Rethinking Obama's political performance in Tucson

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:

Pundits and politicians alike praised President Obama's speech at the Tucson memorial service last Wednesday. "A wonderful speech," wrote the New York Times' David Brooks. "A magnificent performance," wrote National Review's Rich Lowry. "A terrific speech," wrote Sen. John McCain.

And those were just the voices on the right.

Obama's tribute to the victims of the shooting and the heroism of bystanders was appreciated by everyone. But many conservatives particularly admired the speech because the president took care to say, in clear terms, that political rhetoric did not cause the violence in Tucson. "It did not," Obama said flatly. After days during which prominent voices on the Left -- by and large Obama supporters -- blamed the Right for inciting the violence, the president's words were a welcome change.

But how could he have said otherwise? By the time Obama spoke, there was irrefutable evidence that shooting suspect Jared Loughner was deeply mentally ill and acted out of no recognizable political agenda. Obama simply could not have made the case that Loughner's acts were in any way the product of political rhetoric from right or left.

He didn't need to. The point Obama wanted to make was not that political rhetoric caused the violence but that such rhetoric -- like, for example, criticism directed at Barack Obama -- should be toned down. So even as he conceded that rhetoric did not cause the violence, Obama argued that it should be muted anyway. And he cloaked his appeal in so much emotionalism, in so many tear-jerking references to the recently departed, that some in his audience might not have noticed he was making the political point he wanted to make all along.

[pollyannaish]

THANK you!

 

Someone "up there" finally GETS it. Those of us in fly over country knew it was aimed at shutting up dissent but the beltway insiders and political elites were all razzle dazzled by the pretty language and exquisite timing.

 

It WAS a good speech. But it was not a non-politicized speech. Those are two very different things.

 

And employing a tactic that in a less sentimental atmosphere would have been seen as breathtakingly cynical, Obama enlisted Christina Taylor Green, the nine year-old girl killed in the shootings, to support his cause. "She saw [politics] through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often take just for granted," Obama said. "I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us -- we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations."

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/rethinking-obamas-political-performance-tucson#ixzz1BDV5tgsj

 

This is the part I've been so uneasy about. It basically says "I know that YOUR speech wasn't the case on the surface, but this is really what it was all about anyway."

 

It was very clever to be sure, but it was also dirt and cynical on the part of the President. And flyover country is not too dumb to realize we're being played.

[Chickadee]

Some Democratic strategists hope Obama can capitalize on Tucson the way Bill Clinton capitalized on Oklahoma City. Perhaps he'll be able to, and perhaps he won't. But he's already trying.

Very trying, indeed!

[NCTexan]

But many conservatives particularly admired the speech because the president took care to say, in clear terms, that political rhetoric did not cause the violence in Tucson.

 

But how could he have said otherwise?

 

AMEN Brother York... Sing it!

 

Does any thinking person believe that Obama would not have jumped on it with both feet, if the shooter had been tied to the Tea Party, the GOP, any conservative political figure, any conservative web site, or was known to have listened to any conservative radio... or even FOXNEWS?

[righteousmomma]

Right on article by York!

 

Common sense wins again.