for the crosshairs instead of ignoring it as though it never happened , There was no peaceful engagement when showing crosshairs.
And finally her contrived God Bless America was shaky and out of synch as her entire speech. It sounded insincere and passionless as though it was just tagged on as an afterthought in order to sound patriotic.
Once again these observations are not flecting any political opinion on my part or any bias, I am just reporting what I see betrween the spoken words.
www.drlillianglass.com
