Heh---one of your best.
"For my next number, I'll do the Shoop Shoop song (it's in his kiss)."
Posted on 01/16/2011 5:52:02 AM PST by markomalley
Pundits and politicians alike praised President Obama's speech at the Tucson memorial service last Wednesday. "A wonderful speech," wrote the New York Times' David Brooks. "A magnificent performance," wrote National Review's Rich Lowry. "A terrific speech," wrote Sen. John McCain.
And those were just the voices on the right.
Obama's tribute to the victims of the shooting and the heroism of bystanders was appreciated by everyone. But many conservatives particularly admired the speech because the president took care to say, in clear terms, that political rhetoric did not cause the violence in Tucson. "It did not," Obama said flatly. After days during which prominent voices on the Left -- by and large Obama supporters -- blamed the Right for inciting the violence, the president's words were a welcome change.
But how could he have said otherwise? By the time Obama spoke, there was irrefutable evidence that shooting suspect Jared Loughner was deeply mentally ill and acted out of no recognizable political agenda. Obama simply could not have made the case that Loughner's acts were in any way the product of political rhetoric from right or left.
He didn't need to. The point Obama wanted to make was not that political rhetoric caused the violence but that such rhetoric -- like, for example, criticism directed at Barack Obama -- should be toned down. So even as he conceded that rhetoric did not cause the violence, Obama argued that it should be muted anyway. And he cloaked his appeal in so much emotionalism, in so many tear-jerking references to the recently departed, that some in his audience might not have noticed he was making the political point he wanted to make all along.
Imagine a calculating Democratic political strategist. What would he have wanted Obama to accomplish in the Tucson speech? He would have wanted the president to send the message that the political debate has gotten too rough and should be moderated. Democrats believe that message favors them; they have had much success characterizing, and mis-characterizing, statements by figures like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and others as potential incitements to violence. Democrats want a debate about rhetoric because they think can win it.
But since it was impossible to tie the violence in Tucson to Republican rhetoric, the president couldn't very well use the shootings as the premise for a national conversation about the tone of political debate, could he? Yes, he could. It might seem like a stretch -- even to a calculating Democratic strategist -- for Obama to portray Jared Loughner's insanity as the proper starting point for a national debate about civility in politics. Yet that is what he did.
And employing a tactic that in a less sentimental atmosphere would have been seen as breathtakingly cynical, Obama enlisted Christina Taylor Green, the nine year-old girl killed in the shootings, to support his cause. "She saw [politics] through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often take just for granted," Obama said. "I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us -- we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations."
How can America live up to Christina's expectations? According to Obama, by making sure that her death "helps usher in more civility in our public discourse…because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make [the victims] proud." In other words: Christina would have wanted us to tone down the rhetoric. The calculating Democratic strategist would have been very, very happy.
By the time he spoke in Tucson, Obama had let four days pass while some of the angriest voices in the media -- his supporters -- either blamed Republicans directly for the killings or blamed the GOP for creating the atmosphere in which the violence took place. During those four days, the president could have cooled the conversation by urging everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions, as he did the day after the November 2009 massacre at Ft. Hood, Texas. But he didn't. Only after Loughner's insanity had been indisputably established did Obama concede that politics was not to blame for the shooting.
By then, however, the president's supporters had tied the killings to the issue of political rhetoric. In Tucson, Obama played good cop to their bad cop by assuring everyone that rhetoric had not motivated the violence. But he still brought up the topic because, he said, it had "been discussed in recent days." Of course, it would not have been discussed in recent days had his supporters not made so many unfair accusations.
Some Democratic strategists hope Obama can capitalize on Tucson the way Bill Clinton capitalized on Oklahoma City. Perhaps he'll be able to, and perhaps he won't. But he's already trying.
What Obama should have done is apologize for the slanderous words spewed forth by his supporters. He didn’t do that. And he should have stated harsh rhetoric is a first cousin to politics...itself a very rough game. In short, Obama’s speech was an appeal for conservatives to keep quiet. You didn’t cause the shootings, but shut up anyway.
It is the ruling class support for ruinous immigration that counts. The ruling class must stamp out the White Christian majority in order to thoroughly divide and enslave the people.
I too am very disappointed by Obama. After ending the speech noting that as soon as he left the room the Congresswoman opened her eyes for the first time, I was wondering why he just didn’t make a side trip afterword, visit the morgue, and raise the dead.
Great post.
Especially the part about throwing the panties. I almost spewed coffee on my keyboard.
its not what Michael Vick did was right but he paid for the crime and Obama was trying to use Michael Vick but Killed?
Heh---one of your best.
"For my next number, I'll do the Shoop Shoop song (it's in his kiss)."
"Man, things are looking up for me. Shot down in Nov,
back up in Jan, thanks to one whacked out little twerp."
“supporters had tied the killings to the issue of political rhetoric”
This is key for the smear to continue. The left will castigate Palin and others on the assumption that there is a connection. There is no connection. The left will make Palin appear to be insensitive and heartless for not apologizing when there is nothing to apologize for.
Indeed.
The thought occurred to me that this was a set-up from the start:
Jan 8, 10:am:shooting
4:00:'bam delivers his statement ( http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2011/01/08/news/doc4d291adaddda9334198139.txt)
Meanwhile, the press reports depict gunman as a talk radio aficionado.
Starting that evening Jan.8 through 12, mount campaign of slander, repeating established "rabid right" trope, baiting conservatives while reinforcing liberal prejudices.
Conservatives, as expected, react with outrage
Prestitutes fire their second barrage of "illiterate, gun-toting rabid-right" tropes.
Meanwhile, 'bam calls in speech writers and oratory coaches for his four-day preparation.
Jan. 12: 'bam goes to Arizona for his command performance, stressing moderation and civility while dispensing the usual idealistic platitudes. He's learned to modulate his voice a little more, thanks to his coaching. This makes him sound passionate.
Prestitutes praise speech for unifying country and rising above rhetoric; it's equal to the Gettysburg address. They proclaim, once again, 'bam's the saviour.
I suspect the strategy was lain out the minute they glimpsed the opportunity in this tragedy.
Call me cynical.
EXACTLY.
These are the games these radical leftists play.
It's just a shame, and a bit embarassing, when people we Conservatives normally admire and respect, and who usually show a good degree of intelligence, are taken in by the LIES and DECEIPT from the left, and once again...
from Obama's teleprompter.
WAKE UP Glenn. You are asleep at the wheel on this one.
Like Wasserman Shultz (D - FL) who, as the disgusting, shameless leftist hack she is, has taken EVERY opportunity to squeeze in left-wing political talking points, even when asked UNRELATED softball questions regarding the shooting of her "friend" (Gifford voted against her far-left girl, Pelosi) by her comrades in the left-wing media.
She did it on Amanpour's show this morning, inappropriately interjecting the "fact" that there were mental health provisions in the Obamacare that, in essence, EVIL Republicans will soon try and repeal.
She also did it recently when interviewed by CBS' Couric. At one point (watch at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7240428n&tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.0;fdPromo), DWS did what rabid, far-left dems ALWAYS do, she made up (or, at least, embellished - you could see in her eyes she was LYING) a story about her daughter being concerned that someone may shoot her because evil Republicans in Florida are introducing an Arizona-style illegal immigration bill. This little “story” was related by the normally cold-as-ice, vicious, rabid left-wing B*TCH, with OBVIOUS CROCODILE TEARS.
The latest point these left-wing dems are trying to get across with their talking points, lying, and FAKE concern and tears, is that Republicans and Conservatives just need to sit down and shut up and stop being so mean-spirited and violent in their words and actions. It’s ALL TOTAL B.S. designed to silence the opposition, and thwart the will of the American people as evidenced by the last election.
These type of democRATS HAVE NO SHAME, and NO ONE should be fooled by their cynical strategy.
I submit that the speech, especially the part about toning down the rhetoric was not a call to tone it down but was in fact an implicit support of what the press had been saying since hours after the deranged one attacked.
As Laura Ingraham calls it, the speech was a ‘but monkey’.
The exploitation by him of this event is as debased as any I’ve seen.
Totally transparent, and the failure of discernment by these "republican" hacks (except Brooks who is a liberal democrat) reveals their incompetence to understand what we are up against.
[I suspect the strategy was lain out the minute they glimpsed the opportunity in this tragedy. Call me cynical.]
OK, you’re cynical. And I think you’re right.
And they will further mute the political rhetoric by mingling at 0bama’s State of the Union Address.
0bama sooooo needs to be seen as Presidential, as compared to Palin, whose post-Tucson speech was far superior to anything 0bama has said these last two years.
The author made an excellent point here, which all the other Republicans are missing. Republicans act like Obama gave a great speech, when all he did was say the obvious after letting the liberals get away with demonizing conservatives for four days. Obama turned a memorial service into a pep rally with t-shirts no less. That didn't show respect for the victims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.