Dork
Posted on 01/13/2011 10:02:06 AM PST by Qbert
In the span of a single news cycle, Republicans got a jarring reminder of two forces that could prevent them from retaking the presidency in next year.
At sunrise in the East on Wednesday, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she has little interest — or capacity — in moving beyond her brand of grievance-based politics. And at sundown in the West, Barack Obama reminded even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation.
Palin was defiant, making the case in a taped speech she posted online why the nation’s heated political debate should continue unabated even after Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson. And, seeming to follow her own advice, she swung back at her opponents, deeming the inflammatory notion that she was in any way responsible for the shootings a “blood libel.” (See: Shooting presents 2012 test)
Obama, speaking at a memorial service at the University of Arizona, summoned the country to honor the victims, and especially9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, by treating one another with more respect. “I want America to be as good as Christina imagined it,” he said.
It’s difficult to imagine a starker contrast.
Many Republicans believe that it’s mostly the media that is obsessed with Palin, and that there’s little chance she could win the party’s nomination. (See: Republicans disappointed at Palin)
But if she does manage to, Wednesday illustrated why so many in the GOP fear that it would be disastrous.
The former Alaska governor has a knack for supplying rhetoric that will delight her supporters, send her critics howling and invariably create a frenzy of coverage. But her response suggests she is capable of hitting just that one note.
The production value — from the heavily scripted speech to the American flag just behind her left shoulder — of Palin’s address appeared presidential. With Obama set to speak later in the day, it almost had the feel of a State of the Union response from the opposition. And, in condemning violence, she displayed some flourishes that touched the country’s spirit. (See: Tragedy marks turning point for Palin)
“Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box — as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next,” she said in her first on-camera remarks since the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
But for much of the eight-minute talk she was defensive and showed little interest in doing anything other than channeling the understandable resentment of her ideological kinsmen over the blame-casting. And that won’t appeal much to a political center that — even while they may not think Palin is in any way responsible for Tucson — preferred more conciliation even before the jarring attempted assassination of a member of Congress. (See: Palin grabs spotlight with video)
Even on the right, her talk was seen as a missed opportunity.
“The strongest way to rise above would have been to talk about suffering, tragedy, hope, strength and recovery,” said former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer. “Instead, she followed the more conventional political route and made it about herself rather than the victims.”
At a moment when even the famously combative Fox News chief Roger Ailes was saying take it down a notch, his most famous contract employee did just the opposite.
Her timing was especially maddening to some Republicans.
The furious response on the right to the notion that conservatives were somehow responsible for the tragedy had been articulated by respected voices such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, each of whom wrote compelling columns. A CBS poll released Tuesday night validated their claims, showing that 57 percent of Americans didn’t think that the country’s harsh political tone had played a role in the shooting. Most important though, there was mounting evidence that the gunman was a deeply disturbed young man who was not motivated by any traditional political cause. The left, it was becoming increasingly clear, had overreached before she reignited the issue.
Further, Palin’s pushback served to reinforce the message behind Obama’s speech, providing the president with an opportunity to transcend both the immediate finger-pointing on the left at Palin and other conservatives and her angry denunciation and counterattack. (See: Obama: 'I believe we can be better')
What attracted so many centrist voters to then-candidate Obama in 2008 wasn’t any of his policy prescriptions but rather his pledge to change the conversation in Washington. He hasn’t done it yet and has, at times, not lived up to his own stated desire to bring down the temperature. But his fundamental political worldview is that most Americans prefer conciliation over confrontation.
And, speaking to a capacity basketball arena filled with leaders of both parties and those touched by the tragedy, he appealed to that spirit. (See: Mourning turns to cheers)
“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,” implored the president.
The speech was a vivid example of the promise of Obama and a reminder of why, even after so many missteps, he remains a formidable figure. (See: Obama challenges America)
“It was supposed to be simply a chance to make a good speech, but it may be more than that,” said GOP pollster Steve Lombardo after the address. “It may be a time when we look back and say that he re-made himself tonight into the President we thought he could be.”
Krauthammer, one of the president’s sharpest critics, suggested the speech saw Obama find his role as head of state.
“I wouldn’t underestimate how this is going to affect the perception of president,” Krauthammer said on Fox News after the memorial service, comparing what Obama did in Tucson to President Bill Clinton’s speech following the Oklahoma City bombing and President Reagan’s address in the wake of the Challenger explosion.
What few Republicans wanted to say for attribution — but what was manifestly clear — was that Palin had made Obama look even bigger than he was.
Her argument for conflict-oriented politics lent itself as the near-ideal foil for his plea for civility. It was a clear contrast and, for Republicans, a dispiriting one.
Is there any question that Obama 2012 is running full blast?
Facts don’t back them up. Palin has a lot to call them out on and the disingenuous POS who spoke last night cannot change the facts that he is the most polarizing of all and I’m sure Palin will once again point it out even though the media is in a frenzy for her to shut up. “Enemies, get in their faces, knife/gun” etc. etc. They can’t get away with this with Palin no matter how they are trying to spin it.
Commie propaganda.
I can get an idea of what it must have been like for the Jews in the early years of the socialist movements in Germany, being blamed for things they had nothing to do with.
If the socialists in America get their way, they will censor their opponents through law and turn them into figures to hate, just as the Jews were.
Oh, and I suspect Palin isn't running anyway. And heck, why would she want to - these bastards in the media will only continue scapegoating and tormenting her.”
His 2nd paragraph is the most chilling to me, but HOPEFULLY not prophetic when he equates what is happening to Sarah Palin, Rush, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party to what happened to the Jews before WWII.
This all came from The Right Scoop http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-reads-email-from-sarah-palin as linked through FR http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654345/posts
“Is there any question that Obama 2012 is running full blast?”:
“Yes We Can” 2008
“Together We Thrive” 2012
1. Accuse your adversary of your own sins (what you yourself are doing).
2. When they object, do not address the substance of the objection, but instead say that their words and actions prove they are guilty of the original charge.
3. If they do not object, say that their lack of objection proves they are guilty.
“When this shooting first happened, a video came out where Glenn Beck read part of an e-mail from Sarah Palin. In the comments under the video, “John” said the most chilling but accurate statement when he said, ...If the socialists in America get their way, they will censor their opponents through law and turn them into figures to hate, just as the Jews were...”
—That really is an apt description in the comment. The same warped thinking; the same reflexive scapegoating.
Now we’re seeing a rise in death threats and sick Tweets wishing death on anyone who dares to speak up and defend oneself. For me, the most chilling thing is the completely flippant way they want their opponents to die- when the news first broke that Giffords was shot, FR and other Conservative sites had an outpouring of hope for her recovery and prayers for her- her party affiliation was completely irrelevant: she is a human being, and this was a horrific event. Not so for many on the Left with their opponents...
Time to look evil in its face, and call it what it really is.
Well said.
Totally political. It wasn’t until the end where he almost mentioned those killed.
“It’s funny how people will put so much belief into a speech. Ever hear that actions speak louder than words? Does anyone actually believe that Obama believes the BS he said in the speech or that he will follow it? You think he will leave his Marxist class warfare rhetoric behind now? LOL. People are so dumb.”
Exactly. There’s close to 17% real unemployment, we could soon lose our credit rating, etc., etc....but everything’s hunky dory because a guy who spent the last two years demonizing his opponents gives a throw-away speech about “civility”.
What you don't understand is that campaign against HATE RADIO started be Al Sharpton a few weeks ago, is a repeat of his campaign against HATE RADIO in 2007.
That campaign by Sharpton in 2007 was part of Hillary's dirty tricks campaign for the presidency.
I said several weeks ago when Sharpton started this crap that Zippo was going to be out as prez and Hillary would be in as VP and be the dem nominee in 2012.
That's why you have the coordinated attack against Palin, Hillary is supposed to be the first female prez, not Palin.
I think it’s spelled with ick.
Jonathan is only mad because Obama has been reduced to a level where he responds to Palin only after she takes the lead and addresses the nation in times of crisis.
I wonder if they couldn’t draft legislation criminalizing Blood Libel of public figures. It truly is despicable...
Obama is an illegitimate imposter and Governor Palin is a shining star! The demons posing as Democrats are gnashing their teeth in frustration.
Martin, at best, is a overly nourished (gay?) derp. (See Urban Dictionary for Derp). In other words, a fat, drama queen nerd.
Who cares wtf he thinks, or says, about anything?
“I wonder if they couldn’t draft legislation criminalizing Blood Libel of public figures. It truly is despicable...”
I’m down. I don’t want to impede free speech, but when established news outlets are reporting that politicians “motivated” a killer within an hour of the shooting without any evidence of the fact, and the same politicians receive death threats days later- yeah, that’s a serious problem that needs addressing. I’m guessing you’re right- legislation and not the courts would be the more feasible way to address this problem.
The press orgy continues...
If Obama’s message was so damn inspiring and persuasive, why are the Leftwing idiots in the media still spewing their toxic diatribes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.