Oh, For God’s Sake! Now They Are Mad at Palin For Using the Phrase “Blood Libel!”; UPDATE: This May As Well Be the Open Thread on Obama’s Speech
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
So as you saw in a previous point that Sarah Palin called this smear campaign against her a “blood libel.” And the chattering monkeys of the left started screaming against their cages. How dare she? Doesn’t she know that this is the sole and exclusive province of the Jews?
From the New York Times blog (and cited favorably by Rachel Maddow’s blog)
The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make it rapidly go viral, is itself attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.
Reaction to Ms. Palin’s video was swift.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is a close friend of Ms. Giffords, issued a statement condemning her use of the phrase “blood libel.”
“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s spokesman. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Giffords’s faith and the events of the past week.”…
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of a pro-Israel group called J Street, said that “when Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”
But the ADL was more measured:
The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement that, in part, came to Ms. Palin’s defense.
“It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder,” Abraham Foxman, the group’s national director, said in a statement. “Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks.”
But Mr. Foxman added that “we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood-libel.’ ” He called it a phrase “fraught with pain in Jewish history.”
The WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart also accused Palin of being anti-Semitic:
That phrasing, that phrase is incredibly anti-Semitic. And no one is calling Sarah Palin an anti-Semite but for her to use that language a lot of people think she has dug a deep hole even deeper.
Yes, Jonathan, you are calling her an anti-Semite. And I am calling you a deranged idiot.
And Thinkprogress said… ah, Hell, we all know what they said and if you don’t just follow the stupid link and either you are stupid enough to believe anything they say, or you are already on to them by now.
And Andrew Sullivan. Really just go to Memeorandum and keep reading.
And then of course there are those who took this as a chance to assume that Palin is stupid. Consider Steve Benen: “I don’t imagine Palin actually knows what ‘blood libel’ means.” Given that he has no reason to know one way or the other, this is a statement of pure prejudice. Charles Johnson: “Palin herself probably never heard the term until [her speech writers] put the speech in front of her.” Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC (video): “Perhaps she didn’t know of the context of that phrase,” NBC correspondent and MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell said.” She says that because she thinks that this is somehow being fair to Palin because she thinks the phrase is so horrible.
I guess they don’t teach how to use Nexis over at MSNBC, because the only problem with this lefty meme is that, as Jim Geraghty points out, the use of the phrase is actually pretty common, and yes, far outside the context of the anti-Jewish blood libel. Indeed, let’s return to Charles Johnson, who wrote that “It’s utterly beyond the pale for Palin to employ this term to excuse her own rhetoric. But I’m not surprised.”
Sure, it is almost as awful as when one crazed right winger accused the Village Voice of attacking Bush in a way “strikingly similar to the blood libel propaganda directed at Israel by Arab countries.” Who was that crazed right winger? Why it was Charles Johnson himself. Yes, Charles there is something beyond the pale in all of this, but it’s not Palin’s words, but instead your hypocrisy.
But keep complaining, lefties. The more you do, the more people will watch the video and the more this blood libel will fail. Keep this up and Palin might be the next President of the United States. We could do worse. In fact, in 2008 we did.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: This is turning into an open thread on Obama’s speech, at the memorial that so many people are cheering at. So leave your comments below. WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
As usual, the loons have finally overplayed their hand – when milquetoasts like David Brooks and uber – lefties like Alan Dershowitz (except on the subject of Israel) are now defending Palin, Krugman and his filth will be on the run shortly. Krauthammer took Krugman apart in today’s column, and many more will follow. The blowback to this is already building, and it will be a tsunami of public recriminations to follow.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:17 pmPlease don’t refer to J Street as “pro-Israel” unless you have quotes around it. They are a fake pro-Israel group that tries to undermine support by including anti-Israel and anti-Semetic people in their meetings and as speakers. Joe Sestak was the only Senator that supported them last year. Check Commentary magazine or the blog Contention.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:23 pmOne major point, Dmac, is that America is trying to get on her feet economically. We have a looming instability problem with Obamacare’s impact on business. We have a big problem with oil prices. We have corruption with BP’s wrist slap.
The democrats are playing the most insincere game, even though America is hoping for DC to start cutting the budget ASAP, reforming Obamacare to save our jobs, and generally having a plan for the coming problems.
This is so frustrating. Obama is going to politicize this event tonight. A lot of people pretend he has the sense to avoid it, but he plays the same exact game every chance he gets.
This is a national tragedy worthy of his attention, but he better get his party’s act together. The same energy that routed the democrats in 2010 feels ten times as strong today. there is no doubt the democrats will use this even to try to stymie everything on the House agenda. Investigations, budget cuts, etc.
It’s not bad because their politics are bad. It’s bad because our country needs patriots on the left in order to get out of this deficit crisis.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:24 pm“Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of a pro-Israel group called J Street”
A.W. – J Street is a pretty new lobbying organization that maintains a “progressive” view of Israel that is out of the mainstream, which is why the Obama Administration pays attention to them. Their views are not traditional pro-Israel views.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:25 pmmike, daley
i know about them. but i figured that was a fight for another day.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:30 pmA.W. You’ll add the Dershowitz support, right? I think Scott linked it in the post below.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:33 pmDoesn’t the inclusion of the word “libel” in the phrase kind of, you know, acknowledge that one doesn’t believe in the story thus characterized? Maybe I’m dense, or an unwitting anti-Semite, but it sure seems that way to me.
Paul Dubuc (36053e) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:34 pmI’m waiting for Helen Thomas to chime in on the story. She hates her some Joooos.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:36 pmNothing the Left does anymore surprises, or upsets me, for they have demonstrated over and over again that, in the words of my USAF T.I., “(they) are lower than whale $hit, and that’s on the bottom of the ocean!”
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:39 pmThat phrasing, that phrase is incredibly anti-Semitic. And no one is calling Sarah Palin an anti-Semite but for her to use that language a lot of people think she has dug a deep hole even deeper.
Capehart is consistently a Massengill heir.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:40 pmThe blood libel wasn’t just against Palin, it was against a major political movement. The left wants to lie about us in order to change us.
The term Blood Libel works perfectly. The left can say it’s too much for them to handle, but they did accuse us of facilitating murder, and it wasn’t true. The term needs to be repeated a million times so they are aware they can’t get away with it.
The MSM is freaking because they realize Palin just deployed the perfect argument against what they did. They owe her an apology, and I think this episode shows that there is nothing Palin can do to avoid the nastiest MSM treatment possible. Even if she does nothing, she’s practically called a killer.
Might as well fire back. (That was a metapohor, MSM).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:42 pmThat phrase is NOT anti-Semitic. It’s a philo-Semitic phrase used to characterize an objectionable part of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Anti-Semites wouldn’t consider it a libel, but a fact.
You’re implying that saying the terms “Holocaust” or “Shoah” are also anti-Semitic. That’s ridiculous. The events were, the words aren’t.
Paul Dubuc (36053e) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:43 pmI think I am starting to understand what really is eating away at the lefties about this horrible attack in Tucson. They’re mad that the shooter was not a returning vet from Iraq (or Afghanistan, if Iraq was too much to ask for) so they could have pinned this on George W. Bush.
JVW (4463d3) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:50 pmDon’t forget to list the uses of the term by liberals. Linked in the previous post.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:50 pma) J-street is a Soros-funded organization, although they kept denying it until caught red-handed. And we all know how pro-Israel he is.
b) The use of “blood libel” is extremely precise and on point. Consider the classic parameters:
Ayup, I’d say that Krugman et. al. are promulgating a blood libel.
c) Granted that historically the term has applied to a specific accusation against the Jews, Professor Dershowitz has already demolished the relevance of that argument. Indeed, the term is a common political attack in Israel thrown around very much like “McCarthyism” is in this country. Although with one major difference: much evidence has accumulated that McCarthy was right about many of his accusations.
d) And if anybody claims that Palin’s use of the term is somehow anti-semitic [a big lie being used to defend a blood libel] let me say that I am Jewish, truly pro-Israel, and a retired member of the clergy and I was thinking the same thing – even when Bloomberg said that the Times Square bomber was probably a tea partier: blood libel.
great unknown (261470) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:51 pmPalin accurately named the Left’s tactic. They’re yelping because she hit the mark dead center.
ropelight (28261b) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:52 pmIt’s a good thing Loughner is the only guy who exhibits psychotic hate………………………………..
Seixon (ee9f62) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:54 pmJVW, one of the first lies I heard about this was that it was an Afghan veteran.
someone out there actually made that up.
Now, if I had made up the claim he was an Islamofascist, I’d be called a bigot. But the left peddles in vet smears so often and no one cares. The NYT alone has pushed smear after smear. Vets are raping, Vets are suicidal, etc etc.
You’re right… they probably wish Jared was a veteran.
—
anyone saying Palin is an anti-semite is self defeating. Let ’em go for it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:59 pmI’m not the one to say it (I’m not a Palin Supporter) – because honestly I didn’t know what it meant – and really never heard it used before – but if its controversial towards jews (again I’m clueless) why use it in such a sensitive speech?
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:01 pmI swear to you I think they’re “gaslighting” us
Saying Sarah Palin is partially responsible, then clamoring when she’s silent, then saying Sarah Palin needs to respond then when she does blame her for putting herself in the middle of a tragedy.
We’re not the crazy ones are we? I mean this is insane right?
Hawkins (421546) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:01 pmThey’re yelping because she hit the mark dead center
It was, from the Sarahcuda, another shot into the X-ring, that could be just as devastating as her previous score with “death panels”!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:01 pmThe democrats are playing the most insincere game, even though America is hoping for DC to start cutting the budget ASAP, reforming Obamacare to save our jobs, and generally having a plan for the coming problems.
True dat – but this is another in a long line of exreable versions of shouting “squirrel!” that don’t work anymore. Look for the GOP and Boehner to get down to brass tacks when they come back next week.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:03 pm“excreable”
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:03 pmLook. Her use of “blood libel” was wrong because it has Jewish or religious connotations. I’m sure someone ran it by a focus group or two last weekend because both she and Glenn Reynolds (or the WSJ, in its byline for the article) used the term. Yes, Deschwitz (sic) says it’s okay, but when the hell have you otherwise approved anything that he said.
Sarah can’t just go around making up meanings for words and not expect to get called out for it. It’s not that it’s the “exclusive province” of the Jews. It’s that the word doesn’t mean what she thinks it does.
Now why don’t you go have Patrick sue the dictionary companies?
Jim (87e69d) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:04 pmMy neighbors in Boca continue to heap vitriol on Palin and Bush. Of course many of them are Jews who buy the liberal media meme every time. One dumbass baitch still displays her Breck Girl for Potus bumper sticker. Whatever executive experience Palin had, surely it trumps that of the Messiah and Slow Joe Biden combined. I also notice the local rag editorial dunces are not bringing up Obama’s metaphorical reference from The Untouchables as uttered by Sean Connery.
Still wondering what made Charles Johnson convert from a somewhat reasonable man to a far left loon. Don’t people usually abandon leftardism for reality, when they actually learn to think and show logic? Powerline has a nice link to kos and DU type posters calling for the “assassination of that c*** Palin”.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:10 pmWhat an astonishing pack of bile you found, undiluted with any rational point at all. Nice job, A.W.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:14 pmNow They Are Mad at Palin For Using the Phrase “Blood Libel!”
I disagree. They’re mad at Palin for being an outpsoken woman in the Republican party, for having the temerity to campaign against their anointed messiah Obama, and for actually having worked to reach high political office (instead of having it handed to her like a good little member of a liberal-approved victim class).
All these other things… they’re just excuses, not reasons.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:14 pmCharles Johnson is still alive?
Because his blog’s Top 100 status died about 3 years ago, around the time he lost his mind.
Someone should tell him.
Mitch (890cbf) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:24 pmCapehart, can’t help it, Wellstone was one of his
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:27 pmprofessors, and has learned little since.
Because it is an excellent comparison.
It makes the point well. A further point, Palin was repeating the term. It was used hundreds of times to describe this particular situation because the term fits perfectly. She’s just using the normal language in an uncontroverisal manner.
There’s no reason for us to moderate our ideas to avoid thoughtcrime. Just say it how it is. This was the only part of her long video that really got to the point. This is a massive attempt to put a bloody evil on legitimate politics. It’s blood libel.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:34 pmMy go-to place to find what Jewish Conservatives are thinking is the Contentions blog at Commentary Magazine. Regarding this kerfuffle, John Podhoretz thinks that Palin’s use is insensitive, but doubts that she fully understands or appreciates the significance of the term while pointing out that so many of her critics also appear to be equally ignorant of it. Jonathan Tobin joins the chorus of those who point out that the term has been widely used in several contexts without provoking this sort of outcry. Podhoretz then responds and while generally defending Palin suggests that she needs to be more careful about using terms that provide openings for the left to attack her.
JVW (4463d3) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:36 pmThat’s impossible.
The attack was much worse before she responded. Then, she was a killer. Now, she’s just using a term accurately, but in a way that makes other blood libeled people … well, mostly not care, but a few pundits think it’s unfair this time.
Yeah, it’s blood libel anyway. The same people who were moaning about tone where also manufacturing the nastiest smear in a long while.
I see absolutely no indication Palin was ignorant about the term. She doesn’t have to pretend the people watching her video are idiots, the way the left likes to. Most of us understand that it’s a reference to the Protocols of Zion, where ghouls accused a huge group of an evil that wasn’t real. The reason people were using the term was to say this is along the same lines of dishonesty.
The reason some of the MSM hate the term is because they can’t understand that they really are the same sort of evil that would blood libel Zionists with hysterical myths. But they are.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:48 pm1. J-Street is not pro-Israel, and no longer even pretends to be. They used to make that claim, but dropped it over a year ago. So the NYT is behind the times on its lies.
2. Giffords is not Jewish. The definition of a Jew has been the same for 3320 years, and nobody has the right to change it. A Jew is someone whose mother was Jewish or who converted. Simply claiming to be Jewish is no more effective than claiming to be six foot tall or claiming to be psychic. Giffords fulfills neither criterion, therefore she is not a Jew, end of story.
3. Blood libel is exactly what this is, and Palin is exactly right to call it that. If you don’t want her to complain of being blood libeled then don’t do it to her. It’s really as simple as that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:56 pmOh, and Palin isn’t the first gentile to be blood-libeled. Lindy Chamberlain was subject to one too, and I called it on the first day of the first inquest, when that “sacrifice in the wilderness” nonsense came up. Had she belonged to a “normal” religion she would never have been put through that ordeal. (PS: The person who called the coroner and pointed out the nonsense of that claim was Rebbetzin Feldman from Sydney.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/12/2011 @ 3:58 pmDmac: Krugman and his filth will be on the run shortly.
Please go on. I find your words and rhetoric familiar somehow…
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:07 pmDmac: The blowback to this is already building, and it will be a tsunami of public recriminations to follow.
Will this tusnami have much in the form of death and bullet holes?
Again, your words, are so compelling…
Please..please. Speak on.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:09 pmMilhouse, I’ll leave it to the Jewish people to decide who gets to be considered a Jew and who doesn’t, but here is a explanation of Rep. Gifford’s religious leanings from the left-wing Jewish newspaper/magazine Forward.
JVW (4463d3) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:11 pmDmac: but this is another in a long line of
exreableexecrable versions of shouting “squirrel!” that don’t work anymore.Execrable-You mean as in excrement? As in something that smells foul and isn’t human and needs to be flushed or perhaps put back into the earth to fertilize it?
Fascinating.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:12 pmHere we see Assclown, not finding any rhetoric at all to misrepresent fraudulently like his hero the lying Krugman, manufactures rhetoric to put in others’ mouths and blame them for.
This is consistent with the dishonest behavior of Democrats for the last 5 days.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:13 pmDmac, you are the gift that keeps giving.
Also, denial/the Nile etc..etc….
I’ll give you the podium now to gift the world with your kind thoughtful words and sentiment(s).
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:14 pmSPQR: This is consistent with the dishonest behavior of Democrats for the last 5 days.
Only 5 days?
C’mon, you’ve thought Democrats lying scum rats and insects who deserve a beating and perhaps a bit more than that since I’ve read this blog since the Summer of 2008.
I could probably find hundreds of comments here from you and the other regulars, not to mention the posts that prove that.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:18 pm#37 quite the fitting name for a troll. I think people are starting to wise up to the blatant hypocrisy and lies of many liberal pundits. For some reason the goofy talking heads like Chrissie matthews and olberdouche command millions of dollars. It can’t be because of high ratings. Does something like Air America fail because they show no humor or because taxpayers already support the tripe of PBS and NPR? We hear a constant wailing about the unfairness of conservative talk radio, supported by people who buy the products advertised on those shows. How come liberals are so unable to compete at all? They need a “Fairness Doctrine”? Why do unions want or need Card check laws in order that workers have no secret ballot? Why does the Justice Department look the other way when minorities commit criminal acts at the polls or on the campaign trail?
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:21 pm@37
I agree that Dmac probably meant “execrable”, but your definition is wrong. Unless, like Louchner, you’re just creating your own language, then I have no idea what you mean anyway.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:23 pmI’m not Jewish, so I have no idea what the term entails, but regardless, it IS pretty stupid/careless to use any loaded term at a time of heated debate.
Aren’t speechwriters paid to check things like that?
JEA (7f83c4) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:23 pmI happen to think that her use of “blood libel” was in poor taste, but I don’t see how it’s a bigger story than, you know, the actual libel. Blood or otherwise.
roy (d946db) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:27 pmCalypso Louie Farrakhan – Mr. Assclown was formerly a frequent contributor of no value to this blog. He recently returned after a long hiatus.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:29 pmYou guys can spin this all you want. The thing you can’t spin and can’t be denied is that Az is a hateful, anti-immigrant (SB1070), right wing gun loving, liberal despising, talk radio listening, FOx news loving atmosphere filled with some of the most lamentable anti-constitional (Brewer, Arpaio, Kyl) politicians in the country. To say the atmosphere there is toxic is an understatement.
And now, the TP and GOP agenda has been crippled because, this country doesn’t want to be Arizoni-fied, and that is what the promise to do.
Sadly now that they need to watch their language and stop calling for “watering trees…” and shot liberals and progressive, the GOP, Palin etc…have lost one of the most powerful tools the have. The stuff that get’s people to the voting booths, spending money on books and campaigns and listening to the radio and watching TV programs. That tool being hate and lies and viscous calls to violence and dog whistle code like Palin is unable of using it would see (cf. Blood Libel).
But look, Limnaugh, Beck, Palin, etc…and the extreme Right needs to circle the wagons now and be as foward looking and unthoughtful and unremorseful as possible over this tragedy lest there is a chink in their armor and the whole lucrative con game sinks like the Titanic.
Which it is, and it will, perhaps not now, but it is inevitable, because they’ve unleashed something that doesn’t easily go back into it’s hole. Which is why is so irresponsible to unleash that energy in the first place. But unleash it they have and the hatred and toxicity is even now working it’s way through and crystallizing a drastic need for action from the Militia’s and White Supremicists (both on the extreme and deep in the Tea Party), the rapturist’s, and the arrested adolescent like Randist’s and the ( Ta da!!) mentally unstable, who soak up that toxicity and hate because they can’t differentiate from the real and the unreal and can’t process all that hate talk.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:32 pmAssclown, your fraudulent behavior in inventing words to put into my mouth only confirms my point.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:32 pmAssclown, the hate is all yours in your 4:32pm comment. We’ve seen that the most prominent claims of violent rhetoric are frauds – like Krugman’s.
The only question is why you are doubling down on the misrepresentations. The public sees through it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:33 pmYou guys can spin this all you want. The thing you can’t spin and can’t be denied is that Az is a hateful, anti-immigrant (SB1070), right wing gun loving, liberal despising, talk radio listening, FOx news loving atmosphere filled with some of the most lamentable anti-constitional (Brewer, Arpaio, Kyl) politicians in the country. To say the atmosphere there is toxic is an understatement.
Then don’t live there
The kid was 22…he could have moved.
Hawkins (421546) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:34 pmDaleyrocks: Calypso Louie Farrakhan – Mr. Assclown was formerly a frequent contributor of no value to this blog. He recently returned after a long hiatus.
Thank you for that introduction. Very kind, very kind….
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:34 pmI wonder if she used the term Blood Libel because it forces people to discuss the fact that people libeled her about bloodshed. Just as her death panels comment forced people to talk about prospective legal language that would empanel people who levy death.
Interesting. Instantly, people start talking about how, well… this set of awful lies just isn’t the same because Palin isn’t a Jew.
And then people like roy say: “Well so what? The important thing is that you did libel a peaceful political movement about bloodshed, right? The term is not that important in comparison.”
If Palin decided to accept the hit for the term, in order to shift the debate so massively, then that really is a brilliant political tactic.
In fact, it’s so brilliant that I have a hard time believing she planned it. But then… this isn’t the first time things have worked that way for her. At the very least, someone she is relying on has done a good job.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:34 pm@46
I see your conscience dreaming is really coming along, Assclown.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:35 pmHawkins: The kid was 22…he could have moved.
He was pretty poor, working shit jobs at Quizno’s and whatnot and dealing with some major emotional instability and mental pain.
People find it hard to move even under the best of conditions.
This kid was inundated with hatred and talk of the end-times and some carzy ideas of being in his own matrix-like world through his love of Lucid dreaming (I hope more light is shed onthat…).
Schizophrenic.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:38 pmOh dear! Can’t have a non hard leftist media out there! People might just have the means to change the channel from ABC sometimes! Then ideas would have to compete and democrats wouldn’t be able to defraud everybody!!!
This is racist!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:38 pmIf all of these evils of Republicans are so obvious, why did Krugman have to fraudulently manufacture his examples?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:38 pmAssclown_Doodyheads You obviously don’t live in Arizona so you get your in formation from biased sources.
“anti-immigrant (SB1070)” – So typical you would describe legislation that mirrors federal law this way. You don’t even attempt to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants in the process.
I’ll let our residents of Arizona demolish your false talking points.
A little over 20 minutes before Zero speaks.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:39 pmi did see dershowitz and forgot to include him.
That will be rectified.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:41 pmDustin: Oh dear! Can’t have a non hard leftist media out there!
I would welcome an intelligent, non-sensational, thoughtful right-wing TV station with a prodigious sense of history, literature, law etc…
That would be fun.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:42 pmMr. Assclown – Please don’t get any of that foam from your mouth on me. I don’t want to catch anything you’ve got.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:42 pm“I would welcome an intelligent, non-sensational, thoughtful right-wing TV station with a prodigious sense of history, literature, law etc…”
ANOTHER LIE
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:43 pmSo do we call it the Murder in Tucson “Together We Thrive Murders” ?
Neo (03e5c2) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:45 pmYou are named “assclown”, you do not get to decide what is and is not sensational or thoughtful. Fox is superior to CNN and MSNBC, but the TV format itself is limited.
It’s not your place to condemn the exchange of ideas you don’t like. It’s quite clear from your dishonest characterization of many issues, that the only news you will find tolerable is extreme hard leftist.
If you think there’s a better formula for news, make the damn station yourself. People flock to the best product, which is why Fox News is winning. 4th in Cable vs 29th and 37th. It’s because you are more informed when you watch Fox News.
Continue screaming that you can’t accept it. It doesn’t matter at all because the left’s effort to associate free speech with murder was just called “blood libel”, and that characterization has hit its mark.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:46 pm@57
I would welcome a liberal capable of exhibiting integrity.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:48 pmWhat would it be like had the esteemed media dug into Obama’s background the way they continue to investigate, stalk and harass Palin? Yes, I know any close observation of Obama and his friends is verboten as racist. Bush is a big dummy and got us into wars that must be ended, etc. Funny how the wars go on and now the media doesn’t give a spit about deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan. But the little I have looked, it does appear that much of the world outside the US who worshipped this awful Potus has been wising up. Lurch and algore were so sophisticated and bright and yet Dubya had better grades. Palin went from mayor of small town to governor of an “insignificant” state with small population. Obama went from community organizer to a few years as state and then US Senator, mostly voting “present”. If Palin is so stupid and deemed easily beaten by Obama in 2012, why then do they fear her so much? I have never heard any woman loathed to such extent as Palin has. Honestly, would Palin have done a better job as POTUS rather then the likes of Jimmy Carter, Dukakis, Algore, Kerry, Obama, Biden et al? I guess it depends if you prefer socialism and nanny state or not. I hope GOP picks someone truly competitive in 2012 and not someone the media anoints as the best for GOP.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:50 pmI know, you like me, will want to watch our brilliant and very decent and very compassionate president speaking tonight to heal the nation of this tragedy, and take us to an era of civil discourse, so I’ll log off now.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:57 pmYou are named “assclown”, you do not get to decide what is and is not sensational or thoughtful. Fox is superior to CNN and MSNBC, but the TV format itself is limited.
Yes, dastardly of me to call myself that right?
I’m just trying to fit it in…
Oops…here’s President Obama.
Shhh…listen.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 4:59 pmNo, I’ll not listen to Obama try to make political points as fraudulent as Krugman’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:01 pmI’m sure you are very impressed with yourself. Maybe you can stop patting yourself on the back and read my comment again. I noted you are the last person who gets to call someone sensational if you go that far to be a troll.
It’s like Paris Hilton calling someone a skank, or Obama calling someone a junkie.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:03 pmObama calling someone a junkie.
Can you clarify this? It’s a rich vein of something I would like to understand more fully.
Please go on, (while the Indian Medicine Man gives his blessings).
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:14 pm‘Oh, For God’s Sake! Now They Are Mad at Palin For Using the Phrase “Blood Libel!”’
A shocking abuse of power.
Hopefully a Dem Congressthing will propose passing a law that will make it a felony for Alaska residents to use the term “blood libel” when they’re holding forth.
If we fail to do so, it will likely mean the end of the Republic as we know it.
Dave Surls (b7cc73) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:16 pmObama sitting next to a Skutnik.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:22 pmare we live-blogging mournapalooza?
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:27 pmWow, Daniel Hernandez looks and sounds like a Hispanic version of Peter/The Family Guy. LOL.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:28 pmAh, the classiness of the enlightened Democratic Socialist serving as a United States Senator at work.
JVW (4463d3) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:28 pmWhere is Granny McRictusbotoxface sitting?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:31 pmpropaganda whore Viv Schiller’s National Soros Radio is live-blogging
oh yeah that’s the stuff feel the healing wash over you
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:31 pmI certainly understand the underlying point people are trying to make about the use of the term, but as usual, when it comes to Palin, it quickly turns from a reasonable semantic debate to a full-on smear fest.
No one other than Palin (besides maybe Bush) would be attacked for using a term like this “incorrectly”. The quotes are intentional, because it’s basically an argument between casual usage and historically correct usage.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why a term like “blood libel” should only apply to a specific historical context. When you hear it, you immediately understand what the person means. It’s a libel based around the spilling of blood. That’s exactly how the hate-mongering Palin-haters libeled her.
Palin should just not even entertain responding to this hyperventilating, psychotic hate-mongering anymore, it’s not even worth it at all. They’ll just attack her for saying a letter wrong at the next turn, or looking in the wrong direction, or wearing her glasses “incorrectly”.
These rabid partisan hacks will pick up any feces they find to throw at her, so there’s just not any point of joining them in the mud.
Seixon (ee9f62) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:33 pmCreator?! He must be some racist sexist new Earth Christer.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:34 pmAssclown_Doodyheads – I’m feeling a lot of hate at that service aren’t you? It’s coming off Obama who’s thinking, should I say it or shouldn’t I.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:35 pmThe system didn’t work!
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:36 pmI have never heard screaming or cheering at a memorial service. At least not since Wellstone.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:37 pmbut also the phrase blood libel sets a tone cause everyone knows people who blood libel other people are dirty…
it was like when Joe Wilson called bumblef a liar. It doesn’t matter that it’s true it set a wrong tone at that place and time.
Today is a day of healing.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:38 pmyou darn well better start healing after they designed a spiffy logo for you
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:42 pmMy masculine energy is just bursting with mourning right now.
Seriously, America: Sarah Palin really isn’t all that, but her video today was a drastically superior memorial to Obama’s.
I wonder if that won’t sink in just a little bit. I prefer a different nominee, but they will probably have the same professional, serious tone Palin showed today. We live in serious times, and these people turn murder into a hippie party.
there’s a little girl in a coffin right now, and they are cheering and enjoying their new swag. America can do better.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:43 pmThis is just bizarre.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:44 pmIs he going to smile?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:45 pmWoooooo!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:45 pmHe’s trying very hard not to smile.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:45 pmfirst I wanna give a shout out to my homies
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:46 pmThis is not really very memorial-y.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:46 pmNow I’m trying hard not to laugh, happy.
I think your moniker is inappropriate right now, btw.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:47 pmI bet a large chunk of the people in that audience haven’t gotten up and walked out simply out of respect for the victims of the slaughter.
The speakers are talking about peyote mana or some crap, instead of talking about free speech and the heroism of the day. That Dorwin Stoddard showed us how to thrive, but his Christianity and honorable marriage is not going to be a topic, I guess. The greatest lesson in this hell is going to be ignored because the democrats want a message of “don’t criticize us, or we aren’t together and thriving!”
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:47 pmReading through all this, I think Palin’s use of the term was inappropriate, but not offensive enough to deserve the manufactured howls of outrage.
The reason I think her use was inappropriate is that it overrates the consequences of the Left’s accusations. People died, often rather horribly, because of the medieval blood libels aimed at the Jews. Others were lucky enough to merely suffer long imprisonment and show trials. When conservatives start getting killed after being accused in the way Palin was attacked, then using the term would be very appropriate. But not now.
kishnevi (9ee373) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:47 pmJD, no, it is not. But: woooooooooo!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:47 pmWhoop whoop!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:48 pmIf Sarah Palin cured cancer and perfected cold fusion tomorrow, the Left would first complain that she was throwing doctors and miners out of work, and then demand to know why she hadn’t done it sooner.
gahrie (ed7a50) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:48 pmIt isn’t “Gabby”, it’s Congresswoman Giffords. This isn’t a conversation at the dinner table, it’s a God Damn memorial.
And I want to slap every single person who yelled “we love you” at Obama.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:48 pmBased on the introduction alone, I take verything I said about Palin back.Small beer…
Apparently the memorial service is nothing more than a celebration of the me, Me, ME, that is Barack Freaking Obama.
I thought Palin was trying, as more a polemicist than a leader, to make this about her. May be I was wrong. She cannot hold a candle to the walking talking ego that is this arrogant jerkoff. When a healing hand held out to comfort is needed-grace, digniy decorum.We instead get the this utter crap campaign rally.
What a Goddamn disgrace.
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:49 pmYeah, I caught a glimpse of it and I was thinking just that – why the hell is everyone clapping and cheering, so often if at all? What happened to a somber reflection on the pain and loss of the community? But no – “We’re so honored to have the president of our great country here tonight”… and the crowd, fickle and shortsighted motherfuckers that they are, goes nuts. You know who I bet doesn’t fell like clapping? Christina Green’s parents.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:49 pmYou said it right, man – they just turned a mass murder into a political rally. Disgusting.
laughter can be very healing
also, neosporin
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:49 pmGrad of our law school. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:49 pmI am certainly happy smegmanose poopmime is back to raise the discourse.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:49 pmGuys, the only rational response to the loony left’s Granfaloon ( go ahead, look it up) is a hearty “fuck you and the horse you rode in on”.
mojo (4e4a98) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:50 pmIt certainly wasn’t the same degree of harm. I don’t think anyone is confused about that, though. she mentioned it in a single sentence that noted the media shouldn’t manufacture such lies. I think the way she did it probably conveys the fact you’re completely right about the difference in scope.
I dunno. I also think it was provocative for a good reason.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:50 pmIs that what this is?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:50 pmThis memorial brought to you by Doritos.
Doritos: when you need to feed that aching hole in the very center of your being, think “Doritos”.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:51 pmHe is actually doing well by the victims. But he is still a douche, and this still is not a memorial service.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:52 pmIt’s getting better. There is nothing wrong with telling funny stories that revive good memories about the dead; that’s good.
But I could have done with a little less WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:53 pmmortifying
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:53 pmThe applause is loudest at the most political points and most begrudging whenever real heroism is mentioned.
This is a fucking disgrace.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:54 pmAaaaaargh. This part is tough.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:54 pm(Catching up on comments)
You mean today is the day Obama gets to play mourner in chief? I’m glad I’ve been too busy to pay attention to TV this week.
kishnevi (9ee373) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:54 pmHad President Obama any decency, the first words out of his mouth would have been “Shut up! How dare you people treat this like a pep rally. This is a MEMORIAL, and I expect you to ACT like it!”
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:55 pm“There is nothing wrong with telling funny stories that revive good memories about the dead; that’s good.”
– Patterico
Only if they’re told through tears.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:55 pmThis is touching, no doubt about that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:56 pmScott – damn right. It’s good to see you around, sir.
Fuckin’ Obama.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:56 pmI wonder if she can see.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:57 pmSo apparently, her husband missed being the first one she saw because Obama had to come give a talk…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:57 pmI wish Obama wouldn’t bother with partisanship. There is a hell of a lot more to ‘thriving together’ than Republicans considering support for Democrats. This just doesn’t seem like the right way for a politician to memorialize anyone.
Palin managed to describe this event without a hint of politics.
Yes. That would have drastically improved his standing in the entire nation’s eyes, I think. More importantly, he is the leader and this was his responsibility. I know it’s in vogue to have a New Orleans style party for a memorial, but that’s for the family to decide, not the throngs who didn’t even know the people being remembered.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:57 pmOh my. I just started watching. Oh my.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:58 pmOk, the shout out to the intern and such? I’ll support a cheer for those.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:58 pm“…Az is a hateful, anti-immigrant (SB1070), right wing gun loving, liberal despising, talk radio listening, FOx news loving atmosphere”
Sounds like my kind of state, except for the watching television part (and the fact that it’s 120 degrees in the shade half the time).
So, what’s your point?
Dave Surls (b7cc73) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:59 pmNice of you folks to let the guy finish his speech before the knives come out.
Real classy.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:59 pmObambi could learn from Kelly and Hernandez how to comport oneself.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:59 pmand now a big warm Arizona welcome for the mournapalooza dancers!
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:59 pmFuck off, Assclown.
Three cheers for the cheers for the heroes.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:00 pmAll the yelling and cheering is unseemly and more than a bit disquieting. I won’t pretend the words of Janet Napolitano or Eric Holder have any attraction for me, nor do I anticipate Obama’s platitudes will elevate the occasion beyond a photo op and a campaign whistle-stop.
Obama just claimed that “Gabby opened her eyes” when he visited her in the hospital. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t send her bill, or at least pass the hat.
ropelight (28261b) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:00 pmThis isn’t about Obama. He doesn’t get some kind of special protection from live blog style discussion just because of the tragedy he’s remembering.
Frankly, we’ve taken much worse than he’s taking right now, anyway. But thanks for the primer on class, “Assclown”.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:01 pmGo fuck yourself.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:01 pmVictim Phyllis Schneck, Obama says, was “a Republican, [who] took a liking to Gabby [Rep. Giffords], and wanted to get to know her better.”
Barry, much to his surrpise, discovered upon arriving in Washington that not all Republicans had horns nor drank the blood of small children.
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:03 pmOk, so far, so good with this part…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:03 pmDiscourse so sharply polarized, blame the ills of all the world at the feet of those we disagree with, heals not wounds.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:03 pmWhen Bush said there is evil in the world, he was criticized for days.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:03 pm“Three cheers for the cheers for the heroes.”
– Patterico
I still think it’s the wrong forum for that. A memorial service is a mourning event. Obama should hold a separate event to honor the people who deserve honoring, not try to tack it onto to an expression of supposed grief with a big fat clueless smile on his face. Because their shouldn’t be raucous, moronic cheering at a memorial service. Period.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:04 pmAbove the partisan fray!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:05 pmyay! I was worried he wouldn’t get around to exploiting mournapalooza, but he pulled through.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:05 pmUNTIL LATER: when we get the speech about rhetoric.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:05 pmWe cannot used this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. You should talk to your supporters and the MFM Barcky.
He would not know humility if it crawled out his weener hole and did an Irish jig right in front of him.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:06 pmReal classy.
What do you know about class, Asswipe?
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:06 pmI get this. But I don’t know. ONLY for the real heroes, I think it’s nice to have an expression of thanks and support.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:06 pmIt seems so dark to me to even discuss speech.
But what’s really bugging me is that Obama didn’t feel this kind of ‘conversation’ was needed after the Ft Hood murders. What about those victims didn’t justify this level of discussion?
He’s talking about making sure we speak in the way Obama wants (despite his own record on this). When is the Ft Hood discussion?
Rev Wright is probably laughing his ass off right now.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:07 pmFrankly, we’ve taken much worse than he’s taking right now
Yes, it’s all about you, and whoever the rest of “we.”
And Sarah Palin, of course. The world revolves around her and her every word and action screams that narcissism out relentlessly.
Get over yourselves, already.
Assclown_Doodyheads (6d6c52) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:07 pmOk, I’m going to say it: this part of the speech (minus the clapping) is good.
But still, I don’t know… Shouldn’t this have been an oval office address tomorrow night?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:08 pmJust get lost. Criticizing Obama during his lame speech on how we shouldn’t speak freely is not similar to Palin being blamed for murder.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:08 pmwe can know beyond a shadow of a doubt he was a stark raving wackadoodle … it’s very craven and cowardly for bumblef to shroud these events with uncertainty.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:08 pmSince it didn’t make it through a filter last time…
Go. F**k. Yourself.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:09 pmI thought I said “Fuck off, Assclown.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:09 pmI’m lolling at the various chimpouts over Palin’s use of “blood libel.”
“THAT TERM IS EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR USE BY JEWS ONLY, YOU BIGOTED HATER!” /lib-rage
Another Chris (129d96) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:10 pmYou may ask yourself….
Guess cribbing vintage Talking Heads isn’t that awful.
The tenor of this thing really is disgraceful. Suspect the venue of a college is a big part of the problem. DOn’t know who made that decision, but the fact this administration is chock full of academics leads you to think it’s the Obami. Does Tuscon have a cathedral or some mega-church?
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:10 pmtakeaway – Barcky healed Gabby!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:10 pmYay! Claptrap about discourse.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:12 pmNow he’s talking about Giffords like she’s dead.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:13 pm“More civil and honest public discourse…”
Indeed. Take a long look in the mirror. They bring a knife, you bring a gun…
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:13 pmI still think it’s the wrong forum for that. A memorial service is a mourning event. Obama should hold a separate event to honor the people who deserve honoring, not try to tack it onto to an expression of supposed grief with a big fat clueless smile on his face. Because their shouldn’t be raucous, moronic cheering at a memorial service. Period.
Laughter is lovely at memorials as people share a common memory, or something special about the person they collectively knew. It’s a bit jarring to hear the roars and cheers but if there are going to be those displays of emotion, I’m glad they’re directed toward those heroic ones and not toward anyone else. However, it does have a bit of the campaigning feel to it, but maybe that’s just my cynicism re President Obama.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:13 pmObama is absolutely mastering this speech right now. He rebuked the crap out of the hate-mongering left for their blame-shifting manure. The speech is not about him, at all. It’s all about the victims, their families, and everyone around them.
10 stars.
Seixon (ee9f62) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:13 pmI am going to widen my circle of concern so I can bequeath something.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:13 pmLet’s always conduct political debate as if we are thinking about dead people.
And bring a gun to a knife fight!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:14 pmSomebody told me Teh won was going to speak today….
did I miss anything?
Perhaps the crapclown can make sense of this?
AD-RtR/OS! (f429c0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:14 pmHe just pulled that unite / divide quote from his campaign.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:14 pmunder your administration we are abysmally failing all of our challenges as a nation, and bumble? It’s not for a lack of civility.
It’s cause you suck balls and spend like a crack whore.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:14 pmSeixon: you are seeing more rebuking than I am.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:15 pm“I get this. But I don’t know. ONLY for the real heroes, I think it’s nice to have an expression of thanks and support.”
– Patterico
Let me qualify my statement a wee bit: if Obama were speaking to a crowd completely composed of people involved in the Safeway shooting, and their friends and families, and the friends and families of the dead and wounded – those directly and painfully impacted by the shooting, the bereft – then perhaps the suggestion of a round of applause would be appropriate, because he’d risk being the only one clapping in a room full of shell-shocked mourners. But he’s playing to a crowd of detached dignitaries, political celebrities, and a bunch of idiots eager to be where the action is – frankly, people that don’t really care about the dead at any visceral level. Yes, the friends and families of the dead are mixed in there – but they’ve become drops in a bucket of political sentiment, who’ll feel compelled to start clapping whenever the rest of the excited little seals start slapping their fins together. And I can imagine that that could prompt some considerable resentment.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:15 pmAssclown is on “mute” for now.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:15 pmI I I I I I I I I I i I I I
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:16 pmGet that prideful look off your face, Barry.
Jesus.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:16 pmTHE GREAT ONE.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:16 pmThe standing ovations are jarring. They seem out of place.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:17 pmAaaargh again.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:17 pmnow it’s dissolved in to a Diane Warren ditty
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:18 pm*into*
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:18 pmWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:18 pmassclown doodyhead
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:19 pmbarks of carzy ideas like
amc gremlin
Time for a debate about how great Obama was and how much he helped himself politically. Awesome? Or TOTALLY awesome?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:19 pm“Laughter is lovely at memorials as people share a common memory, or something special about the person they collectively knew. It’s a bit jarring to hear the roars and cheers but if there are going to be those displays of emotion, I’m glad they’re directed toward those heroic ones and not toward anyone else. However, it does have a bit of the campaigning feel to it, but maybe that’s just my cynicism re President Obama.”
– Dana
Like I said before, Dana, laughter at a memorial can indeed be lovely – but only when it’s laughter, mirth, for the right reasons; and then it’s usually laughter through tears. This is none of those things, I don’t think, because the vast majority of the people at this event didn’t know the people whose stories they’re laughing about or applauding. So it’s disingenuous, which seems the last thing a memorial service should be.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:19 pmWhat does the panel say? (Watching Fox, of course.)
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:19 pmI think Leviticus has an interesting point.
Seixon, you’re right that some people deserve a sharp rebuke from the President for the blood libel. I may have missed this rebuke (not being sarcastic), but I’m glad someone says there was one.
I’ll look for it in the transcript later. This would really elevate the President in the nation’s eyes, justifiably, though I don’t mind if he limited this rebuke appropriately because the event is a memorial of the dead, not a discourse on American politics.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:20 pmWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:20 pmMr. Drudge has the speech now
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:20 pmObama just reached out to the Right and Center tonight; rebuke him at your own peril.
Seixon (ee9f62) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:21 pmCan we skip this president of the university guy and get right to the panel? I need to hear how great Obama’s speech was for him politically.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:21 pmIt’s a moment of silence.
…
…
…
Ah, hell.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:21 pmI didn’t see it all, but not bad from what I saw. I was initially disconcerted by the whooping and hollering. No problem with what he said.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:22 pmThat might actually be a little harsh on my part, that last bit – if the crowd can sympathize or empathize, I suppose they can feel something genuine towards the victims and the heroes and their families. But this particular event still feels disingenuous to me.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:22 pmA musical selection…
“And now everyone give it up for NELLY!!!”
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:22 pmThe first member of the panel says “TOTALLY awesome.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:22 pmIt’s “for the children”. Of course.
It’s important for your kids and all kids to have hopes and dreams. There’s something wonderful about that. And may we never forget Christina Greene and all the victims and their families, and may they find solace and comfort.
But there comes a point that we have to be honest with our children that life is not an unending series of happy stories,you have to get off your behind and work, and some days are better and worse than others. The idea we have to conform our government to the ideal of 9-year olds is somewhere between foolish and insane. But the Left has kept this “It’s for the children” meme to ram through Big Government forever, so why stop now?
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:23 pmI was disconcerted by the whooping pretty much all the way through. Except when they were talking about the heroes.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:23 pmanother place bumblef leaves it an open question as to whether our friend Jared is a drooling homicidal wackadoodle or… was he motivated by something else????
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:24 pmThis is what my gripe boils down to: was there any sense of genuine shock or grief in that so-called “memorial service”? Not from what I saw… so what was it?
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:24 pmLeviticus, I mentioned earlier it had a tinge of a campaign(y) feel to it: the arena, standing ovations, the crescendos, etc. Perhaps that’s what’s niggling at you as well?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:24 pmYou may be right, depending on how much he reached out. There’s a lot of bad blood out there from the ‘punch back twice as hard’ history, and the Rev Wright impression many have. But if Obama reached out, he deserves credit. The nation needs that.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean people will forget the political tactics of the past year. We’re pretty outraged about things that are more important than speeches.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:24 pmI don’t think emotions are interesting enough to the president for him to feel one for very long. Well, this gloom is getting boring, let’s have a shout-out! Okay joke-time is over, let’s be stern. Okay being stern is probably looking bad on the cameras now, time to be hopeful…
DeepElemNlues (a78b16) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:25 pmmy favorite part was Eric Holder he reeks of justice like nobody’s bidness
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:25 pmDana,
Yes. Absolutely. That was a calculated exploitation of a massacre.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:26 pmIn the same way Boehner “reached out” after the election. It’s all wink-wink nudge-nudge.
DeepElemNlues (a78b16) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:26 pmCan someone review the reaching out and rebuking parts for me? I might have missed that what with all the cheers and everything
I hope the 9 year-old’s family is happy if it turns out that this was good for Obama politically.
Because that’s what’s important, and what will now be discussed for the next 24 fucking hours.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:27 pmlike He always say
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:27 pmlet Him be perfectly clear
worship false idols
One minor issue with the speech…
The correct phrasing would have been “What we SHOULDN’T have done is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another.”
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:27 pmanother place he gives his bumblef blessing to theories of rhetoric as catalyst
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:27 pmSo, politically, how was this for Obama? Can we finally start discussing that incessantly?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:27 pmThe second best part:
watching the run-up on Special Report via DVR.
The best part:
AD-RtR/OS! (f429c0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:28 pmat about the half-way point in Special Report, the Ducks game starts – so no time for Fox (or any other) news tonight.
From a friend: “By the standards of this crowd, getting through the moment of silence without some joker going off like a car alarm was a triumph.”
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:28 pmSteadman Holder not
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:29 pmone to suffer fools gladly
except Obama
How many days till we get the for reals lecture about being civil?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:29 pmPundits: Obama sure seemed presidential tonight.
Everyone with any sense: Go fuck yourselves, jackals.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:29 pmIt was promised, you know.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:29 pmthis was an Oklahoma City Moment Mr. Patterico – just without all the kaboom – but even still we’re already seeing some lift in bumblef’s negatives and we expect this effect to only intensify as the event is filtered through news coverage in the coming days and weeks
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:29 pmhillary clinton
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:31 pma leftwing extremist or
two left wings fat thighs
Krauthammer is making good points about the cheers and how the mood did shift when he talked about Giffords opening her eyes. He’s lucky she did, actually, as it made the cheering start to sound appropriate.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:31 pmI did, however, kept expecting him to say:
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, what the young people have all been waiting for: The Beatles!”
Sorry.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:31 pmHe brought Gabby back to life, he made her see again !!!!!!!!
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:33 pmOh, JD. Just shame on you.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:33 pmShouldn’t this have been an oval office address tomorrow night?
I certainly thought so – when they announced he was going to a college to speak, I thought it was some kind of joke. But since those are the only venues left where they can be sure of his constant hero – worshipping crowds, there you have it.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:34 pmI denounce myself.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:34 pmJD is right. That is sort of the takeaway. He associates himself with her recovery. It’s like the flip side of the coin of putting up pictures of Loughner with captions about right-wing extremism. It’s all about the association.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:34 pmcolonel think civil
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:34 pmdiscourse is telling Left to
have self-intercourse
What did you expect from a paper tiger?
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:36 pmThis was a political winner for Obama, and not in a self-serving way. He said all the right things, stayed away from his usual narcissism, built up the stories of the fallen and the survivors, and last but not least – tore the Left a new one for their egregious behavior.
The funny part is, I don’t think the Left will have understood that they just got served. Oh well, they’re delusional anyway.
Seixon (ee9f62) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:36 pmI feel bad about engaging in passionate discourse. I think I will be nicer about ObamaCare. For the children.
Is Assclown around? I want to tell him to fuck off again. I’m going to go unmute him again.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:37 pmI guess I missed the tearing the Left a new one part … That would make it more of a Sister Soldja moment instead of OK bombing, no?
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:38 pmThank goodness I had guests over and missed Barack
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:39 pmThat sounds great. Can you kinda summarize your memory of this part of his speech? 100% sincere request. You’re right that it’s a huge winner for him that he did that. Sista Soljah X 10
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:39 pmThe guy bugs me so much I have a hard time seeing him in any kind of positive light. He just always has that self-satisfied smirk.
But whatever. We’re all supposed to get along now. For the chilren. Kumbaya.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:40 pmYou have that phrase indexed awfully low…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:40 pmIt’s proven by all we have learned so far this was the work of one dark madman, having nothing to do with what anyone eelse said, be it civil or nasty, for any corner of America. Yet Ol’Barry wants to make it about that incivility bugaboo.These 2 things are completely unrelated susbtantively. And arguably raising the issue as Obama did was disrespectful of the victims; their suffering was in no way a result of any incivilty, real or imagined.
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:40 pmYeah, again: can you review that bit for us?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:40 pmI believe that bumble is our future – give him his teleprompter, let him lead the way
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:41 pmCrazy person’s murder not result of uncivil rhetoric = tore left new one.
?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:41 pmTore the left a new what?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:42 pm“This was a political winner for Obama, and not in a self-serving way.”
Truth be told… if there were a mirror when he stepped down from the podium, he would’ve been looking at himself as he strolled by it.
If the “Left” got served, it’s only because the latest quick-polling showed it to be the popular position to take… right now.
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:42 pmObama will have his chance to show if he learned his own lesson when it’s time to repeal and replace, pass a balanced budget, or at least reduce spending drastically. He’s been harsh about those who don’t want to lift the debt ceiling, and he was also very harsh about those who did want to lift it a few years back.
Leadership means you are at the front of direction changes. I still can’t vote for Obama based on policy differences, but good for him if he can help the GOP House thrive with a Dem White House.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:42 pmSeixon,
It’s not about what Obama said, so much as the forum in which he chose to say it, and the utterly foreseeable carnival effect that forum produced. What Obama said will look fine – more or less – on a transcript; but the reactions of the crowd were shameful, and they were the reactions Obama wanted – for his own ego or advancement or something else.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:42 pmat a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
and
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.
can easily be read to be directed at those on the left who immediately started casting blame.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:42 pmChristina would have wanted Obama to benefit from this politically. I’m sure of it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:43 pmWhat does Mr. Rorschach say?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:44 pmObama masterfully got Giffords to open her eyes so he could benefit from it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:44 pmJust MASTERFUL.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:45 pmYes, our government should endeavor at all times to keep chowderheaded tykes in lollipops and lemon yellow Crayola suns. It’s for the children, always.
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:45 pmhe probably said “omg Sarah Palin is on her way here”
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:45 pmI think the first paragraph, at the very least, is directed at the left – at least, at everyone whose first, second, or third response to this was “it’s THEIR fault”.
note that I didn’t watch it, I’m just going off the transcript; I’ve spent half of the last day in a meeting and the rest of it sleeping hoping my nasty virus will go away in time for me to go back to work tomorrow. but, looking just at the text, this reads to me as a rebuke to the left.
but then Leviticus predicted that the text would look fine abstracted from the circus.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:47 pmThanks, Aphrael.
I wish he had actually noted who he was talking about. Even in the most general way. Because I’m sure this comes across as something that applies to us all, rather than those who blood libeled the Tea Party. I’m not sure the Left got torn a new one if they aren’t associated with what they said.
I know the objection to my point is that this itself is not a way to heal, but rather finger pointing. But Obama’s a skilled orator… he could have found a way to actually rebuke someone the way Clinton could in his Sister Souljah moment. He’s not really reaching out to the right, Seixon… because his comment obviously is meant to be applied against us just as much as those we have a legitimate grievance with.
It’s not like I’m demanding justice, but I think he was on the right track but wasn’t able to insert the subtle reference to who he is talking about that I’ve seen in many of his rebukes of the right.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:48 pmcan easily be read to be directed at those on the left who immediately started casting blame.
and those who remained completely silent when the last four days cried out for leadership.
Fuck me running… He doesn’t fool the Colonel.
ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:48 pmApparently Maddow wasn’t a fan of the audience’s behavior either.
I agree with Rachel Maddow. These are the end of days.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:50 pmi mean consider it this way… I’m not trying to kiss ass, but Aphrael is one of the most intelligent commenters here. He is also sympathetic to many different POVs. At best, he “thinks” a section may have been directed at the left.
That’s not a harsh rebuke, then. It’s vague generality. And it’s also a great commentary. I see why people were confused as to when he even mentioned the left’s blood libel.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:50 pmHERETIC!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:51 pmOn further thought, yes, Krugman and Alter know they just got thrown under the bus.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:52 pmWell at least we know the next meme we’ll have to listen to until the next election.
Wait, it’s the same one we had to listen to before the last election.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:53 pmJD,
Don’t you sometimes check MSNBC (so we don’t have to)? I’m wondering if Chris Matthews got another tingle.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:57 pmDustin,
When Krugman and Alter publicly apologize, then I’ll believe they know. Not until then.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:59 pmStyle point; goes for not only Obama but all current pols-does it have to be this long? Bush and Clinton were as bad.
The Gettysburgh Address lasted about 4 minutes.
Reagan’s speeches rarely went longer than 15 minutes, and the same with JFK and most pols before LBJ. I understand that every politician and his handlers want their guy to go and on dropping pearls of wisdom. Brevity remains the soul of wit, but damn if any of these guys and gals understand that. And the inability to get to the point concisely correlates exactly to when we lost control of the size of government.
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 6:59 pmUsually Newsbuster or Gateway Pundit will have Matthews if he goes overboard.
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:02 pmSome good words from the President but it was a poor decision to treat this like a campaign event, scheduling it at a college campus venue with bumper sticker logos and free matching T-shirts (in Obama blue!). My concern about the judgment of this President and his staff is that I suspect they knew these decisions would result in Wellstone II, but they wanted it that way.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:04 pmAlter at least will not mind he was thrown under the bus, and see it as an insincere comment by Obama for the greater cause. He will even be proud.
Anyway, Obama’s speech sure lent a sense that this shooting was completely political. I think the left is happy. Seixon is right that they just won’t realize the rebuke. If that’s the case, and Seixon is also right that Obama was tearing them a new one, obviously he is an impotent leader.
But perhaps a memorial for the dead is not the place for him to handle this issue, and we should accept the truth in his message about not finger pointing. The truth will be more clear when he speaks about this and it isn’t a memorial service.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:05 pmThe left will not see this in any way as a rebuke of them because they do not believe they have done anything to be rebuked about. To them, the president was clearly referencing the right and their violent rhetoric and incivility. I just don’t think it occurs to them that *they* might have a bit of a problem.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:09 pmFrom the NYT editorial (they just couldn’t help themselves):
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:14 pmThe president’s call for calm was an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.
that poor Republican woman cut down before she could get to know her democratic congresswoman more better
it’s impossibly tragic
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:15 pmOf course. And that’s what’s so wrong with Obama being so vague. He often praises his ability to be a blank slate that people can put whatever they want on. In other words, he’s a damn phony who will try to please everyone without really communicating anything sincere.
He knew what he was doing when he said something in a way that would please Seixon, but also please the left he was ‘rebuking’. They think it’s Palin and Fox News he was rebuking for their finger pointing, or even think it was Beck and Rush’s finger pointing and incivility that Obama is (in their imagination) saying led to the shooting. It’s just too vague to be real communication. And it’s that way on purpose, which I think means it is not worthy of praise from those Obama was supposedly reaching out to.
It seems damn cynical, of course.
A lot of people mind the college atmosphere, but I care a lot more about content.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:16 pmThere is no content, Dustin. There never is.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:18 pmBingo. If nothing else, the atmosphere should be respectful, because the words from politicians these days are almost always empty.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:20 pmJust had to check in and wade a bit in the shallow end of the gene pool. And sure enough, I found that Patterico was himself.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:22 pmPatterico, you are small. Very, very small.
But you know that.
Keep worshiping those great, authentic intellects — W., Palin and O’Donnell. They’re your salvation.
Just look at the NYT praise Obama’s ‘rebuke’ of their blood libel behavior, where the NYT has actually been the worst by far (they even called us eliminationists!) and then while attempting to apply that ‘calmness’ call Palin ugly and disturbed and even offensive to Jews. In a single sentence, even. Yeah, they sure don’t act like their leader tore them a new one. Yet they love the same message Seixon did.
Dana’s a saint for reading that crap so I don’t have to.
These are some damn cynical bastards. NYT’s evidence of eliminationism turned out to be a complete fraud, and they call someone’s self defense ‘ugliness’. I guess they cater to people in a bubble, though, so they don’t really care.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:25 pmI disagree that there was no content.
The sentence “at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds” is, I think, a minimum requirement for how we should treat with each other.
Now, maybe it’s banal, although there’s plenty of evidence from both sides that many people don’t understand this as a basis for dialogue, which suggests it isn’t banal. :{
And as much as I understand the desire to shake the people who don’t appear to be complying with it and shout at them and say “THIS MEANS YOU” …. I think it’s difficult to do that in a way consistent with the sentiment.
How to talk to someone in a way which heals, when that person doesn’t appear to be interested in healing and is actively acting in ways which make the situation worse … is a difficult problem, at best.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:25 pmMathews is stuck on Palin hate, DRJ. And guns are the problem. I kid you not. Her best defense is ignorance, I quote.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:26 pmJust a placeholder till some jackass pundit gives you and your ilk marching orders, I take it… forming your own thoughts is hard, huh Larry? Don’t worry – you haven’t set a particularly high bar for yourself.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:26 pmFuck off, Larry Reilly.
Just trying out the new civility.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:28 pmLareilly
Pay attention – or did you miss Levine shrillery against Pat for outing ODonnell as a lest than honest person?
Worship ODonnell and PAlin
no way
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:28 pmMoving back to the original topic of the thread for the moment: I do wish that Palin had used a different phrase than ‘blood libel’. Like ‘holocaust’, I think it’s a phrase which should be reserved for a particular subset of bad deeds, which I don’t think any of the rhetoric surrounding this reaches to … and using it for lesser offenses cheapens the phrase, degrades it and robs it of its power.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:29 pmBecause Patterico loved Christine O’Donnell, right? Man… that makes you sound like a complete idiot. Grow a sense of self-awareness.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:29 pmI became famous for my worship of O’Donnell. It is legendary, that worship.
Larry Reilly needs practice telling truth better.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:29 pmAphrael – that message, coming from Barcky, is tough to stomach.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:29 pmPalin should tell TLC yes please on a new season. She’s damaged goods for 2012.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:31 pmDid the WSJ or NYT or MSNBC or the rest get all wound up when Instapundit used blood libel earlier this week?
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:31 pmJD: Is the messenger, then, the message? 🙂
This is a hard message to communicate effectively. But … honestly, it’s something I’ve believed for most of my adult life, and the fact that Obama is pushing it, even in a less than perfect way, strikes me as a good thing … because at least someone is pushing it, at least the message is getting air time.
I would submit that a flawed messenger is better than no messenger at all.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:32 pmaphrael:
What do the President’s words mean to you, exactly? That we should put limits on the First Amendment, or is it a call to moderate our conduct out of a sense of morality, or is it something in between?
My point is that this can mean very different things to different people hearing or reading it in good faith, which means no one can say what it really means. It it’s that vague, it’s devoid of content.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:32 pmThat would assume he knew what it was, like Potter Stewart said, in a different context
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:32 pmThe president’s ability to be just vague and indirect enough in his rebuke – to ensue he does not
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:33 pmlose potential voterscause offense – makes any possibility of the left seeing themselves as the object of his rebuke dependent on their own consciences being seared. The odds of that?Hahaha. Catch 22.
But Obama is talented at being banal and also elusively complicated.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:33 pmI would listen to that message from many people, aphrael.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:34 pmaphrael,
Two things: first off, I think Obama’s sentiment only counts as content if he means it, and I’m not sure he does; that is, I’m not convinced that he’s as interested in a productive and challenging discussion as he makes himself out to be.
Second, re: blood-libel – I think Palin’s a hyper-theatrical fame-whore (I know I know, “boo, hiss”), but if the term means “a false accusation of having innocent blood on one’s hands”, then it seems like an appropriate one for her to use. I will admit, though, that I was not familiar with the term before today – with its history and connotations and whatnot.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:35 pmDana
i will watch what he said later on tonight, but if that is all he was able to say… that is pathetic.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:35 pmJD: I have no clue. I wasn’t aware that instapundit had used the phrase. I don’t know the context for his use, etc, but I suspect that I’d probably find myself wishing he hadn’t, if I knew more about it.
I’d submit that Sarah Palin has per se a higher profile than insapundit (except possibly among the blogger community) and so failure to respond to the latter shouldn’t, I think, be held to invalidate the integrity of one who responds to the former.
I’d also submit that … I don’t look to the WSJ, the NYT, or MSNBC to tell me how to expect people to behave; I look to my memory of my (long-deceased) grandmother. Whom I suspect would have been offended by both usages.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:35 pmThank you for your report, JD. I’m better off for not hearing that live.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:36 pmAt any rate, Obama isn’t his entire movement. The NYT is proof positive that this speech has inspired the left to get harsher, not softer. Less civilized, not more. Palin is disturbing and ugly and offensive… for pointing out she didn’t deserve responsibility for murder.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:36 pmaphrael,
Prof. Reynolds used the term in a WSJ column so it isn’t like the media might not have noticed.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:37 pmI hate it when Larry has to leave because his Mom said the grilled cheese sandwich is ready.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:37 pmhas anyone gone to Drudge’s link to the “entire remarks, as prepared for delivery” here?
the speech as prepared says this
– the opened her eyes part wasn’t in there
that’s kind of odd
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:38 pmWould it be wrong to call 9/11 a holocaust of innocent New Yorkers? I don’t think so.
Similarly, is it wrong to call the ‘Tea Party is creating a climate for murder, and their rhetoric is violent’ a blood libel? I don’t see much of a problem. It’s implied that the original example was worse. We’re talking about an unreasonable argument, by comparing it to an established example.
And what some tried to do with this murder was very similar to the Protocols of Zion. Hell, we had pictures of Jared Loughner’s Republican voter Registration (only they were debunked because the fraud misspelled “Tuscon.”
It’s a great use of language.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:40 pmI am grateful for the rare courage Obama showed in denying that “a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy.” Because saying that “a simple lack of civility” was not the cause — it’s just so BALLSY.
I don’t want to compare it to, say, throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades in battle — but man, it’s damn close, it is.
Before he said that, I was starting to think a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy.
But Obama set me straight with that remarkably bold comment.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:41 pmDRJ:
a call to moderate our conduct out of a sense of morality
I’d go with that, although I don’t know that it’s morality, exactly … more a sense that we’re in this thing we call America together, and that moderating our language and approaching each other with the desire to heal one another will serve to make our political culture more robust and our country stronger … and that we have a duty to each other to do it.
Leviticus:
I suspect that you’re right that Obama isn’t as interested in a productive and challenging discussion as he makes himself out to be, but I think this can generally be said of politicians: the nature of their job as we have constructed it in modern times makes them more interested in appearances than actualities. Obama is hardly unique in that sin, I think.
So: being interested in an actuality would be more productive than being interested in an appearance, to be sure; but being interested in this particular appearance is, I think, a step up from not being interested in it at all.
As for ‘blood libel’, I think it’s a harsher meaning than just a false accusation of having blood on one’s hands … it’s a false accusation of having blood on one’s hand which is used to drive a minority out of a society and which is used to justify ostracising and possibly killing them. It’s the second half of that which I find missing.
But understand that I’m coming from a position where I think responding to inflammatory rhetoric (the accusations against Palin) with more inflammatory rhetoric (blood libel) simply makes the situation overall worse: it invites a bitter series of tit-for-tat recriminations that results in searing hatred for each other deeper into our blood.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:42 pmAphrael – I apologize, I did not mean to imply that their lack of standards reflected on you. I was making a more meta point in my customary way.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:45 pmI didn’t watch or listen to O. It’s impossible for me to do. I did read all the comments here. My questions: did he have the teleprompter? Did he give a shout out to Sheriff Elmer Fudd?
My opinion aphrael is; whatever comes out of his mouth is to make him look good. In other words, I don’t believe a word he says. Nothing will change that.
PatAz (537b43) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:45 pmDRJ,
at 284: that’s a fair point. My newspaper reading at the moment is basically confined to the Chronicle and the Herald-Tribune, so I wouldn’t notice an editorial in the WSJ, but it’s reasonable to expect other media outlets to have done so.
Dustin,
Would it be wrong to call 9/11 a holocaust of innocent New Yorkers? I don’t think so.
I would find that wording to be obnoxious, yes. In my mind, a “holocaust of innocent new yorkers” would be what you have if the people of some other state singled out the New Yorker immigrants in their midst and killed them all because they were New Yorkers.
It’s a use of the word consistent with the way the word was used before the second world war, and my guess is that eventually the word will return to that meaning and usage; but while I’m generally a linguistic descriptivist, when it comes to particularly extreme words like this, I mourn their weakening over time.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:46 pmI don’t find that missing. The point is indeed to ostracize the Tea Party as a bunch of cranks. This has been ongoing for some time. We are racist, we are violent, etc etc. Yet we’re assembling peacefully in the hundreds of thousands.
Some of the kooks are actually justifying violence on the basis of the blood libel.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:47 pmI think happy has hit on something here because I commented to my wife when he said it, I thought it was interesting.
I hope her husband was there to see it.
By the way, I like Penn and Teller. Have I ever mentioned that?
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:47 pmJD: yeah, I didn’t take it as a jab at me, but thank you for the apology. 🙂 I think my point was more: why does anyone care about the integrity of the media when it comes to this issue?
If you start from the premise that the media has no integrity on political issues, which I think most people here do, the fact that they have no moral ground to stand on does not mean that they might not accidentally be right, even in their hypocrisy.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:48 pmI thought I linked Glenn’s piece, but I can’t demand every reader click every link.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:50 pmPatterico – that’s possible. I’ve mostly been avoiding posts on this subject; I only started reading this one to see what people were saying about Obama’s speech, since I didn’t watch it.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:52 pmOK, how about just a holocaust of infidels to Osama Bin Laden’s worldview?
It’s true he wasn’t singling out the victims of 9/11 from people around them. That isn’t part of the holocaust definition to me. It was a firey mass murder fueled by horrible hatred, supposedly for justice and a better world.
It wasn’t nearly as bad as the holocaust by a scale of thousands (which boggles my mind). I definitely see your point about how it weakens the term. And yet, perhaps that makes a lot of sense. I’m not using the term blood libel as a proper noun, after all. It refers to a type of thing, rather than the one incident. It’s not ignorant of Palin to draw the comparison (and I think it is silly to suggest she didn’t understand the term). It’s just a matter of dispute as to whether this situation is indeed a blood libel.
Sadly, when I google American Holocaust, it’s all references to Jews planning 9/11. So I guess I’m well out of touch on this one.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:52 pmSadly, when I google American Holocaust, it’s all references to Jews planning 9/11
*sigh*
That’s … depressing.
Probably not surprising. But.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:53 pmProf. Reynold’s Blood Libel essay here.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:54 pmMe too. She deserves the whole country rooting for her, and I like how Obama conveyed the idea, even if it seemed a little crass that she opened his eyes by association with Obama’s visit.
I don’t think he could even help that one. He is the president, and it’s good to lead the rooting for healing from this tragedy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:54 pm“So: being interested in an actuality would be more productive than being interested in an appearance, to be sure; but being interested in this particular appearance is, I think, a step up from not being interested in it at all.”
– aphrael
I understand where you’re coming from, but there are some politicians who are interested in that particular actuality, and not just the appearance – not many, but a few. Obama doesn’t deserve a lowered bar on that point, I don’t think.
“As for ‘blood libel’, I think it’s a harsher meaning than just a false accusation of having blood on one’s hands … it’s a false accusation of having blood on one’s hand which is used to drive a minority out of a society and which is used to justify ostracising and possibly killing them. It’s the second half of that which I find missing.”
– aphrael
There are people calling for Palin to be killed for her “responsibility” in all of this – so, while I agree that her somewhat hyperbolic choice of words in response to the hyperbole of her enemies was unproductive and perhaps a tad immature, I think her choice of words (as a piece of self-serving rhetoric) was about as accurate as such a thing can be: that is, she can lay claim to the definition of the word, if not the spirit. But yeah – she’s not interested in elevating any discourse. She’s in her element in a mud-slinging competition, I think.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:55 pmAs long as Palin promises not to do it again I think she can recover from this.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:57 pmby 2020 anyway
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:57 pmSo I didn’t watch the rally — er, memorial, but judging from the comments I am reading it is clear to me that our modern society simply doesn’t do somber reflection and quiet mourning very well any longer. If we aren’t rendering our garments and wailing in lamentations of abject sorrow, we are making the moment all about our own shallow reaction to tragedy. It’s not just an American thing either. If you read Peter Hitchens’ book The Abolition of Britain you will no doubt find fascinating his contrasting of the funerals of Winston Churchill in 1965 and Princess Diana thirty-some years later.
JVW (4463d3) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:57 pmLet’s face it – the man is banal to the core of his being. The only passion and committment he ever shows is when anyone dares to challenge his awesomeness. He’s not interested in a debate, he only wants to lecture to the masses, not actively engage them. Worship him at a distance, thank you very much.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:58 pmGood point, aphrael.
My take-away is still that Teh One caused her to see.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:58 pm______________________________________________
Obama sat in the pews of a church for almost 20 years listening to and being enthralled by the sermons of Reverend “Goddamn America.” Extremist, fanatical rhetoric, therefore, is no BFD to the guy in the White House.
Seems somehow fitting that this era in US history encompasses both him and a tragedy like what occurred in Arizona—perpetrated by someone of both psychotic and also leftist background.
______________________________________________
Mark (411533) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:00 pm“while I’m generally a linguistic descriptivist, when it comes to particularly extreme words like this, I mourn their weakening over time.”
– aphrael
It’s funny that we should find ourselves at odds over Palin’s use of this phrase for these reasons, though, seeing as I was arguing much the same thing that you are arguing there on another thread yesterday or the day before – re: political labels like socialist, anarchist, etc. I guess my defense is that I think Palin’s use of the word “blood libel” is in keeping with its definition, even if it’s a little overblown.
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:00 pmI am reading it is clear to me that our modern society simply doesn’t do somber reflection and quiet mourning very well any longer.
The many spontaneous reflections and impromptu memorials across the country the days after 9/11 proved this is not necessarily true. Obama did nothing more but do another Wellstone gig, albeit at least Wellstone’s was held in a house of worship.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:00 pmCan’t wait to see Krugman’s reaction to Palin “co-opting” the blood libel term.
“Sarah Palin created a holocaust on what should have been a day for reflection…”
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:03 pmit’s a lot overblown she was arguing against trollops and pansies not people of any stature – she’s every bit as prickly and arrogant and oversensitive as our sad little president man
no sweetie it’s not about you be a love go kill a moose daddy’s hungry
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:03 pmI missed the end so I need to throw in my:WOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooo!!!!!!!11ty!!!!!!
Mr. Feets – Did he have the Solid Gold Dancers and Zombie Don Cornelius or were they the Mournapolooza Dancers?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:03 pmI already got my contribute to the healing email from Mr. Obama’s organization. No time to waste here when there’s healing to be done!
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:05 pmit was the Mournapolooza Dancers! Dude it’s not too late to call in and vote for your favorite.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:05 pmReading the post again, it’s really amazing to me that someone would say the use of the term ‘blood libel’ is antisemitism. These people do realize Palin was using the term to describe something really bad, right? She’s against it.
Some of these people might just realize that they are a lot like the people who would slander the Jews with horrible stories and associations and conspiracies. They may not like the way they feel. So, of course, they lash out.
As Leviticus says, this use might be overblown in comparison, but she didn’t scream it our pound the table. She had a short comment that the media shouldn’t manufacture this sort of thing. It’s pretty clear she’s trying to stop an ongoing process. It’s logical.
Anyway, now people are saying she’s antisemitic. That’s just more libel. It will work on those already convinced, but the harder they tighten their clenched angry fists, the more the squeeze out anyone fair.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:05 pmaphrael – I respectfully submit there was more content in Palin’s video than Barcky’s speech.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:06 pmYes I feel the same way about Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough and Paul Krugman, but they get the big bucks, although ‘their audience is more and more
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:07 pmselective’
Except she’s arguing against members of our congress, some of our most read national pundits, etc.
she didn’t make it all about her. She was, in fact, shoved into this story against her will and for no fair reason. They made this about her, and she has a right to say it isn’t about her.
Is she oversensitive? I hear a lot of reasonable people say that Palin should ignore some of the attacks on her. It’s worth wondering if Bush should have taken the Palin approach, or if Palin should take the Bush approach.
I suspect the fact they were calling her a killer, for nothing but a map, is a clue as to how she would fare if she did nothing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:08 pmMr. Dustin it’s all about her if you didn’t listen or read it, which is the vast majority of the whole America
and yes – she needs to get her head around the following four words:
brb
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:10 pmthis too
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:10 pmshall pass
now people are saying she’s antisemitic. That’s just more libel
Yeah. Even from my standpoint, that’s absurd: misusing a term which has previously been used to describe terrible treatment of Jews does not amount to anti-semitism.
I understand that there is a risk that misusing a word in a way which diminishes the power of its meaning might have the effect of diminishing the cultural memory of the uniqueuness of the events the word has been used to describe. I can understand pointing that out and saying, hey, we really should be careful not to do that.
But jumping to anti-semitism, I think, requires one to assume intent, and that’s totally inappropriate in this context.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:11 pmon the obama speech and i am watching it and…
mmm, the tone is all wrong. partly not sure its his fault. i mean applauding at a memorial? really? no, somber silence and reflection.
And his tone just struck me so far as insufficiently somber.
The other thing that struck me is how much palin’s speech took the wind out of obama’s sails. when he talked about gabby excercising constitutional rights, etc. i thought immediately about how much better palin said the same thing.
But not done listening yet.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:11 pmkishnevi – The Jews do not own the words “blood libel” as has been pointed out by numerous commentators today. It is good that it raises sensitivities when used. Those who are sensitive about it should take a moment to put themselves in Palin’s shoes to think about how she felt being accused of the left was accusing her of. The words fit, just like her use of the term “death panels.”
The squealing over Palin usually gets loudest when she hits the mark and this time she did it again. The left does not like getting their noses rubbed in their own shit.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:11 pm“it was the Mournapolooza Dancers!”
Mr. Feets – Were people stuffing bills in their outfits? The crowd had that vibe, what with the hollering. Damn, I missed it.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:13 pm“Some of these people might just realize that they are a lot like the people who would slander the Jews with horrible stories and associations and conspiracies.”
Dustin – Well, fake pro-Israel J Street was mentioned above.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:16 pmantisemitism is such a seriously ugly charge. It’s not as bad as calling someone’s rhetoric responsible for mass murder, but it’s incredibly serious as a charge.
If you didn’t say anything about Jews or Israel or zionism… or any racial group whatsoever, how could you have been antisemitic? And yet, ‘Giffords’s close friend Congresswoman Schultz’ goes there.
Happyfeet, I greatly hope someone other than Palin rises up and takes the mantle. I’ve got a good list of people I’d take. But this is probably a done deal. Palin’s reacting to the hate because that’s the only thing that has even slightly worked. It sets her up for the exact point you raise that she could just let it pass. Certainly that seems more reasonable. But it doesn’t work.
I did watch her video… I’m not sure you did. It was not all about her by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, she didn’t even make the blood libel comment about herself. I don’t think she referenced herself beyond noting she prays for healing. She talked a lot about healing, and a lot more about freedom of expression. Her speech itself was… banal. but it conveyed the essential American value of expression foremost, and sadly, I think this basic lesson is one a lot of people need to pay attention to.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:17 pmI think there was a general consensus that stuffing bills in their outfits would be crass. But then some people even thought doing the wave was in poor taste.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:18 pmAaron,
It would be interesting to know when the text of Obama’s speech was released to the media and (although this is something we will probably never know) if the text changed much today. I have a feeling it changed after Palin’s video was released, and I completely agree she co-opted some of his space and message.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:18 pm“But jumping to anti-semitism, I think, requires one to assume intent, and that’s totally inappropriate in this context.”
aphrael – Noted Tea Party member Alan Dershowitz say no problem with Palin’s usage, but you can’t trust conservative lawyers.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:18 pmI don’t think it’s his fault, either. I want to blame it on him… I guess I could say his people should have found a different venue on short notice… but it’s the crowd’s fault for their behavior. I didn’t see him call for cheers aside from the hero comment and the eye opening he inspired (joke).
Scott’s right that he could have made a point to note they are at a memorial, a somber occasion, and he would appreciate if the audience would respect that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:19 pm“#
I think there was a general consensus that stuffing bills in their outfits would be crass. But then some people even thought doing the wave was in poor taste.
Comment by happyfeet — 1/12/2011 @ 8:18 pm
”
My masculine aura is laughing, but my feminine spirit child is frowning. What does that mean?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:20 pmI think her speech was fine if she doesn’t want to be president
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:21 pmDustin: I’ve read the text, and it seems to me that the basic message of both her speech and Obama’s speech is the same (if you ignore the bits in Obama’s speech directed at details about the deceased).
I can imagine someone deliberately throwing around the term ‘holocaust’ with the intent that it’s meaning be degraded and thereby the cultural memory of the horror of the Holocaust be degraded.
I also think that the charge that someone is doing that is so serious that the burden of proof is on the person making the charge, and simply the use of the term in a way which applies it to something less massive and less monstrous than the Holocaust isn’t enough.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:23 pmbut she DOES
Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:24 pmNPR: “Gabby opened her eyes, so I can tell you: She knows we are here, she knows we love her, and she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey,” he said.
NYT: I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak. And I can tell you this – she knows we’re here and she knows we love her and she knows that we will be rooting for her throughout what will be a difficult journey.
In the full texts of his speech, not reports, the comment re Ms. Giffords opening her eyes seems to have disappeared (at least at the big papers).
(NPR above is from an report about the speech, NYT actual text.)
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:24 pm__________________________________________
The WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart also accused Palin of being anti-Semitic:
If Palin had the ideology of, say, Helen Thomas — or any number of people found at a typical university — she could be goose stepping all over town and giving a “sieg heil!” salute, and far too many of her fiercest critics on the left would be oddly, strangely, idiotically quiet and docile.
It’s not too much of a stretch to estimate that a good percentage of liberals are emotionally less uncomfortable towards, as one example, the president of Iran (because his society is quaintly Third Worldish and sort of aw-shucks underdog-ish) than they are about Palin or, for that matter, any conservative in the modern industrialized — mainly Western — world.
Mark (411533) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:24 pmDaleyrocks: I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a conservative use Dershowitz as a reference for something they agree with. 🙂
But … I don’t see why Dershowitz has any more moral authority on this question than anyone else.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:25 pmhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41161
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:25 pmDana, I would presume that the NYT “actual text” is the prepared text as sent to the media when the speech began, and doesn’t necessarily reflect any extemporaneous deviations during the speech.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:26 pmhappyfeet,
Do you think it’s possible Palin spoke out because (1). the media and pundits made her the focus of this debate, or because (2). she thinks protecting free speech in the political arena is an important issue?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:26 pmYeah, I concede you’re right, actually. Been thinking it over for the past few minutes. As awful as 9/11 was, if one were to call it a holocaust, they would need to acknowledge it is several exponents away from the WWII Holocaust in magnitude. Even though 9/11 was horrible beyond imagination. The entire thought exercise sucks, though. Anyway, your point is taken.
Aphrael is right that their speeches were similar in many ways, and even though I think Palin’s speech sucked, it was much more presidential than Obama’s. It was clearer. It was more inspiring and had a core idea.
Both of them were far too long, and neither deserve much credit, but remember that Palin, if she runs, runs against Obama.
I think it’s not important to process presidential politics until later. Hopefully someone amazing shows up in the primary.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:30 pm“He associates himself with her recovery. It’s like the flip side of the coin of putting up pictures of Loughner with captions about right-wing extremism. It’s all about the association.”
Patterico and A.W. – I would so steal that image from Ace.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:31 pmI think she had an opportunity and she took it. That’s what she does. She just wasn’t very clear in her head this time what it was exactly she wanted, and she certainly can’t be said to have helped herself I don’t think.
My guess? We saw what Sarah’s idea of President Palin looks and sounds like. And it’s gosh golly underwhelming.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:32 pmMichelle Malkin has photos of the slogan “Together We Thrive” nonsense. Don’t recall Clinton doing anything like that after OKC, nor Bush after 9/11. They didn’t have to; who ever the President was would rise by being a steady hand.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/12/branding-the-tuscon-massacre-together-we-thrive-in-white-and-blue/
Looking at the Human Events link, would caution that he needs proof the Obami in fact harvested cell numbers from a 2008 rally. It had that feel to it, but he had best be able to show that. The questions should be asked.
DOn’t hold your breath; It’s for the children!
Bugg (996c34) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:32 pm“But … I don’t see why Dershowitz has any more moral authority on this question than anyone else.”
aphrael – He doesn’t, but more people may have heard of him than some of the other azzclowns talking about it. Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:34 pmJust by this alone I can tell you watched the video. I know exactly what you mean.
Not that I’m surprised. Palin is just a person… the idea of Palin out there is that she can leap tall buildings, but really… she’s not going to magically change the way things work. These kinds of speeches… they are rarely all that great.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:34 pmit’s not like I have anything nice to say about Romneykins or the scary freaky why do all my children look like extras in Deliverance Huckabee
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:36 pmPalin really was in a no-win: If she said nothing, it would be assumed that it was because she knew she was guilty.
If she responded, it would automatically be seen as inflammatory and negative – the content of her words would not matter one bit, let alone context.
Either way would do damage. The left doesn’t care what she thinks, they don’t care about sound reasoning or considering another point. They are only interested in doing whatever it takes to nail her.
This typifies the hate (from an old acquaintance):
I disagree with the idea that now is not the time to blame Palin, or to use the event to demonize her. Politics is often about momentum and pivotal events, and the party who takes advantage of that momentum is often the party who ends up winning. Now is the time to jump on Palin like a pack of rabid dogs, to brand her as a “hater” of David Duke quality, and to make certain that this event is ever tied to her name and her foolish threats of violence against those who oppose her.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:38 pmhave to go goodnight I have a cold
okeydoke goodnight
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:38 pmjust had to share that ok byebye
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:41 pmYou need to find new friends, Dana, one is reminded in that snippet, that Obama didn’t seek to demonize
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:42 pmin that speech any further, enough groundwork has been done in that regard. Can somebody get the Dupnik, he’s rapidly becoming ‘the Worst Person in the World’
narciso, not a friend, definitely. Someone I used to know from school 30+ years ago.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:47 pmHow many columns were on stage at the rally?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:48 pmWTF are you doing cutting and pasting s**t from the f**king blog over here for?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:51 pmSo by that narrow standard, it did show tribute to the victim, but it was mostly platitudes, he did
narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:51 pmok, it could have been much worse
Whole lot of not gettin it today.
“- the opened her eyes part wasn’t in there”
It wasn’t in the prepared remarks.
tcom (8b2294) — 1/12/2011 @ 8:57 pmLiberals are upset they didn’t say Blood Libel first…
jcloh (27638e) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:01 pmNot looking forward to the next tee-shirt giveaway…
jcloh (27638e) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:03 pmIt was a nice touch that they declined the t-shirt cannons, and the trapeze artistes.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:12 pmJD – They shoulda had a blimp.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:14 pm____________________________________________
Now is the time to jump on Palin like a pack of rabid dogs,
Which is another example of why it’s oddly appropriate and disgustingly fitting that the murderer of one of the most beloved figures in the world of liberals and the Democrat Party was of the left. That the assassin of JFK was an ultra-liberal, referring, of course, to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mark (411533) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:17 pmConcerning Obama’s speech:
Have you ever seen T-shirts with a slogan on them given out at a memorial before, especially a slogan that those being remembered were not associated with?
Ever?
The closest I can think of would be if T-shirts that said “Let’s Roll” were given out at the 9/11 plane crash site, and I think that would be inappropriate.
It is possible that the venue and the slogan were the decisions of underlings that Obama had no direct knowledge about, but even so, the ideas would have come from his staff who presumably would be acting in accordance with his thoughts and perspectives.
Large gatherings on college campuses are the one place where Obama is virtually guaranteed a warm reception. It was (presumably) to be a memorial service, not a pep rally at a university.
As far as his speech, it certainly was not the same vitriol that we have heard from elsewhere, and there were many parts that were very good, but here are the things that I question:
1) He didn’t say anything to get the crowd to act like it was at a memorial service, he allowed the crowd to cheer and shout as if it was a campaign appearance.
2) He talked about Republicans who liked Democrates and a judge nominated and appointed by Republicans. Presumably this was done to “bring people together”, but if so, only to the degree that one thinks like a politicain first and a human second.
Which ties into-
3) Whether or not he was “aiming” criticism at the left or not, he would have been better off stating the obvious, this was the irrational action of a troubled and mentally ill person, and any discussion that does not start there and end there is opportunist BS (but that is not strong enough language- but that will be my next post.) There was no need to mention political parties, there was no need to see this as anything other than a tragedy resulting from a lone psychotic gunman in a public venue.
If Obama wants to say something about the level of civil political discourse, let it begin with “I’m sorry for adding to the characterization of President Bush as a “liar”, and I’m sorry for destroying the career of a political opponent by fighting to have private divorce proceedings released, when I will not let my college grades even be released.”
When Obama leads with that, then I’ll consider that he might be serious. Nice words after the fact and before the next episode don’t mean much.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:22 pm“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…”
Angeleno (91c113) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:44 pmThem. First.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:57 pmmark at 361 on oswald.
exactly. check out my new post. gmta.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:05 pmGuys:
Was Obama right that Giffords opened her eyes “for the first time” tonight?
Then why did so many outlets report, days ago, that she had woken up and recognized her husband back on the 8th or 9th?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:13 pmPerhaps then she opened her eyes in the bourgeois sense, but the first time she opened her eyes in the revolutionary sense was when The One was there to guide her to heal, Together.
Anyway, I am so glad that she has the gift of sight and memory of her loved ones. Obama’s lying is just static at this point.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:17 pmHmmm….
Simple sentiments, spoken by family and some of her closest friends in Congress, inspired the “miracle” of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ open eyes Wednesday evening.
Surrounded in her hospital room by her husband, her parents, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Arizona Democrat lifted her lids for the first time since a would-be assassin fired a bullet into through her brain Saturday during a rampage that killed six people in her native Tucson.
“We had been telling her that she was inspiring the country with her courage and that we couldn’t wait to take her out to pizza and a weekend away,” Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, said. “Then after she heard our voices and the encouragement of [her husband] Mark [Kelly] and her parents, she struggled briefly and opened her eyes for the very first time. It was a miracle to witness.”
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:17 pmApparently President Obama asked permission of Mark Kelly to relay the good news at the memorial.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:19 pmI’m glad to hear that and retract my earlier skepticism. I hope God speeds her recovery.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:22 pmDana, I’m sure that will be the official truth from now on. Just as Jared’s official truth is that he had no known threats on record.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:24 pmTruth is whatever the situation demands.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:26 pmNever mind. The reports were wrong.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:37 pmPatterico
I find your lack of faith disturbing… we all know Obama is the messiah. why won’t you accept that?
joking aside it as a pretty good speech, toward the end when he took a more somber tone.
and yeah, i think you can say he did say we should not be doing all this stupid blood libelling.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:39 pmYou gotta wonder what sick ass staffer came up with the idea to invent a miracle scene. I guess Rev Wright actually did relate something out of the Bible once in a while, then.
God forbid Giffords is impaired mentally and then fed a diet of political ‘truths’ to spit out. Remember, this is a moderate voice out there. An intelligent American who, in particular, has been quite gun friendly. A lot of the response so far as been to ban certain magazines or ban guns around the ruling class, and would gladly do so in Giffords’s name, despite her being a long time gun owner and 2nd Amendment advocate.
Hopefully my fears are completely unwarranted, especially hopefully because Giffords recovers very well. But some people are happy to manufacture whatever they need for political benefit.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:40 pm“Never mind. The reports were wrong.”
Patterico – Granny McRictusbotoxface healed her, or helped. Even though Gabby had the temerity to vote against Blinky for Minority Leader, she made the long trip to Tucson to forgive her wayward charge and heal her wounds.
BRB, goota have a good cry and thrive a little.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:48 pmDuring all the screaming, cheering, and laughter, I kept thinking that a sweet little girl had just been murdered along with five other people, and still others were grievously injured.
I just don’t understand the raucous nature of this event. Some have praised Obama’s speech, but the longer he went on the more he seemed to feed into the cheering and applause himself. As commentators were praising it, I wondered if they would have to reevaluate their praise in a few days. I just can’t imagine that a “memorial service” which turned into Wellstone II played well across much of America. I’m sure many people tuned in, such as myself, expecting something more aking to the moving service which followed the Oklahoma City bombing.
Thanks for letting me vent my thoughts here! I’ve enjoyed reading through the comments.
Best wishes,
Laura (9d1bb3) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:14 pmLaura
Typo correction to comment above: aking should be akin!
Laura (9d1bb3) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:15 pmI believe Jared was the deranged idiot.
Jonathan is just a typical libtard ratf***.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:33 pmHere’s what the University — the people I think putting on the event — said:
“This was not billed as a wake. It was billed as a way to bring everyone together. The families are extraordinarily pleased by it. And maybe they’re the ultimate judges of what we’ve done here”
Here’s what the mayor said:
“Asked if the mood was appropriate, Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, a Republican, didn’t hesitate: “Oh yes. Yes! If there was one thing that was appropriate, it was cheering. I’ve been in the hospital, and the people that are healing, they want to hear people cheer.””
tcom (eb7c5d) — 1/13/2011 @ 5:39 amFrom UA Communications
President Obama will speak at a memorial event at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 12 to support and remember victims of the mass shooting in Tucson, and to lift the spirits of those who have been personally affected by this tragedy.
jeff (31e059) — 1/13/2011 @ 7:15 am“President Obama will speak at a memorial event at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 12”
jeff – Did I miss Amazing Grace and other traditional hymns at Mourapalooza?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/13/2011 @ 7:25 amI was just trying to indicate this was “billed” as a memorial, not a pep rally.
jeff (31e059) — 1/13/2011 @ 7:27 amAlbeit thinly veiled as a “memorial”.
jeff (31e059) — 1/13/2011 @ 7:29 am“to support and remember victims of the mass shooting in Tucson, and to lift the spirits of those who have been personally affected by this tragedy.”
Definitely doesn’t sound like a wake.
“not a pep rally.”
And definitely spirits were lifted. Great event!
tcom (ea50b5) — 1/13/2011 @ 7:34 amI’m cross-posting my comment at Ace of Spades. I think it applies.
B+ on the speech read by Obama. F- for the way O and his sidekicks controlled that mess last night. All it would have taken was a single request by Obama for them to quiet down. He didn’t say a word.
The relatives in front were obviously in misery. The rest of the crowd, as far as I can see, were a bunch of Obama fans intent on making a total hash of what should have been a dignified memorial service for a group of innocent people.
I now understand what Michelle Obama said about being ashamed of my country — or I would, if I thought most Americans were like these cretins.
I am, however, completely appalled at the realization that the leaders of my country are either so incompetent or so political that they allowed this thing to go forward without the slightest trace of embarrassment — and that the media, including a number of Republicans, who should know better, are giving Obama approbation for all of it. Aaaaargh!
Lee (e6a37d) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:59 amaphrael #290:
The message you got from the President’s words is a call to moderate our conduct (and words) based on morality. Would it surprise you to learn the New York Times’ editors apparently still think the only person who needs to moderate her tone is Sarah Palin?
How convenient for President Obama that, just as it was when he was candidate Obama, his Hope and Change words let him be all things to all people.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/13/2011 @ 11:58 amI give Obama some credit for not following Clinton’s footsteps. While he went in the other direction in an incredibly vague and empty way, and also suggested normal politics were somehow involved with the shooting, he did go in the other direction.
It’s a shame he did so with such weakness that his most loyal supporters are interpreting it as though he had done exactly as Clinton, perhaps 100X worse, and condemned Palin and Beck and the entire Tea Party.
So he only gets partial credit. For an omission of an evil act.
This entire shooting has become all about the right’s rhetoric, and that libel deserves a direct response that is not so vague it’s not arguably bipartisan. Obama doesn’t have to call it out at the memorial, but he better call it out.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/13/2011 @ 12:04 pm