Obama’s Tucson speech pitch-perfect
I neither watched it nor listened to it, but I read the full text of Obama’s speech, and it seems that the orator who was heard at the 2004 Democratic Convention has returned.
We always knew that this Obama existed, along with this sort of speechwriter. Obama has decided to go back to being the great peacemaker, with a minister’s message of love and togetherness.
It used to be easier to believe in this Obama, before we saw his behavior as president and heard his unscripted rhetoric. I expected to hear him use this peaceful and healing tone tonight in his speech, if only for strategic reasons. It’s impossible to know what’s in the man’s mind, but his past does not make me optimistic.
But wouldn’t it be wonderful if he—and everyone in Congress, and Obama’s successor, whomever he or she might be—could fulfill the wish he gave voice to tonight, speaking of Christina Taylor Green:
I want us 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.
I’ll leave it at that.
He did what needed to be done.
Obama is a surprisingly wooden orator. He does not do emotion well.
Still, he told his supporters to quit seeking somebody to blame.
And, he essentially said “forgive and forget.”
Sometimes, in the wake of such a horrendous tragedy, and the aftermath of bloody politicking, that is all we can hope to do.
I’ll try.
I did not want to watch it, but could not turn it off.
The speech was good. if a bit too long. He struck the right tone. On the other hand, the atmosphere was a bit, shall we say, odd. I’ve attended many memorial services in 77 years. Invariably they have been serious, solemn occasions. This one had the feel of a pep rally or a political convention. It was not Obama’s fault. The audience, apparently comprised of many U.0f Arizona students, applauded nearly every line of his speech, often punctuating the applause with raucous cheers. I may be an old curmudgeon, but all the applause and cheering seemed out of place.
I hope people will become more civil. We will see what happens.
I did not watch it either, but comments I’ve seen elsewhere have likened the atmosphere to that of the Wellstone memorial service, which for all intents and purposes was a pep rally. In fairness, that was just a few days before the 2002 election.
I assume it was Obama’s decision to give the speech at a college, where his constituency is generally very strong. Would seem that a church would have been more appropriate.
It was a good solid speech probably written by Jon Favreau, the 20 something wonderkid, However, I’m with you, Neo. Having read all I could about Obama since 2008 and seen what he does and says as President does not make me optimistc. I think he set the tone he needed to. Now he can continue to allow his henchmen to do their dirty work behind the scenes while he appears-for a time at least-to appear to be above the fray and continues in his quest to remake America and teach her a lesson.
I think the speech and the speaker are both insufferable. I particularly take offense at the vapidity of the Christina paragraph quote by Neo above.
He’s talking to us as if we were fourth-graders.
Obama is the Prince of Insincerity.
Tom: the speech is simplistic. But almost all speeches are. The tone is a big improvement, however.
I would have been far more impressed had Obama targeted the offenders in his own party, but I did not expect that. It would also have had some meaning if he had reprimanded them quickly, instead of letting them do their business freely ever since Saturday.
I heard some of it on Mark Levin’s radio show.
I can’t stand Obama’s clipped cadence. I don’t know how else to describe it. I assume he was reading from his trusty teleprompter.
I don’t believe a word the man says. But I guess it’s good that he didn’t make an overtly political speech.
The wild cheering from the crowd struck me as a bit unseemly for a memorial service.
Everybody knows he gives a good speech. Don’t be mesmerized by the pretty words (especially at a purported memorial service). It’s rhetoric. Actions are what matter.
We’ll see.
Oh, good grief.
Ace again.
See the photo. That’s quite an unusual “memorial service”.
rickl: I think “clipped cadence” is an excellent description. I find Obama’s delivery very rote and emotionless, and slightly hostile.
But I don’t like speeches in general. The only ones I like to listen to are by Churchill.
George, I watched the whole thing and I would not make the mistake again of comparing to the Wellstone memorial.
If I didn’t see the event I might’ve believed you knowing Obama.
We can’t pin that on this speech.
While I agree with Gringo that there were very deceptively written lines in there that painted over the national scene these last few days – the average american probably went away feeling that he hit the right tone.
From Yahoo this morning:
“In an electrifying moment, the president revealed that Giffords, who on Saturday was shot point-blank in the head, had opened her eyes for the first time shortly after his hospital visit.”
Alinsky, Rules For Radicals…
http://www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org
My sister stayed in a 30 year abusive relationship because the man had a knack and impecable timing for just such oratory. The question is, how long until America figures out she deserves better than a life with such an insufferable con man?
It was a very good speech and struck the right tone. And after all the insane, Palin-centric commentary in the media over the past few days, it was actually exactly what most people, myself included, wanted to hear.
As The Anchoress commented,”…the fact is, even if you disagree with every one of a president’s policies, you still want him to be presidential. The country needs that.”
http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/
All that said, for Obama I still think this kind of statement is basically a performance, the kind he is so very good at. I am not persuaded that he has developed the core principles he is so sorely lacking.
Didn’t watch it. I’m not surprised Obama got good marks for it. After all, it’s how he got elected in the first place. As we have seen, governing a country solely by making speeches doesn’t work. Let me indulge in a sports analogy. If a coach has a flawed game plan, a great halftime talk might inspire one player to make one phenomenal play, but the team will still lose. That’s how I see Obama: The Music Man personified.
I’ve only read about his speech, not listened to it or read the text, but the high marks he’s receiving for it are frightening. During his first 2 years in office, he feels free to act and speak selfishly and immaturely. How that he’s on the down hill segment of his time in office, he’s having the speeches written by someone with more style and appeal. And unfortunately all those who supported him 2 years ago, but have since been disenchanted will probably be wooed back to his side. Gives me a lot less hope that we can get him voted out of office in 2012.
I meant “Now”, not how.
i did not watch the speech. why does the man end every statement with a question mark??
I saw the whole thing because I guessed correctly that he would finally give a speech that I was not outraged about as I was hearing it. I still felt disappointed.
Before seeing the speech, I read Ace’s post “Risk, Prohibition, and Category 3”
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/310607.php#310607
Ace was also not satisfied with the speech [different post] because “”[Obama:]We cannot use this occasion as one more reason to turn on each other.” [Ace]Nice thought, but I sure hope that at some point the word goes out:*** I mean the left too.***”
The speech gives the appearance of rebuking the left, but it doesn’t really. We are dealing with very slippery minds here. They do not believe they know “[Obama:] “ with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”
So these remarks do not apply to them.
“But wouldn’t it be wonderful if he–and everyone in Congress, and Obama’s successor, whomever he or she might be–could fulfill the wish he gave voice to tonight, speaking of Christina Taylor Green:”
sorry!
“But wouldn’t it be wonderful if he–and everyone in Congress, and Obama’s successor, whomever he or she might be–could fulfill the wish he gave voice to tonight, speaking of Christina Taylor Green:”
No! It would not be wonderful, it would be … the Obama alleged-Presidency we’re already seen to this point.
“Our children’s” expectations are:
1) wholly unrealistic;
2) destructive when implemented;
3) set and controlled/manipulated by the leftists.
Neo: “We always knew that this Obama existed, along with this sort of speechwriter. Obama has decided to go back to being the great peacemaker, with a minister’s message of love and togetherness.”
Neo (in comment to Tom): “I would have been far more impressed had Obama targeted the offenders in his own party, but I did not expect that. It would also have had some meaning if he had reprimanded them quickly, instead of letting them do their business freely ever since Saturday.”
I neither watched, nor listened to, nor read the text — yet, I am confident in predicting that were I to do so, I’d find that alleged-President Obama’s method of “calming the waters” and “de-politicizing” this issue is to draw a false moral equivalency between “the offenders in his own party” and their conservative targets who corrected the false assertions and speculations they immediately injected into the body politic.
I see that Mr Xyz, having watched the speech, believes that he witnessed my
prediction” being fulfilled. To expand upon what Mr Xtz said (“The speech gives the appearance of rebuking the left, but it doesn’t really. We are dealing with very slippery minds here.“), leftists — and their “liberal” enablers — *always* try to make political hay of these sorts of moral outrages (“senseless tragedies” in the common leftist-inspired lexicon). Sometimes, as this time, their haymaking is so offensive to the mind of the common run of citizen that even they realize that they’re “gone too far” — that is, they realize they’ve made a tactical, not a moral, misstep.
When this happens — when they realize that this time they “went too far” — their leaders (those setting the tone and/or calling the shots) invariably pretend to “rebuke” their camp-followers by means of drawing a false moral equivalency between the morally offensive way the leftists have attempted to use the original moral outrage to score cheap political points, on the one hand, and the correction and/or rebuke from the right, that which either shaped or reflected the national consensus that the leftists had “gone too far,” on the other.
Had the shooter been a tea-party member or had the press managed to sell the message that he was not just insane, but also inflamed beyond control by political discourse from the right they would have had a “crisis” that they could have and would have used differently.
Under the circumstances, the best that they could do was to take advantage of the nation’s focused attention.
It was a good speech, and well given. Its purpose was to heal, to heal Obama’s image not the nation. Accomplishing that would require that we accept that Obama believed what he was saying and that this was not just more political theatre.
It is appropriate that when we have to little information we grant someone the benefit of the doubt. After the 2008 election and the last tow years there is no doubt left to grant this man. The reelection effort is fully engaged, with the man who will say anything to win out in front.
There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking for crossing a Rubicon, and wishing Obama had pointed out the vitriol from his own side and thus encouraged more vitriol. I can’t help but get the feeling that the media attention, unfairly weighed upon the Right, has nevertheless blown a cover, wishfully real or not, it’s as if a Right Wing attack was already eminent but, dammit, now the element of surprise is gone, couple with, dammit, even if we do attack we don’t want to be associated with Loughlyn.
Illion, you couldn’t have said it better.
Obama’s speech was pitch perfect only in the context that it will help him get re-elected. It sure wasn’t pitch perfect in an objective sense because it failed to identify why this nation is in an uproar. No great “healing” is needed because of the acts of the madman. This event only required an appropriate response from the beginning. And in fact, the actual events of the rampage reveals the enduring strength and courage of the common America people.
Healing is needed from the slander and lies and the partisan use of position and authority. Healing is needed because our ruling elite has grievously and without provocation threatened our freedoms. Those threats are violence against us. We are being told that if we continue our tea party opposition, they will remove our freedom of speech, ownership of guns and right to defense, and of the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances.
Obama is a proven liar. He used this opportunity for his own ends. The fact that in this particular circumstance there was a happy coincidence for him of doing the right thing and promoting himself does not change his character or intentions. He is out to fundamentally transform America.
And now, his accomplices know how to better play the game. They may take their shots and when Obama appeals for peace and goodness, they understand that appeal doesn’t apply to them.
And Sergey’s post in the last thread should be required reading. To sum, this event has left some in cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, they are not going to be those on the left or right, but in the middle who just want peace.
Still, I am hoping that this event has opened the eyes of as many people as those whom eyes have been closed. There is a time for everything. Are you fearful and want this whole mess to go away? Then you have been defeated and your will and freedom encumbered by the strident voices that have been accusing and slandering. There is a time for everything. A time to hate and a time for war. When my enemy says, “peace, peace” I, like Ronald Reagen answer, “please verify” and in the meantime I’ll keep my guns and religion.
Of course I did not watch it, and knew in advance that this had nothing to do with the victims, and everything to do with the agenda. Medicine men, Holder, race specific hero. Mexico, “divisive speech and politics (aka those that disagree) free t-shirts, whistling cheering, big talk etc. I did see a pre-event news clip that showed the White House resident shaking hands on the rope-line prior to taking the stage. That was enough for me.
Something I could not read further, posted on Yahoo an hour ago:
AP – For four years, Jared Loughner was an unremarkable college student, commuting to classes near his home where he studied yoga and algebra, business management and poetry.
I have seldom been more angry, more frustrated, than in these last few days.
I wish, Neo, that you would not have provided such an ambiguous headline. But then, maybe someone comes across it who wouldn’t normally read your blog but decides to and gets a dose of reality.
I, and others, are learning through this how to fight the Alinsky method. Don’t focus on the accusations; rather, accuse the accusers, stand with the target, and threaten and follow through with legal and political action to hold accountable those who defame and lie. I’m donating money to Sarah Palin, getting more involved with my local tea party, and educating myself on legal action regarding slander and defamation.
The clapping and cheering was distracting. Why the T-shirts? Trying too hard maybe.
I can see why Napolitano might speak, as the former Gov. of Arizona. Why Eric Holder? Aren’t these the people who will be involved in followup investigations in some way?
There certainly moments that were moving at the [whatever you call it — entertainment?]. Why does Obama pause and wait for audience response?
If one happened to come upon the broadcast without knowing what had happened, I’m not sure it would have been interpreted as a memorial service.
I certainly hope their was comfort for those families directly affected. How horrible it must be to have had a family member injured or murdered so savagely and so publically. I know I can only imagine the pain they must be experiencing.
Ilion:
“false moral equivalency” . Yeah, that was there, but its hard to put your finger on that while you are listening for explicit or coded outrages.
When I heard this:
“We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. (Applause.) “
I took the “old assumptions” as code for conservative assumptions, but that is followed by this.
“” But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. (Applause.) That we cannot do. (Applause.) That we cannot do. ”
There is your false moral equivalency.
It is a rhetorical trick that makes the speech acceptable as you hear it. (I didn’t buy it, but the applause created the illusion that most people would)
The tone of the delivery was “pitch perfect” in that I didn’t feel talked down to or lectured to. I don’t think I would have applauded if I’d been there though.
So it’s free ponies all ’round, then?
Seriously, he proposed letting children’s expectations set the agenda? I toldya the man’s an idiot. The infantilization of America is complete.
Because nothing says “somber memorial” quite like free t-shirts.
Bullseye. Excellent. Ignore the accusations, which they can generate faster than the accusations can be rebutted. Instead respond with accusations in kind, the more outrageous the better, because it’s hard to resist rebutting an outrageous accusation, and engaging in rebuttal puts the accused person on the defensive. Which, of course, is the whole point. Consider how effective it is when the Reds do it.
It’s intellectually dishonest, of course, but one owes no duty of intellectual honesty to those who do not reciprocate, any more than one follows Marquis of Queensbury rules in a street fight.
My internet stopped last nite after I posted an incomplete comment and link, the same one from a day ago, but I hope you don’t mind my emphasizing it here for anyone interested who didn’t catch it:
From Yahoo this morning:
“In an electrifying moment, the president revealed that Giffords, who on Saturday was shot point-blank in the head, had opened her eyes for the first time shortly after his hospital visit.”
So, he really does walk on water… It becomes an opportunity to capture the spotlight, pontificate with a conned (not a typo) speech, and set the stage for more Washington legislation; and in lieu of simply enforcing the current laws effectively. Everyday the politicians use every excuse to orchestrate more legislation, usually inefficient and expensive for us all. Additionally, I listened to the speech, and don’t think I remember him talking about Mrs. Gifford’s common ground with the “Tea Party” concerning the illegal alien issue, as well as others; and for the umteenth time, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…
The corrected link:
Alinsky, Rules For Radicals…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
“”Because nothing says “somber memorial” quite like free t-shirts””
Ummm..A free lady gaga cd to go with it for the first 1000 mourners in the door?
Obama turned what was supposed to be a memorial service for 6 people killed by one of his supporters into a campaign rally for next year’s presidential elections.
And “forgive and forget”? Should the next of kin just forget their loved ones were murdered and forgive Loughner for what he did?
Or did he mean Sarah Palin should forget the venomous rethoric and death threats aimed at her by Obama’s supporters, including the sherriff of Pima County/Tucson?
“[W]e should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations”
My child is a Captain in the United States Marines.
It’s not appropriate to judge a speech based on the text. A speech is not a press release; it’s a performance. And the performance last night was abysmal.
From the timing, to the setting, to the souvenir t-shirts, to the cheers (and boos) from the crowd, the message that Obama’s team sent is clear: Vote for me in 2012.
Simply pathetic.
Governor Brewer bears some responsibility for this fiasco. She is the state’s leader and should have been out in front from Day 1, both to shut up Sheriff “Fife” and to set the right tone for a grieving nation. The memorial service should have been held at the state capitol or other public venue and managed by the Governor’s team.
Anne Althouse has a nice group of postings about this tragedy and the media’s (and professional Left’s) response to it. Her most recent post analyzes the text of the speech and finds it wanting.
Ummm..A free lady gaga cd to go with it for the first 1000 mourners in the door?
You have a gift for the tacky, my friend. I’m glad you’re not using your powers for evil…
“Mourners will also have a chance to win
1) an iPod loaded with the Messiah’s speeches,
2) an autographed commemorative photo of the Messiah grinning toothily at the memorial, and
3) a shout-out by name from the Messiah? Your friends will be green with envy!
Lucky winners will also be entered in a drawing to win one of 50 front-row seats at the next pep rally, and ONE of them will be chosen to come up on stage, and shake hands with the Messiah. Yes!
So hurry, act now, operators are standing by to get your reservation for the memorial.”
Three details which show Obama elevated, rather than lowered, the politicization: 1) Rule of law would have prevented lowering the flags, which is only allowed when a principal state figure dies. Gifford didn’t die. No one else was a principal state figure. But hey, that’s okay. Obama can do whatever he wants even if it breaks with law and tradition because he’s such a uniting presence. 2) Sending the head of the FBI to Arizona. 3) Thanking rather than rebuking the most politicizing pol of them all: Sheriff Cupcake.
Seriously, who organized this? The zombie Billy Mays?
Finally, he got his much needed 9/11.
Oh, please. You know full well that is how they see it in the West Wing.
I was a sophomore member of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets (VTCC). . .
President Bush spoke for barely 10 minutes if that. He was solemn, dignified and respectful . . .
President Obama’s disgusting attempt at what appears to be a political rally in the wake of a similar massacre is beyond reprehensible.
–Statements by Joshua Jones who attended Virgina Tech and the Memorial by Bush.
I’m trying to imagine the meeting in which someone proposed free t-shirts, and the other participants jumped in with what a good idea that was.
Can’t do it, but I’m trying.
Hmmmmmm…suppose his call for civility in politics means he’ll drop the “bringing a gun to a knife fight” talk and stop giving the finger to political opponents in a cutesy, subtle way (like a junior hi kid) during his speeches?
OB, i can see now i’m gonna have to plan my own funeral. Strictly as a hedge against select friends being somehow put in charge who’ll play “Free Bird” at the service and put a ceramic picture of me with my eyes closed while holding a margarita on my tombstone.
Y-not: you’re correct that I didn’t judge the performance. I almost never listen to political speeches. Can’t bear them. Not just Obama’s; most of them. But Obama’s “clipped cadence” has a particularly grating quality.
I agree that the parts of the speech that don’t come with the text—for example, the atmosphere of this one—are part of the message, and are important too. I have no illusions about Obama; I was merely commenting on the fact that he did choose to take the middle road in his text rather than the blame-the-Republicans road. I see it as a part of his strategy to feint to the middle–for a while. I do not see it as any sort of ideological change.
Ilion: not children’s political expectations of rainbows and unicorns for all. Children’s expectations of a moral universe where people are trying to do the right thing, and are intelligent and responsible and not just out for their own re-election or corrupt. I think that’s understood.
Beth West: it has been clear ever since the election that Obama will take the high road and try to appeal to independents and disaffected moderates from his party in order to win in 2012. It won’t represent a change of heart; just a strategic move. So this is part of a long trend that I think we will see (and that I and others predicted). Then, after he wins in 2012 (which I hope will not happen), he will be free from the need to cater to moderates, and he is very likely to tack sharply left, especially if he gains Democrats in Congress in 2012.
Teach me, Master. I concede I’m outclassed here! (But you did leave out the portrait of the departed painted on velvet. That’s essential.)
We must know different kids. Until they’re socialized (and those few kids liberals have seem to remain feral until, oh, late middle age at least), childrens’ expectations are that they’re entitled to get what they want, when they want it, and everyone else can go hang.
It does, and I can’t stand it either. The only thing that makes it bearable is the Gedankenversuch of someone messing with the cadence of the teleprompter, alternately slowing it down until Obama is speaking like a pothead on Valium, and then speeding it up until he’s speaking like an auctioneer. That’s why I can sit through Obama’s speeches with a smile playing on my lips.
Occam’s Beard: that’s not the sort of kid I was at all, nor the sort of kid my son was, nor most of his friends. I’m not talking about 2-year-olds, nor was Obama referencing little kids either. His springing-off point was Christina Taylor, who by all accounts was very much the sort of idealistic kid who truly wanted those good things and believed them to be possible.
neo, fair enough.
Still, two-year olds is what kids are intrinsically, until and unless they’re raised properly. And if they’re being raised properly, they’re on their way to becoming responsible adults, no? So holding children up as exemplars is logically flawed, IMO.
SteveH, what about a tattoo concession for those who want to memorialize the occasion with an ever so tasteful tattoo?
Show’s over. Now it’s time to repeal Health Care.
But let’s not forget the Democrat’s MO and defeat that as well: Rule by mob, rule by fiat, rule by executive decree . . . anything but rule by legislative law but of course try and do that as well by fundamentally transforming America.
Every memorrial service I have ever attended or been a part of was aimed at providing honor to the vicims and solace for the families and friends. Obama did honor the victims by telling touching anecdotes about them. Those almost certainly provided some comfort to the families and friends, but the way this turned out, with the pep rally atmosphere, the center or purpose was not to honor the dead and comfort the families and friends. Instead it was all about Obama and his beliefs as well as the political implications of his statements about how we can be better than that, intimating that we are all guilty of causing the shooting.
A short, heartfelt speech by Obama with more time spent on letting ministers, family and friends remember the dead would have been more appropriate and provided more healing to those who are dealing with their grief.
Except for the American Indian blessing and a few references to the Bible, there were no religious overtones, which also struck me as “off.” You can do an acceptable non-denominational service – I attended many while in the military. It was just another demonstration of how deeply secular the dems are.
It was not a memorial service as most of us know them. It was political theatre. I wonder how many who lost a loved one are feeling even worse today as they realize how little of the memorial service was for or about their grief and suffering.
OB, we could do tattoosforthedead.com. For the overly squeamish who always wanted to sport a huge tattoo for eternity but couldn’t get past the pain part. Of course you’d need an open casket service or likely even open suit coat sans shirt for the full effect.
I did not watch it but tuned into TV when I thought it’d be over…and he was still talking. Ugh!
But I did wonder who the stranger was speaking in the conciliatory words…and what they had done w/ real Obama.
But the minute the cheers and standing ovations occurred, there was the guy we know, basking in the adulation that he was sure was for him; not tribute to those who lost lives, and those brave enough to run into/remain in the fray to help save, and stop Loughlin.
Most important, though, is remembering the fact that Obama can SAY anything. But it’s what he has done, and will continue to do that we should remain wary of.
And the frightening question re: will he fool the American people once again in 2012. (I shudder thinking about that….)
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me…..”
I find Neo’s explanatory defenses of the speech disconcerting. And troubling. If she can be persuaded to defend artifice, as it seems she has, we are in it deeply. Building a case for the “idealistic” dreams of a nine year-old is for her parents to do, not for the rest of us and not for Obama.
We are now entering a very dark and dangerous time in the life of America. It is entirely realistic to contemplate the chance of a physical attack on Palin, for example. Smarmy Obamaisms will not deter the Ayer wannabees on the left. Obama secretly would welcome that, I have little doubt, as the opportunity to smother us all with his benificent control.
Occam’s Beard: but in the context of the speech he was talking about Christina Taylor, and had described her in glowing terms. He then generalized to “our children,” but I think it’s clear he didn’t mean two-year-olds having a tantrum in the supermarket.
The reason I’m hammering this home is that I don’t think it’s necessary to stretch to criticize Obama. There’s plenty there to keep us busy. No need to charge him with saying things he’s really not saying.
You may think liberal Democrats are like those two-year-old, childish and demanding. But that’s a different point.
Tom: you are not understanding my point if you think I’m defending artifice.
I’m merely pointing out it was very well-done and will hit its intended mark.
I have said over and over on this blog that Obama will feint to the middle. I believe it’s a pretense. I’m not sure what makes you think I’ve retreated from that stance. I stated wishes that it were different, not beliefs.
(See my comment above for why I defended what he said about children’s hopes for government.)
neo, again, fair enough. I was addressing the sentiment generically, not in the context of the speech.
SteveH, re tattoos, I was thinking of tattoos for the mourners, but hell, tattoos all ’round!
I watched with fascinated horror a TV show depicting assorted members of the lower orders queuing up to “memorialize” some thing or other by getting a large garish tattoo, and then preening after it was applied. Natives in Borneo would probably roll their eyes.
Dems have always used “the children” as a tug at the heart strings excuse for their real agenda. I’d say the parents losing homes and jobs in record numbers doesn’t do all the children i’ve ever known any favors.
Oooops, guess BO doesn’t walk on water after all….
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/did-obama-lie-about-giffords-opening-her-eyes-for-the-first-time-video/
Mr. Bush met often with our wounded soldiers. He met and comforted the families of the fallen. He did so privately. He did so discreetly. He neither tried to gain political advantage nor sway public opinion.
If only Obama had a fraction of the integrity that Mr. Bush demonstrated I could sleep a little easier tonight. This could have and should have been a memorial to those who died and a muted celebration of those who survived. Were I a survivor or family member of one who died I would have been deeply offended at both the setting and the tone of what transpired last night.
Good point, Kaba.
Occam’s and Steve,
You are on a roll tonight.
I didn’t and didn’t want to see the speech giver in chief. I am so tired of of being lectured by to the man who always speaks first and asks questions later. After 2 years of highly compensated on the job training, he manages to mouth the right words at a memorial service. Impressive.
My only question is whether TOTUS does an automatic calculation of the expiration date for the words Obama reads.
Boy, are those computer translators good!
That last comment was directed toward a bit of now deleted spam.
Interesting comments all around.
Typically, he spoke in generalities and platitudes. Typically, he sold quite a few people.
Given the circumstances of the tragedy; it is very hard for me to interpret his platitudes as anything other than “speaking down”.
Also, considering the circumstances, he was guilty of the tired and corrupt tactic of “straw man” building. Maybe there was a disconnect between his teleprompters. One side was reassuring us that this was an act of individual derangement; while the other side could not resist lecturing us on our need for attitude, and behavior modification.
I know that I am prejudiced but, I honestly believe that Sarah Palin’s strong defense of free speech and open political discourse was more Presidential.