U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, staff, shot at event in Tuscon, Ariz.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by trvlr

That's nothing [new].

Then his comments just highlight further his hypocrisy. He's supposed to be the first 'post-political' president.* But he goes on national television to appropriate awkwardly the life-story of a kid he'd never heard of before this past weekend to advance his own political agenda. (And yet it is we, his critics, who are labeled as "cynical.")

It would be something if the president would pick a political and personal identity and stick with it. Thus far, this president has only been consistent in his inconstancy and his incompetency.

Originally Posted by trvlr

I'm sure if you cornered him on it he would say "I include myself when I say 'we' and 'each of us'"

Then why didn't he say so yesterday?

Why is it that this guy--touted for being thoughtful and articulate (IMO, he is clearly neither)--finds his foot in his mouth so often.

_____________________________________________
* The president said on 20 January 2009 (source is here):

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by trvlr

I definitely agree with your views on finger pointing. I'm sure if you cornered him on it he would say "I include myself when I say 'we' and 'each of us'"

I heartily disagree.

I doubt that he has the capacity to admit such errors.

TR

[Foot Drill]

x

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Foot Drill

I don't think it would have mattered what he said in his speech, there would be people that would make it political, right? What I really don't understand is your idea that making the speech about "I" instead of "we", and how that would have somehow made his speech better....really? Our president is speaking to a grieving husband whose wife was shot in the head days before, and a mother and father whose daughter was shot in the chest and killed, and all the other family and friends of the victims, and he should make it about himself? I've never been to one memorial where the speaker talked about "I this" and "I that.” Being a leader his tough and the president didn't have to give that speech, but as a leader he subjected himself to this ridicule of the likes of your statement. When I watched that speech I didn't sit there and think how he was using this speech the further political motives. Like most people who fall somewhere in the political center, I watched it as a shocked and pissed-off citizen, and as I sat there in my living room I conceived of the possibility that the 9 year old girl that was killed could have been my beautiful niece. And like most, I would love nothing more than to be locked in a room with that scumbag. This tragic event has been more politicized on this thread than on TV, but I don't watch it too much....and maybe I'll stop reading as much here. As Americans we are all brothers and sisters, and those killed that day very well could have been, bottom line.

PLEASE. My wife could not stand anyone speaking for a dead 9 year old, much less her dreams, etc. THE END.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Foot Drill

Entire post.

FD--

It is clear that you did not read my post carefully nor listen to the president's comments critically (which is exactly what he wants).

[Foot Drill]

x

[Pete]

"Together We Thrive"

Pretty catchy slogan. I wonder if it has been used before.

Maybe somebody like OfA could have used it in 2008.

Obama recycling campaign slogans? At a memorial? Naaaaa, no way - he's the prez.

[Bordercop]

The link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...y-david-kahane

Once More unto the Breach of Civility
Who’s to blame for Tucson? Why, Sarah Palin and you, of course.

One of the tropes you wingnuts try to pin on us all the time is this: You just can’t help yourselves. By which you mean that, when a good Emanuelian crisis comes along and it simply cannot go to waste because it fits the narrative (two legs, good; four legs, Republican swine), we invariably expose ourselves as the sneering, sadistic little cultural sappers we are.

And you know what? You’re right!

Like many of us stalwart men of the Progressive-Media-Entertainment Complex, I have never been so beamish. As the president explained so eloquently Wednesday night, what happened in Tucson was a tragedy and all, but watching the wild-eyed Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, pin the Glock on the elephant in the pages of the New York Times was simply wonderful. Based on nothing more than the loud voices coming through the fillings in his teeth, our bearded, pot-bellied superhero leapt into action the day after the Tucson shootings and started pointing the finger of blame where it always belongs: at Sarah Palin and the “climate of hate” she has brought down from Mystery, Alaska, to torment us here in the Lower 48. Naturally, a few of you protested that there was no actual evidence that the hated succubus who haunts our fever dreams and saps our purity of essence had anything to do with the gunman. Nor did any of the other right-wing crazies on our (symbolic!) hit lists — and you Limbaugh-loving teabaggers know who you are.

It’s true that Obama said: “But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

But so what if he did? In the fantasy world in which we dwell, the only thing that counts is what’s inside our heads, and in our heads is where Sarah Palin lives and where she willfully continues to insert herself into the national conversation. Raised on relativism, psychiatry, and sociology; on values instead of morals; on transactional relationships instead of “absolute truths”; on heavy-metal music, atheism, and abortion on demand — we long ago slipped the moorings of empiricism and have ascended to the rarefied heights of Cockaigne and Cloud Cuckoo Land. Black is white, up is down, in is out — this is our world and you’re not welcome to it. Because it’s not for you to say what you do and do not stand for — we’ll be the judge of that. And here’s what we know about you:

You’re racists. You’re anti-Semites. You’re homophobes. You hate progress. You hate when people (i.e., us) have fun doing things you don’t like or, worse, doing things that deep down inside you really do like but don’t have the guts to actually do. You hate Metallica, Miles Davis, Mozart, and Marx. You think we’re something out of Petronius, licentious Roman poetasters, juvenile-delinquent voluptuaries peeling grapes while Alaric and Odovacar wait outside the gates. Meanwhile, you play the role of a disapproving, mocking Juvenal, satirizing our pagan ways.

In short, you’re the curmudgeons and killjoys in favor of restrictions and rules that prevent us from fully exercising our Gaia-given panoply of rights, which are pretty much anything we say they are, especially if you’re against them.

You seethe with anger over the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, still believe along with the racist Framers that black people are only worth three-fifths of white people, and that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, unless they’re in the delivery room. On the slightest pretext you will reach for your guns, especially in a toxic atmosphere like this one, and, like that right-wing assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, you will commit any atrocity — even if it means “disguising” yourself as a Marxist and pro-Castro agitator just to fool us. There’s no end to your devilry.

So is it any wonder we immediately assume that you personally are responsible for everything bad that occurs in the world, you and Sarah Palin? Your very existence can only be an encouragement to nutballs, crazies, weirdos, and jackasses everywhere either to pick up a gun and start shooting, or to think about picking up a gun and start shooting, which to us is exactly the same thing. Like the somnambulists in Christopher Nolan’s Inception, we’ve drilled down so far into our dreams that reality and fantasy are indistinguishable, and we figure that if credentialed Ivy Leaguers like ourselves can’t tell the difference, why should you Dogtooth State Teachers College johnnies be any different?

Forget all that stuff we were saying about knives and gunfights and enemies and hanging Joe Lieberman in effigy, killing Henry Hyde, etc.; that was just our typical, high-spirited use of metaphor. Putting aside all the smashed plate-glass windows, the “Days of Rage,” and the photoshopped pictures of %$#@BUSH#$@! as the love child of Dracula and Hitler; we’re just a bunch of pot-smoking, fun-loving pacifist draft-dodgers at heart. This violence thing — we don’t really mean it, and you know it.

You, on the other hand, could be sitting on the sofa in your living room in your jammies, watching Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm with your dozens of dogs and children, slurping a Shave Ice and snuggling with the old ball and chain you’ve been irrationally tethered to for the past 20 years, and we would know — we would just know — that under the cushions you’ve got an AK-Uzi with 47 rounds in it, locked and loaded and on full automatic, or whatever, and you’re just itching to use it on us or one of our protected minority groups, all of whom you loathe because, after all, you are nothing if not haters.

Which is why I’m beaming. Because we lovers finally stood up to you swaggering bullies, who dominate every conversation even if there’s only one of you in the room against a dozen of us. We unleashed “The End Is Near” Krugman, foam-flecked Chris Matthews, dyspeptic Bill Maher, and every other arrow in our quiver to pin you against the wall, fill you full of lead, eviscerate you, decapitate you, burn your houses to the ground, rape your women, loot your treasure, and send your children into slavery. Like Sherman marching through Georgia, we sent our caissons rolling along, brought down the hammer and targeted you for —

Whoops! Got carried away with my martial metaphors there!

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter if the Tucson shooter was a garden-variety nut, allegedly apolitical (no one in our world is apolitical), fueled by anger against Representative Giffords, women, English grammar, the gold standard, and the educational system. He had a Glock, and that’s all the proof we need.

Come on, admit it: In your hearts, you know he’s Right.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Foot Drill

I'm not saying or implying the speech had some kind of divine inspiration, flawed people such as you and I wrote the damn thing ....apparently the point of what I was trying to convey wasn't made clear enough. Yeah, THE END.

It's a time-worn liberal tactic.

http://www.slate.com/id/2073324/

Paul Wellstone's memorial service turns into a pep rally.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002, at 2:23 AM ET
The basketball arena at the University of Minnesota holds 20,000 people. Tonight it's jam-packed. Not for the Gophers, whose Big 10 championship banners hang from the rafters, but for Paul Wellstone, the liberal senator who died Friday in a plane crash while campaigning for re-election. A pantheon of Democrats—Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry—has come to pay its respects.
T
onight's event is officially a memorial service. The lighting inside the arena is eerily appropriate: The big incandescent bulbs on the arced ceiling have been turned off, leaving the upper decks in darkness while the dais below is illuminated by stage lights suspended above the court. The contrast creates the impression of a vast ghostly assembly. It's as though the dead have come to honor the living, when in truth the living have come to honor the dead.

As fans of Garrison Keillor know, Minnesotans are wonderful storytellers. The most delightful treat at the ceremony is the anecdotes told by friends and family members of aides who perished aboard Wellstone's plane. The humor in these tales is gentle and wise; the delivery is a modest Scandinavian deadpan. It begins with remarks by a brother of Wellstone's young driver. As the story goes, Wellstone had told his driver to pull up alongside cars that sported Wellstone stickers, so the senator could wave at the occupants. Wellstone kept wondering why the occupants never waved back. Finally, the driver broke down and informed Wellstone that nobody could see him because the car's windows were tinted.

A favorite staple of Lake Wobegon comedy is the reinterpretation of foibles as virtues. The driver's brother explains that Wellstone and the driver got along well because both of them hated being told what to do. Another speaker recalls that a professor who died on the senator's plane was always imposing on friends in order to help others. A Wellstone aide who was close to the senator's wife points out that her competitiveness was overlooked and underappreciated. As a folk singer puts it during a musical interlude, "It's the imperfections that make us whole."

But the solemnity of death and the grace of Midwestern humor are overshadowed tonight by the angry piety of populism. Most of the event feels like a rally. The touching recollections are followed by sharply political speeches urging Wellstone's supporters to channel their grief into electoral victory. The crowd repeatedly stands, stomps, and whoops. The roars escalate each time Walter Mondale, the former vice president who will replace Wellstone on the ballot, appears on the giant screens suspended above the stage. "Fritz! Fritz!" the assembly chants.

"Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning," Wellstone declares in a videotaped speech shown on the overhead screens. "Politics is about improving people's lives." But as the evening's speakers proceed, it becomes clear that to them, honoring Wellstone's legacy is all about winning the election. Repeating the words of Wellstone's son, the assembly shouts, "We will win! We will win!" Rick Kahn, a friend of Wellstone's, urges everyone to "set aside the partisan bickering," but in the next breath he challenges several Republican senators in attendance to "honor your friend" by helping to "win this election for Paul Wellstone." What can he be thinking?

There's a salutary practicality about many of the liberal clichés repeated and applauded tonight. But there's a creepy arrogance about them, too. The ceremony's closing speaker, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, says Wellstone "never took himself too seriously" and "never had to proclaim his decency." Yet tonight, the men and women who purport to represent Wellstone's legacy are taking themselves quite seriously and constantly proclaiming their decency. "We can redeem the sacrifice of his life if you help us win this election for Paul Wellstone," Kahn tells the crowd. Somewhere, Wellstone must be turning on his cross.

Above the stage hangs an immense cubic scoreboard. During basketball games, it's electrified and illuminated from above. Tonight it looms just above the stage lights, blank and unlit. A man has died. This is no time to keep score.

[silentreader]

Dusty,

Does your article prove that turning tragedies into political events is a Democratic strategy, or does it prove that claiming Dems do this is a conservative strategy? I suspect it's something of a Rorschach test: the viewer will see what he wants to.

It would be instructive to examine a few of the differences between the Wellstone celebration and Obama's speech. The Wellstone celebration (I use that word because that is what it was billed as) was a 3 and 1/2 hour long event attended by 20,000+ people. Though celebrities had offered to speak, all were turned down: speakers were limited to close family, friends and colleagues of Paul. There was no over-arching theme or plan, these were emotional people sharing their memories of Paul's life and celebrating the time they had with him. Because Paul was a politician, his life story was closely tied to politics. Most speakers tried to avoid drawing partisan lines. Rick Kahn, clearly, crossed that line. However, Kahn was not some political operative; he was Paul's best friend. The point to be clear on is that Kahn was far closer to Wellstone than any who claimed to be offended by what he said after the fact. He was further removed from politics then those who tried to use his words to cast the entire rally as a political sham. And finally, did the author of your article have a better suggestion for how to light a hockey arena when it's being used for memorial services?

Compare this to Obama's speech. He is the President of the United States addressing the nation after an event that clearly has collectively shocked us. He carefully avoided, in fact- warned against- finger pointing. He mourned those who died and expressed a desire to live up a little girls standards (touching or trite? rorschach strikes again).

Yet these two dramatically different events have been subject to almost the exact same critique from conservatives. They're exploiting a tragedy, they're dishonoring the dead, they're two-faced liars, etc...

Eulogies are never easy and when politicians speak (or are spoken about) there will always be some political theme. So there is, no doubt, some truth in these critiques. However, is it that hard to look at them uncritically? To assume that Obama meant exactly what he said? That Democrats are just as hurt as Republicans by tragedies like this, and are honestly grasping for lessons to be learned as opposed to political advantage?

Just some food for thought, I certainly don't claim to know anything about other people's motives for sure.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by silentreader

.......It would be instructive to examine a few of the differences between the Wellstone celebration and Obama's speech. ....

You compare the event to the speech. Did anyone speak before or after Obama's speech? What did they have to say?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by silentreader

Dusty,

Does your article prove that turning tragedies into political events is a Democratic strategy, or does it prove that claiming Dems do this is a conservative strategy? I suspect it's something of a Rorschach test: the viewer will see what he wants to.

It would be instructive to examine a few of the differences between the Wellstone celebration and Obama's speech. The Wellstone celebration (I use that word because that is what it was billed as) was a 3 and 1/2 hour long event attended by 20,000+ people. Though celebrities had offered to speak, all were turned down: speakers were limited to close family, friends and colleagues of Paul. There was no over-arching theme or plan, these were emotional people sharing their memories of Paul's life and celebrating the time they had with him. Because Paul was a politician, his life story was closely tied to politics. Most speakers tried to avoid drawing partisan lines. Rick Kahn, clearly, crossed that line. However, Kahn was not some political operative; he was Paul's best friend. The point to be clear on is that Kahn was far closer to Wellstone than any who claimed to be offended by what he said after the fact. He was further removed from politics then those who tried to use his words to cast the entire rally as a political sham. And finally, did the author of your article have a better suggestion for how to light a hockey arena when it's being used for memorial services?

Compare this to Obama's speech. He is the President of the United States addressing the nation after an event that clearly has collectively shocked us. He carefully avoided, in fact- warned against- finger pointing. He mourned those who died and expressed a desire to live up a little girls standards (touching or trite? rorschach strikes again).

Yet these two dramatically different events have been subject to almost the exact same critique from conservatives. They're exploiting a tragedy, they're dishonoring the dead, they're two-faced liars, etc...

Eulogies are never easy and when politicians speak (or are spoken about) there will always be some political theme. So there is, no doubt, some truth in these critiques. However, is it that hard to look at them uncritically? To assume that Obama meant exactly what he said? That Democrats are just as hurt as Republicans by tragedies like this, and are honestly grasping for lessons to be learned as opposed to political advantage?

Just some food for thought, I certainly don't claim to know anything about other people's motives for sure.

Obama disparages finger-pointing whenever he's not the one doing it.

You evidently keep track of the man, and should know that fact for yourself.

[Dusty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1hRJqt5W-g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yorcY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtVld...eature=related

I'll throw in one where he admits he's Muslim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgN...eature=related


There are many more...

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Foot Drill

It’s this type of distorted thought and influence that is likely the reason the situation arose in the first place.....statements like that can’t go uncontested.

Hmmmm. Just a small little civilian here, but reading the words of wisdom written by QP's on this subject matter, is like breathing fresh air after listenening to the kool-aid spewing media. It gives back a sense of normalcy to the world for some of us.

Did we know the perp? No? Then may I ask how the Fu*k any of us would know the "influence that brought the situation in the first place?"


Holly

[silentreader]

Originally Posted by Pete

You compare the event to the speech. Did anyone speak before or after Obama's speech? What did they have to say?

Good question. Not really an answer, but here's an article about the atmosphere. All emphasis is mine.

TUCSON, Ariz. – What was billed as a memorial for victims of the Arizona shooting rampage turned into a rollicking rally, leaving some conservative commentators wondering whether President Barack Obama's speech was a scripted political event. Not so, insisted the White House and host University of Arizona.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday he and other aides didn't expect the president's remarks at the school's basketball arena to receive as much rousing applause as it did. Gibbs said the crowd's response, at times cheering and shouting, was understandable.
"I think part of the grieving process is celebrating the lives of those that were lost, and celebrating the miracles of those that survived," he said.
The university said it did the planning with minimal input from the White House. The school paid for the event, including $60,000 for 10,000 T-shirts bearing the words "Together We Thrive." The shirts were handed out for free. T-shirts. The money will not come student tuition, fees or tax dollars.
Well before Obama arrived, the atmosphere had become celebratory. People lined up for hours, and when the doors finally opened about two hours before the start, a huge cheer went up and the crowd surged into the arena.
With the exception of elected officials, victims and their families, first responders and medical professionals, the capacity crowd of about 14,000 was admitted on a first-come, first-served basis Wednesday, university spokeswoman Jennifer Fitzenberger said.
But the choreographed nature of the event was too much for some.
"Can't the Democrat political stage managers give it a break just once?," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin wrote in a column on her website, then questioned the lack of White House interaction with the university.
"Given the Obama White House's meticulous attention to stage prop details, however, I would say the odds of involvement by Axelrod/Plouffe & Co. are high." (Me: Considering "university officials" claim otherwise, it would be nice to see some proof for that claim)
David Plouffe is a presidential adviser who was the architect of Obama's presidential campaign; David Axelrod has been his political strategist and just left the White House to advise the Obama's re-election campaign.
Rich Lowry of the National Review wrote that "the pep-rally atmosphere was inappropriate and disconcerting," although he admired the president's speech.
To observers, the crowed was spontaneous.
They cheered when the two trauma surgeons who treated Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entered and were shown on the overhead screen. As the camera would focus on other individuals thrust into the spotlight after the shooting, the crowd would go wild, whether it was the first responders, the woman who grabbed the alleged gunman's ammunition, the intern who helped Giffords. In some cases, the person would wave to the camera.
Despite the celebrations in the rafters, the mood below where the families of the victims, the president and other officials sat was far more somber.
Obama frequently bowed his head, resting his chin on his clasped hands. First lady Michelle Obama wiped tears from her eyes. Families of the victims held each other close as speakers shared personal memories of their loved ones. Me: That seems to answer the question, yes?
The president himself appeared taken aback at the sustained applause he received after his remarks. (Me: It would appear the president and Mr. Lowry would agree that the reaction of the audience did not fit the mood. Emotions are often difficult to predict or control.) He waved quickly to the crowd as he left the stage, stood with his head down as the crowd continued to cheer, then reached for his wife, and kissed her several times on the cheek.